Sitting of 3 December 1975

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

    M1 (Tinsley Viaduct)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the repairs to Tinsley Viaduct on the M1 to be completed.
    The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): It is expected that the modifications to the upper deck of Tinsley Viaduct carrying the M1 will be completed in spring 1978.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister accept that the expectation in his Department was that the repairs to the whole bridge—not merely the top deck to which he referred—would have been completed by now? Is the delay to be found in the design processes? Does not the Minister think that this delay in restoring the bridge is an undeserved embarrassment to a steel city like Sheffield?
    Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there have been delays. They have been as a result of changes in the design proposals, and I shall be happy to write to him if he wishes to have further information. The savings from the refined design for strengthening the bridge will exceed the congestion costs arising during the process of planning and making the repairs.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my hon. Friend aware that even when the Tinsley Viaduct work is completed it will still not be possible to go by the M1 or any other motorway system to the north-east of England because of the absence of the Pudsey-Dishforth link? Will the Minister
    1660
    say when the whole network will be completed by the building of this link?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend because his area of the North-East is not linked to the national motorway, but he will be aware that because of expenditure constraints it may be some time before we can do all he hopes.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect on British Rail finances of the proposed cuts in rail services; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Gilbert: British Rail is still discussing the proposals with the rail unions and others, so no firm estimate can yet be made, but the Board tells me that the savings should amount to over £3 million in 1976.
    Mr. Moate: Is it not clear that these proposals will cause major inconvenience to the public and have a minimal effect on British Rail's mounting losses? I recognise the difficulties of British Rail, but is it not enormously unsatisfactory for such proposals to be carried through with little heed being paid to the views of the public, trade unions and Members of Parliament? Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to have these cuts deferred until adequate consultations have taken place on the overall strategy for British Rail?
    Dr. Gilbert: The Railways Board has discussed these cuts with the unions involved and reached agreement with them on measures designed to avoid the need for compulsory redundancies, at least for the next seven months. British Rail is exercising its best commercial judgment on the way in which to make the reductions in services so as to impose the least inconvenience on its passengers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an overall review of transport strategy and policy is being prepared in my Department. Any comment on it had better wait until it is published.
    Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend referred to the convenience of passengers. Have studies been made of the proportion of expected travellers by the trains that are being cancelled who will either go by

    1661
    other services or not travel at all? Is it not important that this should be done, so that the effect on the travelling public can be properly gauged before the cuts are confirmed?
    Dr. Gilbert:I do not believe that the inconvenience to the public will be as great as my hon. Friend may surmise. Most of the cuts fall on services with relatively low usage—and that applies even to peak services. On some of the peak services involved about half the seats are unoccupied. I can say with some confidence that many cuts in service will have little impact on the public's travelling needs.
    Mr. Fox: Will the Minister accept our congratulations that the White Paper on an overall transport policy is still circulating in his Department? We are desperate to have it before us. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be?
    Dr. Gilbert: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we are not yet committed to publishing a White Paper. [Interruption.] We have always made that clear. We are not yet committed to publishing a White Paper, but we expect to publish the results of the study. Whether that will be in the form of a White Paper or a Green Paper remains for decision. These matters involve the Department in a considerable amount of research and a great deal of consultation—which is only at the initial stage—with the unions, operators and various parts of the transport industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to produce not a rushed study but a fully comprehensive one.
    Mr. Tom McMillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more desirable to develop the railway services than to cut them back? Is he aware that on 16th December thousands of railwaymen will invade the House to tell him so?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am well aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about the need to preserve as many as possible of the present services and as much as possible of the railway network, but clearly one has to take a view on the size of the deficit. As I have said before at this Box, my concern is that the amount that we are spending on
    1662
    revenue subsidies is approaching the amount which all my hon. Friends and I would like to put into additional investment in the railways.
    Mr. Moate: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the effects of public expenditure cuts on rail services in Scotland.
    Dr. Gilbert: Any cuts in Scottish rail services that may be decided on will be announced by British Rail.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that any cuts in rail investment in Scotland would cause great inconvenience to the public and also have a devastating effect on an integrated transport policy, as well as on matters like road safety, employment prospects for workers in the rail industry, and the conservation of energy? In particular, does my hon. Friend know that in some parts of central Scotland some of the multiple-diesel units operating are 15 years old? Will he consider giving grant aid in order to replace or refurbish these units?
    Dr. Gilbert: I take my hon. Friend's point. Some of the considerations that have to be borne in mind in setting investment levels for British Rail have to be determined also in relation to the volume of resources available for investment in transport facilities generally in the country. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, future investment ceilings have already been set for next year, and British Rail has a commitment figure for the year after that. Future ceilings beyond that date will have to await the outcome of the present public expenditure review.

    Rate Rebates
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the take-up level of rate rebates.
    The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): About 2½ million people received considerable help under the rate rebate scheme with their rates in 1974–75, the latest period

    1663
    for which figures are available. On the best estimate that I can make, this represents about 70 per cent. of those eligible. I shall not be satisfied until all those eligible receive a rebate.
    Mr. Arnold: Is it not the case that the introduction of the scheme has improved the distribution of the unfair burden of local government expenditure only to a limited extent? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come for a definite commitment by the Government to move towards a system that takes account of people's ability to pay? May we have an assurance that the Lay-field Committee will report before the end of the year, as was originally promised?
    Mr. Silkin: I attach a great deal of importance to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially about the Layfield Report. It is eagerly awaited by the end of the year, but I hope that I take the House with me when I say it was our duty in the meantime to see that as many people as possible received adequate rate rebates. I think that a 70 per cent. take-up is reasonably high, although I am not totally satisfied. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that the lowest take-up seems to be among private tenants and ratepayers living in quarters combined with commercial premises. I intend to see that publicity is directed towards assisting them.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the House of Lords decision that those householders whose sewerage system is not connected to the main drainage do not have to pay water rates? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend must be congratulated on being quick off a particular mark, but I need rather more time to consider things than, perhaps, he does.
    Mr. Rossi: What does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the appropriate level of increase in rates for the coming year? Does he think it likely that the increase will be constrained within that limit?
    Mr. Silkin: That is a rather different question. One-third of the income that local authorities receive is made up from the rates, and the precise rate level must therefore be left to them. Nevertheless,
    1664
    they are aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, of the need for constraint, and I am glad to see how well they are co-operating.

    Community Land Act
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Environment how many extra civil servants are already being employed both by the national and local governments as a direct result of the Community Land Act.
    Mr. John Silkin: No extra staff have been engaged by my Department on account of this legislation. Local authorities have been advised not to consider recruiting extra staff until they have agreed land acquisition management schemes.
    Mr. Morrison: No extra staff have been recruited so far, but how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that, as a direct result of the Community Land Act, there is bound to be a substantial increase in the number of public servants with the Prime Minister's recent speech castigating local government for being overstaffed?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, assuming to himself a rather greater knowledge of the effect of the scheme than I have. I shall give him one or two thoughts which he may put into his general interest in this subject, because he has previously asked me a question about local government staffing.
    The local goverment staff referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Community Land Act are those to be engaged when the scheme is fully in operation at the end of the transitional period. I have never said, nor am I satisfied, that this necessarily means extra staff. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, so he bears no responsibility for it, but one of the great achievements of the Conservative Government was to reorganise local government in such a way that, as we pointed out at the time and as has since proved to be the case, there was a wild increase and duplication in the number of skilled staff. I believe that we shall meet this problem more by redeployment than by an increase in staff.
    Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to past issues of the Estates Times, to see the way in which the industry itself is looking at the effects of this "Communist Land

    1665
    Act"? If he has not, I recommend it as soporific bedtime reading. Is he aware that among local authorities there is concern that the Treasury may not make available sufficient money to implement the scheme in the way envisaged when the Bill was introduced? Can my right hon. Friend deny that the only amount of money to be made available will be £25 million?
    Mr. Silkin: I have had the greatest support and encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury and the local authorities stand to gain financial benefit from the Act—£4 million back to the community for every £1 million paid out is not a bad deal. The Estates Times is a periodical which, perforce, these days, I read more than The Times, and I note that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) seems to be at variance with the rest of the development and property industry in his view of the Act.
    Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Pilcher Report on the commercial development of land says that the Act must mean greater delay and cost? That report has only just been published, although it was finished by 12th August specifically so that it would be available for consideration of the final stages of the Community Land Bill. Why has the report been suppressed until now?
    Mr. Silkin: I had better deal with the more serious part of that supplementary question, although I do not see how it relates to the original Question. The Pilcher Report deals with disposals, as the hon. Gentleman will find out when he reads it. Because it deals with disposals, it was more appropriate when the Community Land Bill became an Act. The hon. Gentleman criticises delay. That was not the argument of the Opposition in Committee or on Report, when we were trying to cut down delays in compulsory purchase procedures.

    Building (Pre-stressed Structures)
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pre-stressed structures to lodge design introduce regulations requiring builders of information with local authorities on completion.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We are considering this in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Rooker: I am pleased by that reply, because there is great concern in the building industry that, in 50 or 100 years' time, when some of the great monstrosities which have recently been erected are demolished, the removal of certain lintels without knowledge of the stresses involved could bring the whole lot down like a pack of cards. May we have an early statement on the regulations?
    Mr. Freeson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We are examining the situation and will come to a conclusion as soon as we can.
    Mr. Costain: Does not the question show some ignorance of the Building Regulations? Should stress designs and calculations not be put in before a building is built and not afterwards? Do local councils throw these things away?
    Mr. Freeson: That may be taken as a humorous remark.
    Mr. Costain: It was not meant to be.
    Mr. Freeson: It seems to have caused a good deal of humour, but the Question relates precisely to the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make seriously, namely, the desirability of registering the design and make-up of the structures with the local authorities at the time that they are installed or about to be installed.

    National Bus Company
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an inquiry into the financial structure and financial targets of the National Bus Company.
    Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the increases in fares which have been made this year by the National Bus Company are quite out of proportion to the general rate of inflation, and that these increases have imposed great hardship on the least-well-off sections of the community, and will inevitably lead to an accelerated decline in public transport? Does my hon. Friend believe that the

    1667
    present financial targets of the National Bus Company are consistent with achieving the pledge, in the Labour Party's manifesto, to expand public transport?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. He will recall that the National Bus Company, along with other nationalised industries, has been very active in keeping prices down, as part of successive Governments' counter-inflationary policies. As to where the benefits of the revenue subsidies go, I am sure that my hon. Friend is also aware that more than half of them go to those enjoying more than the average industrial wage, and it is a matter for consideration whether or not that is the best use of what is essentially welfare money.
    Mr. Fry: Does the Minister realise that in many parts of the country crisis point is rapidly being reached over bus services, and that many local authorities, quite rightly, are refusing to increase the level of subsidy because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told them that they must show restraint in local government expenditure? Is it not about time the Minister started to do something about what is becoming a very serious problem indeed, and a deteriorating situation for the National Bus Company?
    Dr. Gilbert: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, after the counties first submitted their transport policies and programmes this year the Department invited the counties to raise their bids for bus revenue support. I cannot give the House the details at the moment, because the transport supplementary grant letters have not yet gone out, but I can tell the House that in virtually every case the bids for increased support have been met.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my hon. Friend aware that among the fare increases imposed by the National Bus Company that bear most heavily on people are those in respect of schoolchildren? Will he consider instructing or advising traffic commissioners not to grant such fare increases in the next few months, until his and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has finally made his decision on school transport?
    Dr. Gilbert: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion. As he quite
    1668
    rightly says, these are matters that bear rather more immediately on the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that the crisis in the bus system is at its gravest in the rural areas, where the services have been deteriorating steadily as well as the fares going up sharply? What will the Minister do to break the State monopoly of the National Bus Company, to do away with the traffic commissioner system, and to enable private operators of all kinds to try to serve the community better than does the National Bus Company?
    Dr. Gilbert: Let me say straight away that I think that the National Bus Company does an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances.
    There is a Question later on on the Order Paper dealing specifically with the problems of public transport in rural areas, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in allocating the transport supplementary grant this year we have made it quite clear that we propose to change the balance as between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in favour of the latter, so that the support can go principally to maintaining levels of service in country areas rather than holding down fares in metropolitan areas.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware of the feeling in the country about concessionary fare schemes and the way in which they operate in different parts of the country? Will he say why the Government cannot introduce a general concessionary fare applying to all people who qualify?
    Dr. Gilbert: This point has been considered and is still being considered in great detail. There are very considerable difficulties involved. In the first place, some of the concessionary fare schemes are so wide-ranging that people can use them without charge even at peak hours, and to extend a scheme of that sort on a national basis would involve enormous cost to public funds. If one did that, one would face the alternative of cutting back on existing schemes or running two schemes in parallel, either of which courses would lead to severe administrative difficulties.

    British Railways (Chairman)
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the Chairman of British Railways.
    Dr. Gilbert: I meet the Chairman as and when the need arises. My next scheduled meeting with him is on 16th December.
    Mr. Crawford: When will the Minister implement the strong recommendation from British Rail that a separate Scottish region of British Rail be established? When will he also announce the granting of £3·3 million to British Rail for the double-tracking of the Perth-Inverness railway line? Is the Minister aware that it is less than half a day's revenue from Scottish oil? Is he further aware that the results of last night's regional council by-elections in Bo'ness and Bishopbriggs indicate that the people of Scotland will not stand for any further cuts in public expenditure?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's calculations of the revenue from British oil are thoroughly up to date, but, in relation to the Perth-Inverness line, we have received an appraisal from the Board of various ways of increasing capacity on that line. The Board's traffic scheme would not yield a satisfactory rate of return, and we are considering whether any special arrangement ought to be made to enable the scheme to go ahead.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister state the annual loss in respect of British Rail's Scottish services and give an assurance, bearing in mind the very heavy burden of rates in the west of Scotland, that it is no part of the Government's plan to transfer the loss on the electric trains in the west of Scotland on to the shoulders of the ratepayers in Strathclyde?
    Dr. Gilbert: I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman the detailed statistics for which he asks, but I shall certainly write to him giving the answer, if I can.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: Is not my hon. Friend's concern with all this discussion about the future level of services on British Rail taking place in isolation from
    1670
    the discussion about the level of bus services and the level of the motorway programme, and so on? Does he not agree that the Labour Party is pledged to a policy of co-ordination and integration of transport, and not to a policy under which each transport mode is discussed in isolation? When are we to have a co-ordinated and integrated transport policy?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that these matters are not discussed in isolation. He is well aware of the need for a great deal of fundamental research before a review can be brought forward, and the group in which he played a distinguished part has in some ways laid the foundation stone for the work now being done by the Government on this matter. It is difficult to give a precise date when the results of the review will be published, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are just as impatient as he is to get it published.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: As the Minister is meeting the Chairman of British Rail 10 days before Boxing Day, will he ask the Chairman to reconsider the retrograde decision to cut all rail services on Boxing Day, even if it means charging a premium rate for those who really want to travel on that day?
    Dr. Gilbert: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one minor inexactitude? All services are not being cut on that day. Services are being maintained in Scotland, where Boxing Day is not a public holiday.

    Building Societies
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Freeson: As I have previously indicated, I and my Department maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association over a wide range of subjects.
    Mr. McCrindle: What practical help can the Minister offer to those on low incomes or those wishing to buy older properties who now find that the requirements of the building societies for advancing money to them are too stringent? Now that local authority sources

    1671
    of finance for this purpose have virtually evaporated, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that unless he can induce building societies to relax their lending requirements there will be almost a complete blockage in the purchase of older properties?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept that there will be a complete blockage, but this is a matter of considerable concern to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are considering this aspect of policy and practice very seriously.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable evidence that building societies are imposing restrictions in specific urban areas, in refusing to lend to those proposing to purchase properties in areas which they do not consider sufficiently attractive to provide adequate security?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware that this is one facet of the problem to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) referred, in certain situations. However, there is a considerable area of overlap between building society lending as a whole and that for which local authorities have been responsible. We estimate that about 20 per cent. of building society lending is on pre-1919 properties. That does not obviate the problem. But there is an overlap here, because we also find the reverse position. In the past there was considerable lending by local authorities in areas and in respect of properties also covered by the building societies.

    Empty Council Houses
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty council houses are not included in his Department's annual relets survey.
    Mr. Freeson: It does not include dwellings outside the housing revenue account; but these form only a very small proportion of the total council stock, and many of them are occupied.
    Mr. Knox: Will the hon. Gentleman take action to prevent councils buying privately-rented houses when so much of their own property is lying empty?
    Mr. Freeson: It seems that some Opposition Members will not accept the
    1672
    facts even when they are repeated constantly. Despite the wild stories to the contrary, the percentage of local authority-owned property standing empty at any one time is very small indeed. On the basis of the surveys which have been made, it is a much smaller quantity than that in the private sector. We are concerned to see that in terms of purchasing property under the municipalisation programme there shall be a concentration on priority housing, such as property requiring renovation and property standing empty on the market which could be used for homeless families and similar categories. We are examining with the local authorities ways in which, even now, they can tighten up procedures to ensure that properties do not stand empty for any undue length of time.

    Development Control (Dobry Report)
    12. Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he held with the architects' profession before making his statement of 12th November about the report of Mr. George Dobry, QC, on the development control system.
    Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend took account of the views of five organisations representing architects.
    Mr. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that more and more architects and individual citizens are fed up with the negative and niggling way in which our planning control system so often works? Will he re-examine the problem and reconsider the decision of his Department—taken without proper discussion in this House—to smother the main recommendation of Mr. Dobry's report?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has it right. On the contrary, we gave considerable thought to much of Mr. Dobry's recommendations, and we have given him full credit for what was a remarkable piece of work. We have fully considered all his recommendations. We have differed from him much more on the administrative way in which we carry this out.
    As for the views of architects, I am as prepared as the hon. Gentleman to listen to their professional judgment on

    1673
    many matters, though, surprisingly enough, on some matters such as design control, they are deeply divided. In terms of administration, however, we need to look closely at what the consequences may be.
    Mr. Raison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one body whose views have never been sought on this matter is the House of Commons? Will he accept that there is a great deal of resentment about the way in which he has handled this report, and will he take my hon. Friend's views very seriously?
    Mr. Silkin: I cannot accept any of those points. As a matter of fact, at various times we have had quite interesting discussions on Mr. Dobry's views. In saying that, I am looking straight at the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my distinguished predecessor. He will recall many hours during the Committee stage of the Community Land Bill, in that happy environment of Standing Committee G, when Mr. Dobry's views were considered. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) cares to refer to Hansard he will see that during the past year the subject has come up again and again. As for the question whether there is time for further debates, I have no doubt that occasions will arise, even from the Opposition point of view, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there should be further debate.
    Mr. Graham Page: As the right hon. Gentleman has discarded the main recommendations of the Dobry Report without debate in this House, will he review planning schemes between districts and counties to see whether there is any overlap of functions? Will he consider again the single planning staff which might avoid some of the duplication about which the Prime Minister has complained?
    Mr. Silkin: On the latter point, I hope that, without any party difference, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, immediately, under the Community Land Act—though I agree that it is an uncovenanted benefit—we have given an opportunity for counties and districts to work together in land acquisition management schemes to see whether something like a unified staff can arise. I know that it was dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, as it was to mine.
    1674
    Coming back to the point about discussions in the House, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it better that, as was the case, there should have been a reasoned reply from the Secretary of State to the Dobry proposals before any major discussion took place in this House?
    Mr. Raison: No.

    M23
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision about the extension of the M23 motorway.
    Dr. Gilbert: This will depend upon the outcome of the discussions with the Greater London Council, to which my right hon. Friend referred in his recent statement on the Greater London Development Plan.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is not it time that my hon. Friend acknowledged that the urban motorway is as obsolete as high-rise flats? Since Westway was pushed through North Kensington, the environmental standards required to build over motorways have made them impossibly expensive, even when we do not have financial stringency. The final extension of the M23 makes sense only if we are to have orbital roads, which clearly we are not. Surely my hon. Friend could now announce that this final extension is not to be built. Will he consider some form of intermediate road—a Ringway 2½—to link up round the south-west and south-east of London, rather than the motorway programme?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have no difficulty in accepting my hon. Friend's general remarks about urban motorways, but he will be aware that the Greater London Development Plan mentions the need for better orbital movement in outer London, and certainly in South London. He is right in saying that the decision where the M23 shall terminate must depend on considerations of that kind and also on decisions about the way in which non-orbital traffic shall disperse more easily on to the secondary road network in the area in which the M23 terminates.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the conclusions arising out of the decision of the Secretary of State on the development plan

    1675
    leave an untidy gap, and that people are still wondering whether, in the end, this Government will press ahead with more motorways in spite of their public protestations to the contrary?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the public concern. This is one unsatisfactory feature of the planning requirements which surrounds the Greater London Development Plan. It is a situation that we hope never to have to struggle with again. I again give the assurance that our policy on urban motorways has not changed.
    Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling in South London about the uncertainty caused by this indecision, and that in this case he could both save a great deal of public money and please a great many people if he cancelled this extension altogether?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am, indeed, well aware of the public concern that has existed for many years in South London. I have already had informal discussions with the Chairman of the Transport Committee of the GLC about precisely where the M23 will terminate. I hope that we shall have further detailed discussions shortly.

    Council Tenancies
    Mr. Scottasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further guidance he intends to issue to local authorities regarding tenancy conditions for council tenants.
    Mr. Freeson: This is one of the questions which the housing management adviser, whom I am appointing, will be asked to examine.
    Mr. Scott: I do not suppose that the Minister will be asking that adviser to consider the commonsense and popular step of resuming council house sales. However, I should like to put forward two specific points for his consideration. First, will he consider advising local authorities to issue all tenancies in the joint names of husband and wife, so that wives who suffer violence in marriage will have some protection in terms of the council tenancy? Second, will he urge local authorities to encourage those who are under-using their council accommodation to take in lodgers, rather than discouraging them from doing so?
    Mr. Freeson: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we issued policy advice on this matter in our "Housing Needs and Action" circular some months ago. I am concerned that in connection with the management of council properties and, indeed, in the handling of mortgage facilities for local authority home loans, sufficient awareness is taken of this policy. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have some sympathy with him. I would point out that the housing adviser will be asked to examine the idea of joint tenancies. However, there is no reason why local authorities cannot proceed with this policy in the meanwhile, if they wish to do so. We must bear in mind that whatever work we do in housing management, covering this and many other matters, it will be for the local authorities, within their own jurisdiction, ultimately to decide.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the Minister agree that councils should enforce tenancy conditions with common sense and humanity? Is he aware that the council of the London borough of Bexley is threatening pet-owning tenants with eviction, causing great distress to children and elderly tenants? That council has refused the repeated pleas made by members of the community that it should operate a phasing-out system for pets rather than taking this hard-hearted and hard-faced attitude of evicting tenants and causing the destruction of their pets?
    Mr. Freeson: Although I certainly would advocate a humane and common-sense view about housing management, I should hesitate very much before I commented on a local, individual situation. I accept the general approach that my hon. Friend has expressed, namely, that in handling problems such as pet-keeping there should be phasing-out wherever practicable. I do not wish to comment in more detail on a particular situation.

    Statutory Authorities
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to make non-elected statutory authorities more answerable to their relevant county councils.
    Mr. John Silkin: The accountability of non-elected statutory authorities will be a matter for consideration in the light

    1677
    of the forthcoming consultations on devolution in England.
    Mr. Ross: I welcome the Minister's reply, but I fear that this matter may take a long time to get off the ground. Is the Minister aware of the considerable frustration that is felt, at both district and county level, about the activities of some regional bodies? Does he not think that the time is now due to increase the ratio of elected members on those bodies, as opposed to those who are directly centrally appointed, as was originally envisaged under the Local Government Act 1972?
    Mr. Silkin: I have a great deal of sympathy with much of the philosophy underlying what the hon. Gentleman said. However, the issues which he has raised seem to be very wide, and I am sure that they will receive close attention in the consultation paper on devolution in England, when that comes out. I have no doubt that both he and many local authorities will not be slow in giving their views on that matter.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider what might be done to bring regional economic advisory councils rather more up to date and make them rather more effectively democratic?
    Mr. Silkin: I should have thought that the regional economic planning councils were part of the general look which will be required when the question of devolution in England is considered. I have no doubt that this matter will be raised at that time.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Minister respond to the widespread and very natural concern that in many areas decisions about the fluoridation of water supplies are being taken by entirely nominated bodies, without any reference to elected representatives?
    Mr. Silkin: We shall be issuing a consultation document on the water industry early next year. I have no doubt that there will be many representations at that time, along the lines which the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many other hon. Members have put forward.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend also consider making non-
    1678
    elected statutory bodies more accountable to the Minister, bearing in mind that the Central Lancashire Development Corporation operates largely as an independent cabal, although it affects the lives of half a million people?
    Mr. Silkin: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest and very strong views about this matter, but there is always a balance to be considered. There is the balance between accountability of development corporations to the Minister, who, in turn, of course, is accountable to the House, and, at the same time, the natural desire and, indeed, the advantage in local development corporations "ganging their ain gait" and providing the necessary answers—[Interruption.] I thought that was a North Country expression, but it means going their own way—and coming to decisions which closely relate to the individual area. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the decisions which they make must also strongly reflect the feelings, the desires, the ambitions, and so on, of the people who live in the area.

    Direct Labour Departments
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of his working party which is looking at the operation of direct labour departments.
    Mr. Freeson: It is too early to say when the working party will report.
    Mr. Durant: The Minister's reply was most disappointing. Is he aware that an increasing number of these departments provide very unfair competition with small builders and the self-employed, and cost the ratepayers money? What is the Government's attitude to the proposed West Midlands Bill which is to extend the scope of local authorities in tendering?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be disappointed with my reply. The working party was announced only about four weeks ago. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wanted to have a go anyway, and I suppose that is a good practice in the House. On the matter which the hon. Gentleman raised, I merely say that at this stage we should wait for the working party's report. Let us see what results come from it in terms

    1679
    of further developments in this area. However, in the meanwhile, let us not assume that efficiency in the building industry is to be found in only the private sector. Let us consider the need for efficiency wherever it is required, and not knock the concept of public enterprise in this area just for the sake of doing so.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the direct works department in Sheffield has run into rather serious legal difficulties in tendering for an important public project which the Yorkshire Water Authority wishes to carry out? Will he examine urgently the legal constraints on that department, which may cause serious unemployment if it is not allowed to go on tendering for projects which, from its experience and skill, it is well able to do?
    Mr. Freeson: This area generally is already the subject of some examination by the Department, although until now I had not taken on board the point that my hon. Friend raised. I certainly undertake to consider this matter and bear it in mind when looking generally at the relationship of direct works departments to tendering for work in their areas, not necessarily confined to the services of the local authorities which run the departments.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the Minister examine the complaint of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors against the South Yorkshire County Council? Although, in theory, the council believes in tendering for major contracts, the Sheffield-Rotherham link road was given to direct labour without there being a tender.
    Mr. Freeson: That decision was entirely for the county authorities. It was not a Ministry road scheme. In any case, I understand that two other projects are coming forward from the same authority which will be open for tender.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that direct works departments have a very honourable and successful record of social enterprise over the past few years? Does he also accept that if it were not for those departments the number of trained building employees would have virtually dried up, because at least 50 per cent. of all apprentices in the building industry are employed by direct
    1680
    works departments, and private enterprise has signally failed because of the perpetration of the "lump" which has led to shoddy work and low standards?
    Mr. Freeson: As I said before, although briefly, one should look for quality and efficiency wherever it is required. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which is too often overlooked by those who, in this area, are concerned simply to attack public sector activity for the sake of it. Direct works organisations throughout the country have been largely responsible for maintaining good employment and training practices in the industry.

    Works Buses (Drivers)
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the system whereby double-decker works buses may be driven by PSV untested drivers, while hire firms need PSV licensed drivers even for minibuses.
    Dr. Gilbert:Under the Road Traffic Acts a public service vehicle driver's licence is required only to drive a vehicle used for hire or reward, and works buses are often not in this category. I am, however, prepared to consider whether there should be extra requirements for drivers of large private passenger vehicles.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister agree that his answer smacks of bureaucratic bloody-mindedness rather than road safety?
    Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government intend to introduce legislation concerning the use of seat belts in cars.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory.
    Dr. Gilbert: Yes, the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill will be reintroduced as soon as practicable in the present Session.
    Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us will be glad to hear that? Is he aware that when we

    1681
    began to discuss the Bill 12 months ago his predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, said that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would save about 1,000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year? Is he further aware that these figures are borne out by experience in Australia, where the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars has been in operation for four years? The rates of both fatalities and serious injuries have been reduced by about 15 per cent. there. Every week's delay now costs about 20 lives and 200 serious injuries. Will the Government act quickly to bring the Bill before the House?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am in complete sympathy with everything said by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ashley: Does my hon. Friend recall one of his colleagues telling me, a few weeks ago, that nearly 20,000 people need not have died or been seriously disabled last year had they been wearing safety belts, and that the total number killed and injured over a period of years would dwarf the number of people killed or maimed in the last war? Will he treat this as a matter of urgency and ignore the rather silly announcements and pressures from organisations like the RAC?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly endorse the views and the statistics which he has put before us. It certainly will be my objective to reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible, subject to consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

    House Building
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with current home-building figures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: Not yet, but the latest figures published last week show further progress in our efforts to get a recovery in new housebuilding. In the first 10 months of 1975 there were already 145,000 starts and 133,000 completions in the public sector, compared with 147,000 starts and 129,000 completions in the whole of 1974, and, similarly, private sector starts and completions were 124,000 and 122,000 compared with
    1682
    105,000 and 140,000. The figures show 23 per cent. and 15 per cent. increases in starts and completions so far this year, compared with 1974.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome as they are, those figures are compared with a very poor base in the previous year and that we need to go much further if we are to get anywhere near the figures of the mid-1960s, when we completed about 1¼ million houses in three successive years? Does he also agree that we must have a fresh look at the way in which local authorities finance their housing, and consider whether it should continue on the 60-year basis, whether loans should be at the same level as for financing motorways, and so on, and whether the Department should consider even the possibility of writing off some of the capital debt of local authorities, as has been done for the National Coal Board, British Rail and, indeed, some private sector companies, recently?
    Mr. Freeson: The financial points mentioned by my hon. Friend fall to be and are being considered as part of the general housing finance review on which the Department is still engaged. I certainly accept, as I indicated in my original reply, that the progress we have made is not yet satisfactory. However, it is considerable. Compared with 1973, in the public sector there is an increase of activity of between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. and a considerable improvement on the mortgage famine and the collapse of house-building for owner-occupation which we inherited at the beginning of 1974.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that the economic situation will inevitably limit the amount of new building which can be carried out? In these circumstances, is there not a great need to review the improvement programme and to consider ways of bringing vacant property into use? In that connection, will the hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to reviewing the reasons why property stays unused and to finding means to bring that property into use for homes?
    Mr. Freeson: On the last point, we are already ahead of the hon. Gentleman. We have been in detailed discussion with local authority associations for some

    1683
    time now on a number of ideas for making better use of housing stock and bringing empty property into use. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a week or so ago, indicating half a dozen major points of policy on this issue. Concerning new building, I see these other initiatives not as alternatives to the level of new building, but as additional to it.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister remove the restrictions on the improvement of older houses, particularly the installation of baths, hot water and inside lavatories? This could be done quickly, without involving the delay necessary in planning new housing, and would also relieve growing unemployment in the building trade.
    Mr. Freeson: Concerning public expenditure budgeting for improvement, and, indeed, municipalisation, which is often closely associated with it, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the results of the public expenditure review, which is always current at this time of the year. I regret that I cannot undertake, if that is what my hon. Friend is suggesting, that no ceiling will be imposed on the budgets. Regrettably, the economic situation has pushed us in this direction. There will be budgeting, and not a no ceiling situation.
    Mr. Raison: Is the Minister aware that we welcome much of the change of heart shown by the Secretary of State in his speech at Eastbourne recently? When can we expect the review of the Rent Act to be completed? Shall we have legislation, as a result, this Session?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall be in a better position to say when such a review will be completed when it has started. It will follow in the wake of the housing finance review, as stated by the Secretary of State a week or so ago. The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks are inaccurate and misleading to the House.

    A17 (Long Sutton Bypass)
    22. Mr. Bodyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now announce the preferred route for the proposed Long Sutton bypass (A17 road).
    Dr. Gilbert: I hope to make an announcement on the preferred route for the A17 Wigtoft Sutterton and Long Sutton/Sutton Bridge Bypasses early in the new year.
    Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman has been hoping for a long time to make that decision. This matter is causing a great deal of hardship. Does he not appreciate that it is very hard on many people to make these proposals and then for months to go by before a firm decision is taken?
    Dr. Gilbert: I certainly accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Part of the difficulty in this case is that the route crosses good agricultural land. We are having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we hope to reach agreement shortly.

    Local Government Staffs (Pay)
    23. Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the last six salary increases awarded to those employed in local government, together with the date of each salary increase and the percentage increase in basic pay on each occasion.
    Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the negotiation of local government wages and salaries. but I am sure that details of salary increases would be supplied on request to the hon. and learned Member by the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board.
    Mr. Hooson: Is it not correct that a high proportion of the enormous increase in local government expenditure over the last few years has been due to salary increases, whereas the Government's economy drive is directed towards cutting down local government services? Does not this result in a much higher salaried service, providing a much more restricted service for the country? What comfort does the right hon. Gentleman derive from that situation?
    Mr. Silkin: The whole question of the actual staff and its use, which is implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, needs watching and reviewing. It is for that reason that my right hon.

    1685
    Friend has instituted, with local authorities, the joint watch on staff. When one examines the general increase in staff over the past few years—even forgetting local government reorganisation—one finds that a certain amount of it, if not a great deal, is part-time staff.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Given, however, that central Government meet about two-thirds of the cost of local authority salaries and that the cost of those salaries now constitutes a very large part of total public expenditure, is it bearable, in the long run, that central Government should continue to be detached from the process of settling salary levels in local government? Will the Minister give an undertaking that that question will be reviewed?
    Mr. Silkin: Central Government have their interest in local authority matters, as my hon. Friend quite rightly says. I do not complain about that. One of the points of contact is the Government's counter-inflation policy, and this is something which local authorities have been loyally observing. But I again emphasise the importance, to my mind, of the joint staff watch and, indeed, of the consultative council—a newer and, I hope, additional relationship between central Government and local government which seems to me to be in the process of emerging.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Would not the Prime Minister's remarks about chiefs and Indians in local government be more credible if the national Civil Service had not expanded by more than 11,000 in the last thre months?
    Mr. Silkin: The Prime Minister's remarks about chiefs and Indians no doubt have a very much wider implication, even beyond local government. They may even go into private enterprise at times.
    Mr. Dan Jones: When the Minister undertakes the review in question, will he be kind enough to tell the House the amount of money spent in relation to the early retirement of those employed by local authorities?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that I have the figures, but I feel that probably a deal of time could be spent, and perhaps wasted, on this exercise—with great respect to my hon. Friend. What we do
    1686
    know is that a large number of golden handshakes and early retirements took place as a result of the reorganisation of local government by the Conservative Government.

BURMAH OIL COMPANY
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
About a year ago, Burmah Oil Company approached the Government and the Bank of England about its difficulties in meeting the technical requirements of certain loan agreements, notably those covering its large borrowings in dollars from a group of North American banks. As the House will know, it was agreed that the Bank should guarantee the North American borrowings for a period of 12 months and should also provide a further measure of support by way of a standby facility. However, Burmah has not been able to proceed as rapidly as expected with the sale of its United States assets.
The Government have therefore reviewed the situation with the company, including its cash needs, in consultation with the Bank of England and Peat, Marwick and Mitchell. It has been decided that the dollar borrowing guarantees should be renewed for a further nine months so as to give further time for the company to realise its United States' assets at a satisfactory price.
In addition, the Government have offered to purchase the whole or a substantial part of Burmah's North Sea oil assets at a fair price to be negotiated on an arm's-length basis. The board of Burmah is ready to enter into immediate discussions with the Government to explore all possibilities subject to its being satisfied that the interests of the company are fully safeguarded. These discussions will necessarily take some time and both parties are hopeful that they will be successfully concluded. Both parties are determined that the negotiations shall not hinder the continuing development of the North Sea.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Are the Government aware that they have already pocketed a profit of over 150 per cent., no less than £260 million, in less than

1687
a year at the expense of the pension funds and the small shareholders in this company arising out of their take-over of the BP shares? Why have the Government now chosen the path of outright nationalisation of the company's North Sea interests? Why are not the Government prepared to continue the guarantee without forcing the company to surrender not 51 per cent. but the whole of its North Sea interests?
I have two questions of detail to put to the right hon. Gentleman. How much new money will the Government have to add to their borrowing requirement in order to be able to finance this purchase? Is this not just an example of highway robbery under duress? Have not the Government now become the biggest asset stripper of the lot?
Mr. Benn: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said in respect of the support arrangements made at the beginning of the year. I think that when perhaps, on reflection, he rereads my statement, he will recognise that an offer by the Government to buy at a fair price on an arm's-length basis does not qualify for any of the kind of phrases that he used.
Mr. Grimond: As the Minister is aware, I have made clear my view about Burmah and my interest in it. May I ask, first, whether the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that this company—though personally I have doubts about its claim for some share in the profit in the sale of shares—has been hit both ways, because its assets in Burma were destroyed and it was unable to profit from war damage compensation?
On this particular matter, will the Minister make clear whether the guarantee is dependent upon the company surrendering its North Sea assets? Will he also make clear that both these arrangements—the guarantee and the negotiations for the sale of the North Sea assets—are being entered into by the directors of Burmah perfectly freely without any Government pressure?
Mr. Benn: I do not propose to go into the other matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, although I know his concern with it. However, I am making a separate statement today about another matter and I think that it is clear from
1688
the wording of the statement that the Government have offered to purchase and that the negotiations and discussions will now be taking place. But the position is set out very fully in the statement, and I think that it meets the right hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. English: When my right hon. Friend heard the Opposition spokesman, was he tempted to withdraw his guarantee on the spot and allow the company to go bankrupt? Is he aware that there are two aspects of the fair price? At present the Government are propping up the company with this guarantee. If they did not do so, it is conceivable that they might be able to acquire some of the North Sea assets at a quite reasonable price. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on the Government side of the House wonder what exactly is meant by "a fair price" in this context?
Mr. Benn: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that when the Government announced the support operation at the beginning of the year, it followed from that that discussions with the company would be proceeding over the year; and what I have announced today is the extension of the guarantee and the offer to acquire some assets. On balance, I think that is the right response for us to make in the situation.
Mr. John Davies: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that uncertainty about the ultimate disposal of the shares in BP held by the Bank of England as collateral for the guarantee given casts a shadow of uncertainty over the operation of that great contributor to our national fortunes. Can he give any enlightenment about the Government's intentions on this subject? In particular, can he assure us that it is not the Government's intention to nationalise these shares as well?
Mr. Benn: If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not blame him for putting the question—that is an entirely separate question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is entirely unconnected with the statement I have made today. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have made it clear that when they are ready to make a statement about that, they will do so.
Mr. Jay: In view of what the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood-ford (Mr. Jenkin) said, is my right hon. Friend aware that responsibility for the present situation rests with the management of the company and the previous directors, and that if the Government and the Bank of England had not rescued the company the shares would be worth even less than they are now?
Mr. Benn: I think my right hon. Friend is giving an account of the position as it was last December when the company approached the Government and we announced our original support operation.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the terms of compensation in relation to the offer and bear in mind that a large number of small investors are involved in the company? Is he aware that a number of them have invested for retirement purposes and that they have already been hit very hard by the unfortunate developments affecting this company?
Mr. Benn: In my statement I said that the Government have offered to purchase the whole or a substantial part of the company's North Sea assets at a fair price to be negotiated at arm's length and that the board of Burmah was ready to enter into immediate discussions subject to its being satisfied that the interests of the company were fully safeguarded. In the discussions which my right hon. Friends and I have had with the company, these considerations have been in our minds.
Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the scheme will eventually be subject to the consent of the Burmah shareholders? Will they not find a pistol being put to their heads if they are forced to enter into negotiations now for the sale of the North Sea assets? What sort of effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will have on the assets of other British companies overseas when the compensation terms are forcibly negotiated in this way?
Mr. Benn: I do not accept that the situation is as the hon. Member puts it. The way in which Burmah conducts the negotiations is entirely a matter for the company. We have extended the guarantee and offered to purchase all or a substantial part of its North Sea assets at a
1690
fair price on an arm's-length basis. That position is set out quite clearly in the statement, and I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the time of the collapse of Burmah Oil the company was in no different a position than is Mr. Riccardo with Chrysler? It had no collateral at all. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend watches this matter very carefully? Is he aware that, when he talks about negotiating at arm's length, that is not good enough for some of us on this side who think he should ensure that we get the 21 per cent. of shares which were there at the time of the collapse not on the basis of paying cash, for which there was no collateral, but for nothing at all? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these shares were worth nothing then and that nothing should be paid for them?
Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is referring to the acquisition of the BP shares at the beginning of the year. Whatever the position of the Burmah Company may or may not have been at that time—and I am making no comment on it—there is no doubt that the Government paid a fair price for the shares. That is a quite distinct matter from the offer I am in a position to announce today.
Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot lightly brush aside the forced sale of the BP shareholdings last January? Does he accept that the severe drop in income faced by individual pensioners and pension funds is greatly resented, particularly in Scotland?
Mr. Benn: This has been the subject of a number of ministerial statements and letters. It was for the Burmah Company itself to decide last year whether to accept the offer made for the BP assets. This is entirely separate from the matter I am dealing with at the moment. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

BILL PRESENTED

  DOCK WORK REGULATION
  Mr. Secretary Foot, supported by Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Frederick Peart, Dr. John Gilbert, and Mr. Albert Booth,

  1691
  presented a Bill to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 15].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.—[Mr. Coleman.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEVELOPMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House takes note of the Report on "Developments in the European Communities April-October 1975" (Command Paper No. 6349).
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: This is one of the two days given every year to discussing developments in the European Communities. Basically, we are discussing the EEC—almost the whole of the White Paper is concerned with that. Rather less has taken place in the other Communities, but we must not ignore their importance.
  Developments within the Communities in the period under review have been particularly important. The six-month period covers the time of the referendum and the basic decision of this country, to which the great majority of hon. Members on both sides subscribed, that we should remain within the Community. This is a decision which, once having been taken by a referendum, can admit to no going back. Although we took this decision only a short time ago, we should not forget all the consequences for our policy in Europe and in this House which must inevitably follow from a decision of that magnitude.
  This debate takes place against a background of an interesing conference in Rome in the last two days. It is right to refer to it because it is relevant to the present state of the Community and our membership and also relevant as the culmination of much that took place in the six months under review in the White Paper. We are glad that a compromise was reached in Rome which will enable the important international conference on energy and other matters to proceed. We urged the Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, on more than one occasion that there was an absolute need

  1693
  to reach some sort of compromise, though at the time the right hon. Gentleman did not seem particularly willing to do so.
  While welcoming the compromise agreement, we are entitled to ask what were the terms and what has been the cost in the long-term relationship between ourselves and our fellow members of the Community. Clarification is needed because the Press accounts of what was agreed are confusing and there are conflicting interpretations. The Foreign Secretary is quoted as saying that the document will contain a lot of cotton wool. We are used to the Foreign Secretary being frank in what he says about foreign affairs, but this is not a very good description of the basic negotiating position of the Community in a matter of this importance.
  Hardly ever has a Minister emerged from an international conference with so much egg on his face as did the Foreign Secretary in Rome. He had said that no possible formula could be produced which would permit Great Britain to be represented by the Community at the forthcoming conference, yet that is precisely what has happened. He must accept a certain share of the blame if, having started off looking to be a modern Palmerston, he finishes up like the grand old Duke of York. It was clear that he would have to climb down. We warned him that he would have to climb down, and it is a good thing that he has done so. I see that the Prime Minister has been trying to save the Foreign Secretary's face. That is a very laudable thing to do.
  Of the faces visible on the Government Front Bench, which is not as crowded as usual, the Foreign Secretary's is one of the least unacceptable. However, the extent to which the Prime Minister has gone in this attempt is extraordinary even for him. To try to claim that on this occasion Britain has achieved all its objectives is more ineffable than usual. The Prime Minister is reported as saying
  "If you shoot for the moon you might hit the top of Snowdon".
  I take it that he means the mountain.
  I am beginning to understand how the Prime Minister can claim to have achieved a victory when everyone else can see that he has suffered a failure.
  1694
  I have checked the figures and I see that the distance from the earth to the moon is 240,000 miles. The height of Snowdon is 3,560 feet. If that is the ratio of success that the Prime Minister normally expects in his endeavours, it is not surprising if his assessment of his achievements differs somewhat from the assessment by most of us.
  We are entitled to ask what was achieved at this conference, because it was of enormous importance. We are not to have a special seat separate from the Community, and I do not think anyone seriously thought we ever would. What are we to have instead? Here I must rely on the Press, because we have had no official statement from the Prime Minister. I rely on The Guardian, which is very distinguished in international affairs and which is not totally committed to the Conservative Party.
  I gather that the president of the meeting will be empowered to invite other countries to present their additional comments in the light of their experience in accordance with the agreed mandate. What does that mean? If the comments are to be made in accordance with the agreed mandate, everyone can do the same. If we are to say something different from the other members of the Community, have they agreed that we should do so? If we are going to say the same as the other members of the Community, what is the point of the whole exercise? This seems to be an extraordinary situation.
  What has happened over the decision on a floor price for oil? We are told that there has been agreement, reluctantly on the part of the West German Chancellor, that there should be a floor price for oil. Has the price been agreed? Is it, as the Press says, 7 a barrel? What on earth is the use of a guaranteed $7 a barrel if the current world price is already $11 or $12? If no price has been fixed, what is the purpose of the floor? If the floor price were fixed at $1, it would be a floor but a pretty useless one. If the Government claim that these things cannot be determined in detail in advance, which is a fair point, is there any agreement on the principles upon which this price will be determined? So far as I can see from the information available, there is no agreement on those principles.

  1695
  If that is so, what conceivable use could any such agreement be to this country?
  We have heard a certain amount recently about import controls. There seems to be considerable interest in them both by Labour Back Benchers and by the European Community. The White Paper says that the Community acts as a single unit in the GATT, but if we are to break the rules of the GATT and introduce import controls, if we are to ask for derogations from the international rules of the GATT, will the Community do that for us? If we introduce import controls, will they bear upon the world at large, including our Community partners, or will they merely be applied to other countries outside the Community? These are matters of fundamental importance.
  We were told that these issues would be discussed at Rome, and presumably there was some talk about them. The House should know at this stage what conclusions were reached on this point. The accounts which appear in the most responsible newspapers are extremely vague.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman could accept that the British Government are entitled to take certain action on an important topic like import controls, making their announcement on the principle when they announce their decisions on the policy. Not everything has to appear first in The Guardian.
  Mr. Maudling: It depends whether by taking that action the British Government are breaking solemn treaties. The extent to which the Government are entitled to break treaties is quite another matter. In the course of the discussions in Rome, were import controls considered in relation to the rules of the Community and to the wider set of rules for the GATT?
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman is not making it easier for the Government.
  Mr. Maudling: The Government do not help themselves in these matters.
  I think that there is recognition in this House that we are committed in principle to direct elections to the European Parliament—
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say exactly where we are committed to direct elections? A new myth has grown up that we are committed to direct elections. I put this suggestion rather on a par with some of the remarks by the right hon. Gentleman before the referendum which, as in the case of the energy question, seem to have been changed rather rapidly after the event. Exactly where in the Treaty of Rome does it say that we are wholly committed to direct elections?
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot quote the precise article in the Treaty, but I think that the hon. Lady will be able to get that information from her own Front Bench.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: No.
  Mr. Maudling: In that case we shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State where the Government stand on this issue. Last week I asked whether it was the Government's desire that direct elections should come as soon as possible or as late as possible. The Minister of State said "As soon as sensible". Whatever he means by that, he regards this country as committed by the Treaty of Rome to the principle of direct elections to the European Parliament.
  Mr. Spearing: Never!
  Mr. Maudling: They cannot come before sensible arrangements have been made. There is a vast range of problems in the drawing of constituencies and all the other details of elections. This is an important issue and we cannot resile from the principle of ultimate direct elections to a European Parliament without causing a breach of faith, which would be wrong.
  Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman was unable to quote the article he had in mind. Article 138 puts the onus of responsibility upon the Assembly to make proposals and on the Council to make recommendations to member States. Since under Article 109 the recommendation would not be binding, that means that this country is not bound. I have a letter from the Foreign Secretary which agrees that the recommendation of the Council would have no binding force

  1697
  and that we would have to pass an Act of Parliament to give effect to it in any case.
  Mr. Maudling: I respect the views of Ministers and, therefore, I ask the Minister of State whether he believes that the Government are bound by accepting the obligations of the principle of direct elections at the appropriate time by appropriate methods.
  There was a small point which arose in Rome concerning passports, and I did not understand it. It was suggested in the Press that some new European passport is to take the place of the British passport. I would regret that very much. I still cling, old-fashioned as I am, to the British passport and to the words which refer to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State requesting and requiring, in the name of the Queen, that people should give us facilities. I hope that that will not be abandoned. If it is, it will be one of those examples of people trying to substitute for the substance of European unity a form of unity which pleases and helps no one. Perhaps on this point the Minister of State can enlighten us as to what exactly has been agreed, because at present it is hard to follow precisely what has been taking place.
  I turn to the general development of the European Community. It must be clear that the reconciliation of national interests and Community interests is bound to take a long time and create very many difficulties. The confirmation of our membership only a few months ago was bound to add to the problems of this reconciliation—obviously. Also, the world recession, the increase in oil prices and all the economic tensions arising from the developments are bound to make a bad context for this problem of reconciliation. However, we must keep an eye on the long-term goal.
  It is important to avoid harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. There is a real danger that the Brussels bureaucracy, which is perfectly properly and rightly concerned with harmonisation, will neglect what national Parliaments can see—the practical difficulties of putting into effect some of the promises No doubt harmonisation is desirable in principle, but it is obligatory only if it is required for the purposes of the Treaty of Rome. Any harmonisation efforts beyond that, al-
  1698
  though perhaps laudable, are certainly not obligatory on this country.
  There are two main points I want to make. I deal first with the relationship of the national State and the Community, Of course there was cession of sovereignty when we went into the Community. All international agreements involve some cession, although there was greater scope and far more flexibility in the Treaty of Rome than in any other agreement. However, nations will remain nations for the foreseeable future and will be determined to maintain their own national interests.
  In 1957 we tried to negotiate a free trade area. I can remember talking to Professor Erhard, the then Economic Minister of the German Federal Republic, and asking how he had managed to sign a treaty which would mean that just before an election in Germany the Community might pass a new regulation which would grievously damage the interests of the wine-growers of the Rhine and the Moselle. He replied "The Community won't push Germany around like that". It is evident that a large country cannot be pushed around. The Community is not a single State but a partnership in which the individual must respect the interests of the whole and the partnership as a whole must respect the interests of the individual.
  Against that background, the sort of arguments that have taken place in the past few weeks should be worked out not by confrontation or antagonism but by seeking a solution in a sensible and rational way to reconcile the national interests—which cannot be overridden—of great countries with the economic and overriding interests of the Community.
  Harmonisation is right in principle but its purposes were, first, the free flow of goods and services and, secondly, the establishment of fair competition and widespread choice in the interests of the consumer. Why otherwise should we harmonise? Hegel said that the unity of the whole depended on the diversification of the parts. Freedom of choice and wider choice should be the Community's objectives—not a restriction of choice.
  I cannot help believing sometimes that a little damage has been done in the public eye to the whole purpose of the Community by efforts to pass regulations about the contents of a jar of pickled

  1699
  onions, the type of bread we eat and so on—all the things that do not happen but which are talked about too much and, which, because they are talked about, give the public at large an impression that the Community gives attention to minor considerations when the major considerations, which are fundamental, are not given adequate thought.
  The record of recent months as set out in the White Paper is one of useful, if not spectacular, work, but we cannot expect spectacular work all the time. Valuable and useful progress has been made in agriculture, trade and other matters. There are two particular problems about which the British Government have been at odds with their Community partners. The first concerns the transport regulations dealing with drivers' hours and tachographs. The second is the question of the pollution of waters. I sympathise with the Government's point of view. I am not yet convinced that total harmonisation in the way proposed is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Treaty, and unless it is necessary I do not understand why it should be proposed or carried.
  The transport arrangements constitute a difficult problem but could be worked out given enough time. On the question of the pollution of waters by the discharge of effluent, I do not understand why the same regulations that govern tidal waters—estuarial waters—should also govern internal rivers. If the Government oppose a system of total harmonisation, there is considerable substance in their argument.
  We welcome the proposals to control the Community's expenditure. This is a sphere in which this Parliament, with its traditions of parliamentary government and control over expenditure—which has been somewhat eroded over the past 18 months—can make a useful contribution to a problem which has not yet been fully or adequately tackled by the institutions of the Community. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us a little further on the basic problem of allocating the Community's expenditure, because I find it difficult to understand the principle on which expenditure has been allocated for social and regional purposes, overseas aid and agricultural support. In view of the rather delayed,
  1700
  although expected, German reaction, it is difficult to understand our position in relation to the heavy burden of expenditure. I hope that the Minister will give a clear picture of how priorities operate in this area and show the pluses and minuses for the United Kingdom's economy.
  The basic economic problems facing the Community are clearly those of foreign trade and payments and of further co-ordination in the economic and monetary sectors. This is becoming more difficult the more the rate of inflation varies as between Community members and the more the economic prospects as between Community members tend to diverge. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress is being made on the concept of economic and monetary union, how the Tindemans Report stands and what the Government believe is likely to emerge from it, because, although economic and monetary union sound splendid objectives, it is often difficult to envisage how, in practice, they can work out in the unsatisfactory world in which we have to operate.
  In some ways the most encouraging developments recently have been in the political sphere. I have already spoken of direct elections and I do not propose to do so again. In foreign affairs there has been a genuine and useful attempt to concert the foreign policies of the member States. It is perhaps a lesson in pragmatism if we make more progress in an area where there is a concerting of policies than in one where there is harmonisation of policies—in other words, an area in which we work together because we want to do so rather than because we have to do so.
  Certainly the reaction of the Community, in which the British Government played a great part, in its decision on Portugal and on giving aid to Portugal is of considerable help and is important for the position of democracy in the southern flank of Europe.
  I did not agree with the decision to suspend the negotiations with Spain about a trade agreement.. I hope that, now there has been a change in the régime in Spain, it will be recognised that it is important to ensure Spanish membership of the European Community on a proper and agreed basis at a time and a pace that will be suitable to all concerned. I hope

  1701
  that the Community members and the British Government in particular will give much effort and thought to ensuring how that can be achieved. It would add a great deal towards the completeness of our European community of nations if Spain were ultimately to be there with us.
  The same applies to Greece. We on this side welcome the possibility of the accession of Greece to full membership of the European Community, and Greece, too, is a country without which Europe cannot really in any historic terms be complete.
  I gather that some efforts are being made, and there is some co-ordination of European points of view taking place, in an effort to make a contribution to the solution of the problem in Cyprus. In the Middle East also there is a considerable case for more European activity as such in an effort to seek a solution to the damaging, dangerous and, indeed, escalating problem which we now see there.
  Probably most important of all is the reaction of the European Community to the Helsinki agreement. The White Paper tells us:
  "The Nine Member Governments intend to continue to co-ordinate their approach to the implementation and monitoring of the decisions of the Helsinki Conference…".
  This is of fundamental importance. Much has been said about Helsinki, both before and afterwards. How should one take it? How serious is it? The Chinese seem to think that it is a major threat to world peace. I do not agree. I believe that it could be a great boon to mankind in the long run so long as we recognise, as I believe the Minister does, that nothing that happened at Helsinki, and nothing signed there, justifies any letting down of the guard of the Western nations. If we maintain our caution, if we maintain our guard, if we ensure that progress takes place along the lines envisaged in principle at the Helsinki Conference, we may be able to make a big contribution towards the future peace and happiness of mankind. There is no field in which the European Community can make a greater contribution than that.
  The Community is not a military body, of course, but there is no effective division between military partnership and political partnership. The cohesion of the Western world, the cohesion of
  1702
  Europe and the cohesion of Europe with the United States and North America are of fundamental importance still t the prospect of detente being successful. We must, however—I recognise that the White Paper makes a contribution in this direction—press on with the ideal of greater European unity, avoiding humbug, avoiding excessive bureaucracy, avoiding excessive euphoria, but thinking all the time that the job is well worth doing.
  4.13 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): This debate is intended to enable the House of Commons to express its opinions on events which took place within the EEC between April and October 1975 and, if the House chooses, to raise criticisms of the way the Community has behaved. It is part of the procedure recommended by the Foster Committee to provide the House with an opportunity to examine the business of the EEC and the position taken up by British Ministers during the discussion of that business.
  Inevitably, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maud ling) referred to yesterday's European Council meeting. That was plainly the part of his speech which he most enjoyed making, and I do not begrudge him that. I understand that the Prime Minister hopes to report to the House tomorrow on the outcome of that meeting, and it is clearly much better for questions about the Heads of Government meeting to be left until then and for comments on that meeting to follow the Prime Minister's statement. However, I can, I am sure, offer the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister's gratitude for the notice he has given him of the questions which he intends to raise.
  I shall confine myself to the motion and the White Paper to which it specifically refers. Indeed, to do otherwise would be to deny the object of today's debate. The Foster Committee believed that regular opportunities had to be provided for the discussion of routine Community business. The more spectacular occasions can be discussed at other times and in other ways. My job is simply to refer briefly to some of the major themes in recent business of the Community and to listen to the judgment of the House upon them.

  1703
  I cannot resist reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the White Paper deals specifically with the period April to October, and the motion which I understood him to be moving refers specifically to that period, though he felt it necessary in the first part of his speech—it brings a smile to his lips whenever I mention it—to deal exclusively with the events of 1st and 2nd December. He may wish to treat his own motion in that cavalier fashion. I treat it with a great deal more respect, and I shall actually deal with what his motion specifies.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears to me that the motion is in the Prime Minister's name.
  Mr. Hattersley: Then, of course, I treat it with even more respect than I was working up within myself, and I reprove the right hon. Gentleman for treating it in such a cavalier fashion.
  This is the first of the six-monthly debates to be held since the British people decided that our destiny lay within Europe. The 5th June is now almost history, and I believe it best to leave it as such. Today I seek to draw no conclusions from the referendum campaign or its results, save to mention the simple fact that we are now irrevocably in membership of the Common Market—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—a point which the right hon. Gentleman himself made. Apart from the expressions of view of one or two wholly unrepresentative groups, Common Market membership is not now, I believe, an issue in British politics, and I take the view that debates such as this can be successfully conducted only against the background of that acceptance—the background of making the EEC work for Britain and making it work for our eight friends and partners with whom we have a mutual vested interest in building a successful Community.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Everybody knows the size of our oil deficit and knows of the difficulties which that causes the nation and our Government, but very few know the size of our deficit in trade with the EEC. Would it not be as well if Ministers sometimes gave the British people the information which would enable them to see that the decision
  1704
  they made on 5th June was not as favourable to them as they were led to believe it would be?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have already said that I do not wish to fight battles which are over and lost or won. Had I not said that, I should have reminded my right hon. Friend that one of the reasons for his confusion about the deficit with the EEC is that so much nonsense was talked about it during the referendum campaign. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary specified with considerable precision the extent of that deficit and the trade benefits we enjoyed through membership of the Community, and I am prepared to rely on those figures, published for the record and now increasingly understood throughout the country.
  Mr. Fernyhough: With respect, I asked the Library to prepare the figures for me a week ago. I have those figures relating to our trade balance. If my right hon. Friend says that our deficit with the Common Market up to the end of September was not £1,900 million—if he says that that is not the position—I shall accept it, but he will be denying figures issued on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Hattersley: I say in response to that—and I shall try not to say it any more—that we are regrettably in deficit with a number of trading organisations, and the point I make, which the Foreign Secretary demonstrated in the House in a recent debate, is that were we not in membership of the EEC our overall deficit would be a great deal larger than it is at the present unhappy moment.
  I return to the objective of building a successful Community, an objective which, I believe, needs in some ways to be defined. In company with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I am not attracted by expanding Community activity simply for the sake of doing so. Nor do I wish to see the Community forge common policies where there is no practical advantage in co-ordination or, as he described it, harmonisation. The Community is bound together by needs which genuinely coincide for all its members. Each of us has the same or similar vested interests in the solution of real and immediate problems. There is much that we

  1705
  can do together which is practical, possible, necessary and beneficial. The Community should concentrate on those real and practical issues rather than spend its time and energy attempting "to build Europe", to use a fashionable phrase, an attempt which I believe the right hon. Gentleman regards as being completely artificial.
  I give the House some examples of the real and immediate problems to which I refer. They are to be found in the White Paper which the Prime Minister's motion requires us to discuss. There is a need for more democracy within the Community and for the institutions of the Community to be made more accountable to the people whom they serve. There is a need for the Community to take up a coordinated and enlightened position towards the economic relationship of the developed and developing world.
  There is a need for increased financial control of the Community budget and for more emphasis within the common agricultural policy, which accounts for over 70 per cent. of total Community spending, on the avoidance of surplus and waste, and the encouragement of the most economic farms. Perhaps most important of all, there is a need for greater convergence in the economies of the member nations.
  Greater efforts should be made to reduce disparties between the strongest and weakest Community currencies. There should be a greater determination to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest regions within the EEC. Until the Community enjoys a more equal level of economic prosperity, the prospects of moving towards genuine integration, either economic or political, remain remote.
  Section XI of the White Paper deals, among other things, with democracy within the Community. A decision was taken on that subject in Rome yesterday. As I have said, the Prime Minister will report upon it tomorrow. I emphasise today that the position that the Government have taken up in the Community is the position that is described in the White Paper, the position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already described, at least in part, to the House. In the Government's view, Article 138(3) commits Great Britain, as other member nations, to hold direct
  1706
  elections sooner or later. It does not say that we can do so without proper process in our national Parliament. It does not say that it is an obligation that we can discharge without carrying the House with us and passing a Bill. However, by our standards and judgment, it is a commitment in principle. We want to achieve the objective of the article at the first practical opportunity.
  Direct elections to the European Assembly represent a major constitutional innovation for this country and a subject of major, and, I suspect, prolonged debate in the House. The Government must decide a number of specific issues regarding the form and nature of the elections. We must consult the parties, and we must offer our recommendations to the House. I believe that the House will, properly be, offended if we commit ourselves to preparation, consultation and recommendation and to obtaining the approval of Parliament by a specified predetermined date.
  I would not myself relish announcing in the House not only that a White Paper and Bill were in prospect but that we had told our Community partners the date by which we would have the Bill passed into law. If everything can be done properly and in time for an election in 1978, we can clearly march in time as well as in step with our Community partners. If that cannot take place, I can only repeat the view that I expressed during Question Time last week—namely, that we must do things in proper order even if we do them a little later.
  I hope that our position on direct elections will be taken by our partners as proof that we do not make promises to them that we cannot fulfil. I hope that it will be taken as an indication of the importance that we attach to the Assembly and its essential status. Of course, in the foreseeable future its powers are unlikely to be radically increased. For years ahead the Community will remain accountable to national Parliaments as it is now through the Council of Ministers. But no one can deny the importance, both practical and symbolic, of direct elections.
  Six Community members have been thinking about implementing Article 138 for 17 years. If it takes us six or seven

  1707
  years of membership to implement it successfully, in my view we shall not have done badly.
  Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend will know that many supporters of the Government would not share his interpretation of Article 138, but if the Government are now saying that there is an obligation to have direct elections, will he say why that was not spelled out in paragraph 131 of Command 6003, which was the renegotiation White Paper. The paragraph reads:
  "If British membership is confirmed, any scheme for direct elections to the European Assembly would require an Act of Parliament."
  If the Government believed that there was such an obligation, why did they not say so at the time of the referendum?
  Mr. Hattersley: That is what I said at the time of the referendum, but if it was omitted from the White Paper I suppose that we anticipated greater knowledge amongst our opponents than has turned out to be the case. The referendum campaign allowed my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who took a position different from the one that I then occupied to argue their case. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), like me, had an opportunity during the campaign to draw the attention of the citizens of Great Britain to Article 138 and to what he thought it meant. I now tell him what I believe it to mean. If he thinks that I am wrong, we must differ.
  Mr. Neil Marten: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he and the Government are committed to Article 138. I believe that that statement was based on the advice of Foreign Office lawyers. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House how the Government have arrived at that commitment? Will he go through the Treaty of Rome and show us where the commitment is to be found? He has not done that, and that is exactly what we are questioning.
  Mr. Hattersley: I referred to Article 138(3) of the Treaty, which requires the Assembly to draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage. I suppose that it is possible to argue that the Treaty intended the Assembly to draw up proposals and then to tear them up and
  1708
  throw them away, but that does not seem to be a practical or realistic interpretation of the Treaty.
  Mr. Spearing: Read the next paragraph.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am conscious that the next paragraph talks about the appropriate provisions to be recommended to member States. That is clearly the obligation in principle. That is the obligation which we intend to discharge.
  Mr. Douglas Jay Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I have already taken a long time. I think it best if I continue with my speech.
  During the period covered by the White Paper the Parliamentary Labour Party has taken up its seats in the Assembly, to which direct elections will one day be organised. The House is now fully represented and plays an increasingly important part in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The Government believe that the House will want to hear comments from the new delegation about its work in Europe and on the view that it has of the EEC, based on its experience at the Assembly. It is our hope that towards the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who leads the Parliamentary Labour Party delegation, will catch the eye of the Chair. So that he can do his subject justice, we gladly offer my right hon. Friend the time that might on another occasion be taken by a Government spokesman. It seems essential that we hear his judgment—a better judgment there could not be—on how the Strasbourg Parliament is operating and how the European Assembly works.
  One of the powers of the Assembly in which my right hon. Friend plays such a distinguished part is the right to comment on and perhaps to increase the Community budget. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the White Paper set out details of the budget that the Assembly received from the Council. That is the 1976 draft budget that has now been considered by the Assembly and sent back to the Council for its further examination. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is now discussing the Assembly's proposals at the Budget Council in Brussels.

  1709
  The document that the Council is considering includes modifications and amendments proposed by the Assembly which, if accepted, would add another £180 million to the overall draft budget.
  It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of that Council's deliberations, but in the present climate of financial stringency I believe that it is unlikely to accept all the increases which the Assembly has proposed. However, I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to learn that we expect at least some of the cuts made on 22nd and 29th September in the provision for the Social Fund, an important fund to the United Kingdom, to be restored as a result of what the Assembly suggested. We hope that the Council will accept those suggestions.
  I have dealt with matters concerning the internal organisation of the Community during the six months under review. Inevitably, during the months from April to October the Community continued to examine its institutions and internal organisation. Central to that examination has been the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy. The Labour Government have always held the view that the CAP was a policy for consumers as well as for producers, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made that clear during his meetings with other Agriculture Ministers. We have continued our pressure to create an agricultural system which is more geared to the needs of the most efficient farms and which avoids the creation of unnecessary surpluses and waste. We look forward to the report of the Agricultural Council on this subject being taken into account by the Commission in next year's annual price review. Our policy will be to advance at every Council meeting where it is both possible and appropriate specific changes that contribute towards the achievement of a generally more acceptable agricultural policy. The CAP cannot, and never could have been, changed overnight, but we shall continue to work for its further improvement. This may well have to be gradual, but we intend that gradually improvement shall come about.
  At the same time, within the Agricultural Council we shall be examining the future of the common fisheries policy.
  1710
  The Community now accepts that changes will be necessary if there is to be an extension of international fishing limits. We in Great Britain could be faced with particular problems if, at a time when some countries are extending their fishing limits as a result of decisions taken at the Law of the Sea Conference, we are required to apply the present common fisheries policy, which would open the waters around Great Britain to the trawlers of other Community countries. Clearly, substantial changes have to be made, and it is the Government's intention to work for them and for their successful acceptance.
  All these matters—the European Assembly and its elections, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy—are essentially matters concerned with the organisation of the Community. But the months between April and October have not been a period in which the Community has been obsessively concerned with its organisation to the exclusion of matters involving the world outside. The Community has continued to use its political co-operation machinery to obtain, wherever possible, a common Community view on relations with countries outside the EEC. It has continued to use that machinery to coordinate the foreign policies of individual members.
  I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman drew the House's attention to the success with which that policy has been applied in the Community's relations with Portugal. It has been the common wish of Community Foreign Ministers to encourage the attempts of the Portuguese to establish a genuine democracy in their country. We have made that clear both by the way in which we welcomed Major Antunes to the Council and by the assurance we gave him about the ready availability of a preferential Community loan. Indeed, the success of these attempts at co-ordination are a major feature of the Community's work during the period of the White Paper.
  At the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations, Community Foreign Ministers, working in close co-operation, made a major contribution to the consensus resolution with which that meeting ended. The EEC was determined that the Seventh Special Session should be

  1711
  characterised not by conflict between the developed and the developing worlds but by co-operation in the pursuit of complementary goals. The position which the Community took up was to a very great degree influenced by the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend at the Kingston meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The support of that policy by Community Foreign Ministers was a major contribution to the satisfactory ending of the Seventh Special Session.
  The Community's commitment to the developing world was demonstrated earlier in the year by the Lomé Convention. Its trade provisions came into effect in July, and its African, Caribbean and Pacific signatories now enjoy easier access to the European market. The Lomé Convention—referred to in the White Paper—is only a part of the Community's aid policy. In our view, the programme needs to be more balanced and, in particular, to pay more attention to the needs of the poorest developing countries. I have in mind especially India, Bangladesh and other countries in the Indian subcontinent. These already take a large share of the Community's considerable food aid programme, and we are supporting the Commission's proposals for a considerable increase in 1976. But these countries, which are not eligible for the Lomé Convention, get no continuing financial assistance from the Community. They did get much of the Community's contribution to the United Nations emergency measures, but that was a one-off operation.
  Since the Development Council agreed in principle to financial and technical assistance to non-Associates last year, we have been pressing for implementation of a genuine, meaningful and realistic aid programme. To my regret, some member States have so far been unable to agree, but we shall keep on trying, we shall keep on pushing and we shall keep on describing the advantages of and necessity for such a policy. In response to what the right hon. Gentleman had to tell the House about the way in which the Foreign Secretary operates within the Community, that is exactly how the Community works and how the Community should work.
  The Community works by discussion, by initial disagreement, by more discus-
  1712
  sion and by eventual mutual agreement on a satisfactory policy. That is exactly how the debate on the Paris energy conference was conducted, and that is exactly how it ended. It is clear to any objective observer—if not to those who did not want Britain to fight, those who wanted Britain to fight and one or two who wanted Britain to fight and then lose so as to make a debating point about it—that Britain's interests as an energy producer are fully safeguarded by the arrangements which were agreed yesterday and about which the Prime Minister hopes to answer a Question tomorrow.
  Indeed, Britain's special position has been recognised by the arrangements which have been made for the 16th December conference. My right hon. Friend will be there, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will expand on that matter when he makes his statement tomorrow. He will do so against the general background of one of the significant areas the right hon. Gentleman raised; that is to say, the general development of the Community and the problem in the Community of reconciling national and Community interests and producing a consensus policy which meets all the wishes of all the member nations. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no advantage, no virtue and no common sense in looking for co-operation in an artificial sense, and trying to harmonise for no greater reason than to be able to announce that harmonisation has been carried out.
  That is not the Community that I see emerging. I see emerging a Community which is increasingly sensible, increasingly practical and increasingly devoted to the real issues of European co-operation. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some examples of what I mean in terms of the real basis on which the Community operates.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the real purpose of the Community was to give a fair wind of competition and to provide a wider choice. That is not a bad description of a free trade area, but it is not an adequate description of the European Economic Community. The Community always aimed to go further and do more. May I say, in passing, that the regulations about which we are all tempted to make jokes, concerning the number of onions in a bottle, the sex

  1713
  of hops and rear-view mirrors on agricultural equipment, are part of the free trade aspects of the Community. They are attempts to remove artificial barriers to trade—other than tariff barriers—which are probably as much against the interests of competition as are regulations which are not common between one country and another.
  Whether or not that argument is accepted by the House, the basic feature of the Community of which the right hon. Gentleman has to take account is its intention to do more than simply create the atmosphere of free trade. It is supposed to be—and he congratulated it on this account—involved in creating a common foreign policy for member States where a common foreign policy is necessary. It is supposed to be—and the House congratulated it on this—involved in ironing out disparities of wealth between one part of the Community and another by positive policies, the richest countries contributing towards the employment prospects in poorer regions. It is supposed in the common agricultural policy—
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It is also concerned with the movement of people and the migration of people. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intends to comment on the reference made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to the possibility of the admission to the EEC of Greece. If he does, he will have to think about the restriction of the admission into and employment in this country of Greek Cypriots. The Immigration Act 1971, which is still in operation, puts Common Market citizens who want to work in Great Britain in a more favourable position than new Commonwealth citizens. Are the Government applying their mind to these problems?
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend has asked me about several problems but I will answer only two because time prevents my doing anything else. The Community as a whole would welcome the accession of Greece when that is possible, and in the interests of Greece to do so. I believe that the Community will not be complete until she is a member, but a number of technical discussions must be carried out in the interests of Greek agriculture and her economy before she
  1714
  is ready to sign the final act of membership.
  We have all learnt the hard way of the difficulties involved in joining the Community first and worrying about the terms afterwards. The advice we are able to give to Greece from our particularly strong position after the renegotiation is that it is necessary to look at the small print and ensure that it says what she wants it to say. When the small print and terms are right for Greece, the Community will welcome her membership.
  On the transfer of people within the Community, my hon. Friend is confusing two concepts. The first is the right to move under Article 108 of the Treaty of Rome, dealing with the free movement of labour to take jobs in the Community under certain conditions, and the other is the right of citizens to bring in families and dependants, which is traditionally associated with the Commonwealth. Many hon. Members for constituencies like mine would say "Long may that remain."
  The right hon. Gentleman commented about the future building of the Community and our obligations to it. I hope that I speak not only as myself, a good member of the Community, but as a member of a Government who wants to support the ideals, aspirations and intentions of the Community. But very often when we are tackled about our behaviour in the Community, the arguments we may have with other member countries and the interchanges of debate held privately in the Council of Ministers and reported in The Guardian next day, we are accused of supporting British interests to the point where our good Community credentials are in doubt. I have never been prepared to accept that sort of criterion for what is good Community membership and what our obligations are towards our other partners.
  There is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a duty on each member nation to pursue the specialities of its own interest but there is a duty upon each member nation also to pursue those specialities in such a way that it accepts, anticipates and respects the interests of the eight other members. I believe that we have done both these things, and I hope that we shall go on doing them.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Davies: I take note of this White Paper with a feeling of despondency verging on despair. It will come as no surprise to the few hon. Members who are in the House today to know that I am a committed believer in the potential of the European Community to help find a solution to some of the greatest problems we face in this country and in the world at large.
  This deadpan document is written more in the style of a particularly dull chairman's statement to the stockholders of a company than in the style of what perhaps would seem to meet an exaggerated requirement but which to me should be in the style of a "Pilgrim's Progress." It is deplorable that the record of six months should be so thin and so valueless.
  I find it difficult to say some of these things just after the right hon. Gentleman has sat down, because I have a strong feeling that in many respects he and I share similar views on the future of the Community. The effect of the referendum, as it reacts upon this country, has also produced reaction amongst our partners in the Community. They assumed that from the time Britain joined it would be wholehearted in its determination to pursue dynamically and determinedly the objectives of European common action.
  I do not judge by reports in newspapers, but on the innumerable occasions I have had to meet and consult with our other partners I have found their experience to be one of great, great disappointment. They were disappointed because they found the actions and postures of the British Government on the development of the Community petulant and petty-minded. I find that unacceptable in the state in which we find ourselves in this country and in the state we should be in after the referendum.
  The right hon. Gentleman underlined the need to debate only the White Paper and the need to take account only of the events that have taken place. I believe that nothing in that White Paper or in this debate debars us from discussing things which have not taken place to the damage of this country and to the Community at large.
  One bright light that shines out in an otherwise dismal world is the Lomé Con-
  1716
  vention, but this simply throws into greater highlight the deficiencies in other areas. In dealing with the whole range of Community problems it is impossible, in the time that one could reasonably accord oneself in the debate, to do more than scratch the surface, and no doubt much will be said about institutional, trading, budgeting, agricultural, economic, monetary and industrial problems faced by the Community. One is bound in this vast spectrum of activity to try to select those areas in which one feels perhaps the most involved and most concerned. I deliberately, therefore, reserve for tomorrow's statement some reference to the matters concerned with the performance we have just witnessed at the meeting in Rome.
  I therefore seek to concentrate more on industry, the missed opportunities, the delays, the deferment of decisions, the incompetence that has been shown by the Community as a whole—I make no excuse for it—but no less by the British Government, whose performance is really unacceptable.
  For example, there is the whole question of energy policy, particularly in relation to representations at the Paris conference due to take place this month. This question of representation is a smokescreen for the reality of the problems within the Community on energy policy. The absolute overriding need which has been there intensively ever since this Government took office has been to find means of optimising the resources of the Community in terms of its own energy needs. The meeting of the great producing States is of much importance, but the Community in the near and long-term future faces problems of a quite overwhelming kind both in cost and shortage of energy terms, and in mal-utilisation of energy in terms of maximum economy or optimum use of energy resources.
  Our problems in the Community are not to try to differentiate between our own interests and those of the Community. Our interests are in any case ascertained and preserved. We have to try to see how, with the remarkably valuable resources which this country has, we can combine, not to our disadvantage but to our advantage, to ensure that this Continent moves forward to a more valid and useful future. Those interests are not incompatible. There is no

  1717
  incompatibility between British interests—as a great consumer but also as a great and growing producer of energy—and those of our partners in the Community. The endeavour—which to my mind has been carried to a point of ridicule—to underline what is apparently thought to be a contrast has done ineffable damage to our position in the Community and, I believe, to ourselves as well.
  I speak next of another industry where the problems are in some ways no less severe. We see in the White Paper a brief statement concerning the shipbuilding industry and the provision of continuing arrangements within the Community concerning the subsidisation of this industry, but they absolutely fail to take account of the fact that this vast great traditional industry in this country is now facing a deep recession, in concert with the same industries in every Community country. Indeed, it is more widespread in other European countries which might well in days to come be members of the Community. It is facing a period of recession which, unless early action is taken on a Community basis to overcome it, may well land us without a shipbuilding industry—nationalised or not—within a decade.
  That is where the issues bite, and that is where there is a need for the Government to show their determination to lead their partners into an understanding of the dangers that beset this industry, and the need to find measures to overcome them.
  I turn now to a third industry, the aircraft industry, which was also treated yesterday to the nationalisation process. The aircraft industry is nationally a profitable and advantageous industry. This morning, writing in The Times, Sir Arnold Weinstock noted that this industry, as we all recognise, has no means alone of producing a civil airliner for the next generation of requirements; therefore, great importance must attach to the need to progress with vehemence towards a Community common action on this matter.
  What action have the Government taken in this respect? Virtually none. The Commission has made proposal after proposal. They are not necessarily the right solutions. They pose difficult problems, but the truth is that they bring home, as nothing else can, the urgency and the danger which beset this enormous
  1718
  industrial employer and earner in this country, and in the Community at large. What have the Government done? As far as I have been able to see and to hear, they have done little to pursue this urgent and immediate need.
  There are other industries which could, I am afraid, be referred to in the same context. I have been glad to see the Community make modest progress—modest indeed, and little supported by the Government—in improving Community action on data processing. But it represents a very tiny advance concerning a problem facing the Continent as a whole in terms of its future capacity to sustain the industry.
  I have deliberately stuck to the industrial element of the Community's activity, but it is in some ways illustrative. We have these overwhelming problems ahead of us. We have energy problems, industrial problems and electronics problems of all kinds, which face us as a country but which more and more are evidently not soluble within a national context, yet we have frittered away at least six months—if I am limited to those, but I would say two years—in idle argument and discussion, instead of trying seriously to advance in fields where the Community should advance.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and I have had the experience of following one another on many occasions in these debates. After listening to his speech today, I am hopeful that it will not be very much longer before his views are harmonised with my own.
  It is perhaps fortunate that the debate has fallen immediately after the summit conference in Rome yesterday, although frankly, it would have been more helpful if we had had an official and reliable statement of what actually happened there yesterday.
  The debate enabled the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to damn the EEC with extremely faint praise and the right hon. Member for Knutsford to damn it almost without any praise at all.
  However, we are informed from the Press—and the Minister's speech, which

  1719
  gave us remarkably little new information, appeared to confirm this—that the Prime Minister committed us yesterday at the Rome Conference to direct elections to the EEC Assembly. Neither the Prime Minister nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had any authority to do this, either from this House or from the electorate.
  The referendum—on which I take my stand, as does my right hon. Friend—gave no mandate to the Government for direct elections, because the Government most carefully refrained throughout the referendum campaign from saying that EEC membership involved direct elections to any federal parliament. Indeed, the Government's referendum manifesto—the little popular pamphlet which was distributed to every household in the land—said this:
  "No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament."
  It also said—I quote this in view of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said today about the decision being irrevocable—that membership depended on the
  "continuing assent of the British Parliament."
  Those were the Government's words in the pamphlet, and there was no mention anywhere in it of direct elections to the EEC Assembly.
  The Foreign Secretary has recently attempted to argue—and so did my right hon. Friend the Minister of State today, I thought extremely weakly, without any chapter and verse or exact quotation from the treaty—that there is a treaty obligation on the United Kingdom to proceed to direct elections. There is no such treaty obligation, as everyone knows who has troubled to read the actual words of Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. Let us therefore look at the words and not take refuge in vague platitudes and ambiguities.
  The words of Article 138 are unusually clear for the Treaty of Rome. First, it states that:
  "The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States."
  Secondly, it says that:
  "The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appopriate provisions, which it shall
  1720
  recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  Therefore, there is a treaty obligation on the Assembly to draw up proposals and on the Council to make recommendations. There is no legal obligation in the article or anywhere in the treaty on the member States at all.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Then what is the purpose of this article? Is it purely to enable the Assembly and the Council of Ministers to go through a meaningless pantomime? Does it serve any purpose?
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman may express an opinion of that kind. However, I was quoting the actual words of the Treaty, which is a legal document, and it is clear beyond argument that there is no legal obligation on the member States, as opposed to the Council or the Assembly.
  What is more, the Council is explicitly mandated to recommend provisions to member States; and, as all hon. Members know, including I am sure the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), Article 189 lays down equally clearly that
  "…recommendations and opinions have no binding force."
  That must mean that member States are free within the Treaty to accept or to reject recommendations from the Council.
  Secondly, the Council has to act unanimously even in making the recommendation. That means that each member State has the right of veto, though I do not discuss now whether it should use it. To quote again the words of the Government's referendum manifesto,
  "The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or new tax if he considers it to be against British interests."
  That was the pledge given to the public in the referendum campaign. Therefore, it is clear, whatever we think about the policy or the merits, that there is no legally binding obligation in the Treaty of Rome on any member State to proceed to direct elections.
  Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend now talks about a legal obligation. I talked about an obligation in principle. Reading the words, as my right hon. Friend has done, and understanding their

  1721
  implications, as I am sure he does, would he not regard it as a grotesque breach of faith if a British Government accepted that provision but said that we were not committed to it because of the narrow legalistic interpretation that my right hon. Friend has just advanced?
  Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend is now changing his ground. Two weeks ago in this House, the Foreign Secretary said that there was a treaty obligation which we would honour. My right hon. Friend is now admitting that there is not a treaty obligation, but saying that on political and general grounds he thinks that this is a step which we should take. That is a quite different issue. But, on the matter of principle, if the Government say to the people in a referendum campaign that the British Government, in the Council, have the right to accept, to reject or to veto any proposal of this kind, they should not come back afterwards and say that because something is recommended they are bound to accept it. In terms of the law, the position is clear. In terms of principle, that is my answer to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that there is no legal obligation, and frankly I regret that my right hon. Friends should have gone some way to mislead the public into believing that there was.
  I ask again the question which my right hon. Friend did not answer in the middle of his speech. If there is really a legal obligation in the Treaty of Rome on the United Kingdom to accept direct elections, why did the Government never mention this in the referendum campaign? Was it because they had not then become aware of it? Or did they know it and seek to conceal the fact from the electorate?
  This is hardly a minor matter. Direct elections, if they go beyond mere appearance, convert the Common Market into a federal State and therefore involve a fundamental loss of sovereignty by the member States. Either the elected Assembly has no power, in which case it really is just a sham. Or, if it has real, substantial power, the member countries inevitably are bound up in a federal system to that extent, and cease to be fully independent sovereign countries. Whether any of us favours this is another matter, and I can imagine that some do.
  1722
  But, as Hugh Gaitskell said in his memorable speech in 1962, it is not a matter to be decided light-heartedly after many centuries of British history as an independent nation.
  In my view, it is not for the Prime Minister, during a two-day trip to Rome, to commit us to the revolution without any authority from this House or from the electorate, whatever one may think of the exact provisions of the Treaty of Rome. I remind my right hon. Friend that even he, in answer to a question of mine in this House since the referendum, agreed—and I think he will still agree—that the referendum vote was not a vote for joining a federal State.
  Mr. Hattersley indicated assent.
  Mr. Jay: That statement was made by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend agrees with it.
  I hope at least, therefore, that we shall have a clearer confirmation than we have had so far from the Government today—and I gather that no further ministerial statement is to be made tonight—that direct elections cannot take place without legislation by this Parliament, and that no binding commitments have been made to the other countries concerned and will not be made, unless and until such legislation has been passed.
  Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as matters stand at present, conclusions reached at the European Councils are subject to further action within the Community before they become capable of implementation legally. Therefore, it may be that the whole of what he has said to date is suspect in some sense in relation to the current constitutional position within the Community.
  Mr. Jay: The right hon. Member for Knutsford, who has great knowledge of these matters, sounds as though he is confusing regulations, decisions and directives with recommendations. It is quite plain from Article 138 that the only power that the Council has in this matter is to make a recommendation which he knows quite well is not binding.
  As my right hon. Friend said something, but I thought lamentably little, about the common agricultural policy, I should like to ask what has become of

  1723
  all the promises that we had of a major reform of that policy and of the stocktaking document which was supposed to produce great benefits for the country. More and more, people are asking why France can flagrantly break the rules in this matter—for instance, by imposing an illegal tax on imports of wine—and no one does anything about it, while the vital British interests in major reforms of the CAP are being ignored almost totally.
  When are we to have a firm Government statement on the final decisions taken arising out of the stocktaking document? We did not get it today. May we also have some answers to the questions on the CAP which were never answered, ostensibly through lack of time, in the debate in this House on 17th October? Is it true, for instance, as both the Economist and the Financial Times have told us, that the EEC is now intending to spend in 1976 about £1,000 million—about one-third of the entire EEC budget—purely on taking dairy products away from the consumer, and over £300 million of that £1,000 million on feeding skimmed milk back to animals? Those are just one or two of the details of the common agricultural policy which one could discuss at very great length. What is the position of the New Zealand butter quota? We have only Press reports indicating that other members of the EEC are trying to squeeze this quota far below what we were promised in the renegotiations.
  When will the Government make a really substantial effort to reform these indefensible agricultural policies which are doing so much damage to our balance of payments and our standard of living?
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Inevitably I shall pick up some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on more than one occasion in his speech. However, I shall deal with those matters in the course of my speech rather than referring to them immediately.
  Basically, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said. I am very disappointed by the type of progress which is outlined in the
  1724
  White Paper. Obviously, I approach this matter from a different standpoint from that of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I am a supra-nationalist and he is not. Therefore, inevitably he is worried about the very small movement in this direction, and I am equally worried about the lack of movement. It seems to me that in the months which the White Paper covers Britain has been the Community's brake when she had many opportunities to be the Community's motor.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Rubbish.
  Mr. Johnston: I shall deal with the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in a moment. Indeed, I shall devote a special part of my speech to her.
  Basically, Britain has not been responsible for initiating progress, despite the many statements which were made at the beginning and which are quoted conveniently and helpfully in the annexes of the White Paper.
  On 9th June the Prime Minister said:
  "I now say to our partners in the Community that we look forward to continuing to work with them in promoting the Community's wider interests and in fostering a greater sense of purpose among the Member States."
  In Luxembourg on 24th June the Foreign Secretary said:
  "…it is my hope and intention, as far as I have responsibility in this matter, that we shall increasingly see the Nine countries acting as one in their relations with the outside world."
  I regret to say this has not been the case, and there are many individual examples which can be quoted. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Knutsford has already listed a number. I should like to refer to one or two matters before I turn to the main points which I wish to make.
  I referred to the regional policy during the recent foreign affairs debate, but I believe that the whole attitude on regional policy was remarkably well summed up by Professor Dahrendorf, a Liberal and the former West German Commissioner in the Community, who, in the Europa insert in The Times this week, said:
  "I have always held the view that a serious European regional policy is an essential feature for a policy for Europe. However, to date there has not been any serious European regional policy of this kind. What we now call regional policy is a limited process of

  1725
  financial adjustment without a genuine political conceptual foundation and is therefore quite inadequate."
  As I sat on the regional committee of the European Parliament throughout 1973 when the main guidelines were being laid down, the passage which I have quoted sums up very well my feelings on this matter. The reason for this cannot be laid at the door of the West German Government for reducing the size of the fund. To a large degree it must be laid at the door of the British Government for refusing to accept commonly applicable standards for regional development throughout Europe. If we do not have commonly applicable standards we do not have a common European regional policy.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman quote Professor Dahrendorf even further, because he also says that in Bonn we have been described as the "paymasters". Moreover, that is the West German Government's attitude and it has materially affected the effective setting out of a really useful regional policy. Professor Dahrendorf is implying that the attitude of other countries involves the effectiveness of the regional policy.
  Mr. Johnston: Of course everyone is entitled to read into other people's words various things. However, I have the article before me, and Ralf Dahrendorf, understandably, knowing his views, objects to the word "paymaster" and points out quite justifiably and correctly that West Germany has benefited economically a great deal from its membership of the Community, and, therefore, those who use the expression—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: In Bonn.
  Mr. Johnston:—yes, in Bonn—should not use it. However, that in no way detracts from the argument that I am advancing. I am putting forward the view that to a degree the British Government's attitude has helped the "paymaster" argument and given it a strength and credence which it would not otherwise have had.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford spoke about a number of matters such as pollution and the aircraft industry. One could add to the list, even safety glass for windscreens in motor cars, for example, where Britain seems to be
  1726
  the country which drags its feet. In the limited time available, however, I shall concentrate on only two subjects. First is the question of energy.
  The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the spokesman for the Conservative Front Bench, castigated the Government on the results of the Rome conference. I can remember about a fortnight or three weeks ago, during the last foreign affairs debate, the Government Front Bench pressing the Conservative Front Bench again and again to say whether it would favour Britain pressing for its own place at the Paris energy conference. There was a complete lack of answer. The Conservatives would not state their position, and, therefore, I believe that they are open to some criticism. At the time I said that it was wrong. I believed then that it was wrong, and I still believe that it was wrong for a number of reasons.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Knutsford when he referred to a "Pilgrim's Progress," because there is an element of that which we must never forget. This is a community with an ideal. There is no point in being a community if the case is otherwise. Both Front Benches are fond of saying that we must be practical and that the idealists should have their dreams in little corners; but that is not enough.
  If one is in a community and one has a good card, surely one uses it within that community to strengthen one's position rather than as a means of setting oneself apart from that community. In my view, that is almost axiomatic. We are in the Community and have the advantage of being potentially the major oil producer in that Community. Therefore, surely we should seek to be the people who take the lead in evolving Community policy. That is a sensible course. After all, if one is to make a case for what the Government initially sought and quite clearly failed to achieve, it must be based on the idea that somehow we have different aims and objectives from the rest of the Community. Otherwise, why do it? What are those aims? Assuming that we obtained a separate place at the conference in Paris, no one has ever said what the British representative would have said which would have been different from what the Luxembourg representative would have said on behalf

  1727
  of the Community. Herr Schmidt's response to the Prime Minister's remarks about joining OPEC was understandable and reasonable.
  In June the Foreign Secretary said:
  "There is another important and related field whereby acting together we can promote our common interests in relations between producers and consumers of energy."
  We had a great opportunity to take the lead—that is what the right hon. Member for Knutsford was criticising and what I am criticising—in seeking harmonisation not of the petty-fogging tittle tattle that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet rightly criticised, but of a major central issue in formulating a European policy and perhaps in turn building a bridge with OPEC.
  Secondly, there is the question of direct elections. With respect, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, not for the first time—of course, I am being opinionated in saying this—displayed his continuing inability to understand the spirit, purpose and point of the Community. It is not that we must do only what is legally laid down. If we lived our lives in that kind of way we would lead a pretty miserable existence.
  Mr. Jay: I was not saying that we should merely do what was legally laid down. I was pointing out, in the words of the Treaty, what was legally laid down. Surely it is best to know that.
  Mr. Johnston: I agree that it is certainly always best to know where one stands legally. But what the Minister, who has since temporarily departed from our midst, sought to point out to the right hon. Gentleman was that it was not only the words which were important, but what one read into them and what one intended to do in joining the Community.
  If we go back to the referendum, which the Minister determinedly refused to do, it was all about the famous Tory terms which were so destructive to this country. The argument was about the current economic situation. No one from the great democratic Labour Party made terms that the process of the democratisation of Europe should be accelerated and that this was what we wanted to see happen. I found it extraordinary then, and I still find it extraordinary, that Mem-
  1728
  bers of the Labour Party seem willing and anxious to retard the process of democratisation.
  Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Johnston: If I may be permitted to finish this point, the hon. Gentleman may have added ammunition to throw at me when I give way to him. It seems that in the referendum, the Labour Party, and certain elements within it still, on the one hand, yielded to a British nationalistic argument, but, on the other hand, condemned with the utmost fury the Scottish National Party for using precisely the same arguments on behalf of Scotland as they had been using on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. The two arguments are nationalist and comparable.
  Mr. Spearing: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that many hon. Members on this side of the House are not too keen on the Market for reasons of internationalism. Does he agree that just having a vote to an Assembly of indefinite power is not necessarily an advance towards democracy? Does he also agree that the Council of Ministers should issue a list of its decisions? Would not that be immediate and more effective democracy? Does he further agree that going to an Assembly which would gain power would inevitably mean a federal State?
  Mr. Johnston: I would welcome a federal State. That is the difference between us. I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman that it probably would be of value for the Council of Ministers to issue a list of its decisions. However, I do not think that it is practical in all sense for the Council to make its discussions public.
  Mr. Spearing: Its decisions.
  Mr. Johnston: Its decisions, yes. That is a valid point.
  To return to the main argument, because time is always against us, in short I fail to understand the Labour Party's approach to direct elections.
  The hon. Member for Crewe interrupted the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet rather critically, as far as I could understand her, on the whole concept of direct elections. It would appear that the hon. Lady prefers preferential

  1729
  appointment to democratic election. We now have a delegation in Strasbourg which is preferentially appointed, not democratically elected. If she prefers the former to the latter I am very sad.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The only thing which would convert me to any change would be not to have the situation which arose in the Liberal Party when an elected representative—namely, the hon. Gentleman himself—was removed from the so-called European Parliament to be replaced by a Member of another place.
  Mr. Johnston:That the hon. Lady should have the total and unutterable gall to produce that as an argument leaves me virtually speechless—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Good.
  Mr. Johnston:—which, for me, is a fairly rare condition. I shall certainly return to that point later. I do not want to use too much time or break off from the argument that I am putting forward.
  In our last foreign affairs debate we were told by the Foreign Secretary—indeed, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet agreed—that direct elections were difficult, that we had to be practical—the "in" word is "practical"—and that we should not hurry too much. Now we are suddenly told that there will be direct elections in May 1978.
  There are many contradictions in both parties about the whole business of direct elections. It is not only the Labour Party which is open to contradiction. Recently the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose presence is here even if he is not, urged the importance of direct elections. But, as short a time ago as 1973, at Hampton Court, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I hope that our objective of a democratic community is not going to be misdirected by a desire to see direct elections to the European Parliament. I believe that we have so much to achieve, without diverting ourselves from our real objective by an argument on whether we have to have direct elections or indirect elections for our democratic system."
  That was quite recent. I should like to know precisely the Conservative Party's position. I have heard the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) expostulate at length in the Strasbourg Assembly, but when he has come back
  1730
  to this House a quietness has fallen over him. The same arguments have not been put forward, and there has been no evidence of enthusiasm—if enthusiasm is a quality which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet recognises—within his speech either today or, for that matter, in the recent foreign affairs debate.
  We also have the Labour Party's view. Fortunately and conveniently, we have the Foreign Secretary's statement quoted in the White Paper. Referring to direct elections, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have asked that these should be studied. There are difficulties for us as for others. I cannot promise we shall be able to put forward an answer in July."
  This is December.
  "Matters are complicated by devolution of powers to Scotland and to Wales and I cannot promise that we will have an early reply but I do not intend to hold this up."
  Splendid.
  "We will try to be ready in the autumn. I hope you will consider this is reasonable".
  The autumn leaves have fallen and the winter is upon us. Yet we are not even at the beginning of an answer. What I find extraordinary is that this autumn we had a White Paper on elections to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in which there was a section on the European Community. Paragraph 87 reads:
  "The Government must remain responsible for all international relations, including those concerned with our membership of the European Community; no other course would be compatible with political unity".
  Does that mean that in June the Government were seriously thinking that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should have representation in some way in the European institution? There is no other explanation, as far as I can see, for the lack of continuity between these two views.
  What, therefore, is the position now, and has it changed? What is now going to happen? As I said, we have the report in The Times—I read The Times as well as The Guardian—in which we are told—and it is the only thing we have to go on—
  "The first direct elections to the European Parliament will be held in May 1978, with Britain and Denmark being allowed to decide their own dates."
  What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that we are to have a different date?

  1731
  Incidentally, from the point of view of at least one Scottish Member on the Government Benches, he and I know that this will be just about the same date as the elections for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, paradoxically. It could be very awkward in that sense; but never mind.
  What is going to happen? The result of direct elections will be an increase in the size of the European Assembly and an increase in the British representation from the present 36 to presumably the 67 recommended in the Patijn Report. Will the difference be made up by appointment? That is the sort of thing that apparently the hon. Member for Crewe would enthusiastically welcome.
  The fact is—I return directly to the hon. Lady's intervention—that when the Labour delegation went to Strasbourg, the Liberal representation was reduced from two to one. Because of that, if for no other reason, I still feel very critical of the Government in this matter. The situation was that if we had seen the British delegation appointed in the same proportional way as the West German delegation, for instance, there would have been seven entitled to go, but, in fact, the Liberal representation was cut from two to one because of an unholy and undemocratic alliance between the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is nothing to be proud about in that, nor are there any debating points in it at all.
  Mr. William Hamilton: There is one exception to that. When the Liberals had the chance of having only one representative at Strasbourg, they chose to have a peer who represents no one and is probably the most unpopular member in the whole Strasbourg Parliament.
  Mr. Johnston: I have a great respect for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but a remark of that sort is not particularly worthy of him. If he wishes to make criticism of my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn in personal terms such as those he has used, I think he ought to do it to his face and not in this Chamber in that way.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I have done so.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman may well be a master of abuse. I certainly would not try to challenge him in that area. However, perhaps I may answer the question which he put in such an impolite fashion. The answer is that we were put in an impossible position by an act of great unfairness. We decided that because my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn was involved in a long and complicated report, he should continue on there until he had completed it. That was a perfectly reasonable decision to take. What was totally and utterly unreasonable in all of this was the action of the Government. It is all very well that the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, for that matter, should be engaged, as they now both are, in arguing for stronger budgetary powers for the European Assembly. But I would be against giving it stronger powers over anything if it is simply to be a body consisting of people appointed rather than democratically elected.
  It is not only the Liberal Party here which is of importance but also the Scottish National Party, the Ulster Unionists and the other Ulster parties, because Europe will not work if minorities are repressed. If minorities are repressed we shall not have a development of harmonious relationships.
  I understand that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), another Member for whom I have the greatest respect, is to speak later in the debate, almost in his position as Leader of the Labour Party delegation. I am sure that he will recall that he was one of the members of a committee of the European Movement which produced an excellent document suggesting ways in which elections could be operated in this country and which came out in favour of a proportional system.
  Lastly, we have not said anything about the Tindemans Report. There is no time for me to say anything more about it, but at the end of it all, unless we in this House and in the country at large begin to think and talk in terms of supra-nationalism, the whole great adventure—the "Prilgrim's Progress" of the right hon. Member for Knutsford—will come to nothing. I should deeply regret that, and so would every citizen of this country.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not in the Chamber at present but is here in spirit. I would say to Government Benches that the right hon. Hugh Gaitskell is not here, regrettably, but, my goodness, he is here in spirit on this subject.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that traditionally his speech followed that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), or the other way around. I think that the hon. Member for Inverness will agree that I follow him or he follows me in practically every debate that we have on this subject.
  However, one thing I would say about the hon. Gentleman is that I respect him because he sees the logic of the Common Market totally, because he is an out-and-out federalist. I respect him for that, although I disagree with him because that is why I entirely disagree with the Common Market.
  Now that the Minister has returned to the Chamber, I should like to deal with one of his remarks. Perhaps he did not mean it in quite the way he said it. He said that we were irrevocably in the Common Market. I think he meant that that was as a result of the referendum. But it is not legally so, because the Government's little paper, during the referendum campaign, said
  "our continued membership will depend upon the continuing assent of Parliament."
  Therefore, it is revocable. It is not irrevocable. I thought that I had better put the Minister right, as he is a Minister in the Foreign Office and is concerned with the Common Market, about the situation in which this country stands vis-à-vis the Market.
  Mr. Hattersley: I should like to speculate on the habit that opponents of the Common Market have developed of taking their legalistic quibbles to absolutely European proportions. I should have thought that the tradition of this House and this country was that we looked at these things practically. Looking at the practical reality, does the hon. Gentleman really think that the question might be re-opened, that another
  1734
  referendum might be held, or that the House might vote to withdraw Britain from the Community?
  Mr. Marten: With respect, that was not really the point. I was quoting exactly what the Government said. If what they said is impracticable and is nonsense in terms of what happens in this country, why use that argument in the referendum campaign? Is the referendum result now to be declared null and void because the country was misled? That is something which the hon. Gentleman ought to consider.
  I come to a technical question of the procedure in the House for dealing with Market proposals and proposed legislation, which we have not yet got anywhere near right. I am a member of the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee does its best. It refers matters to the House for debate. As we all know, such debates take place at a ridiculous hour of the night. I do not think that they can be taken as a reflection of the will of the House at all, because very often there are only two Back-Bench speeches, which does not reflect the view of the country or the House. Now we have a new Committee which, I understand, is powerless to express an opinion. It can merely note something. It cannot say whether it rejects it or accepts it. That is useless. More and more of the debates on the Floor of the House are "take note" debates, without amendments being made. The House is not exercising its powers, as we were told it would do after we entered the Community. We must look at this matter again. We have not got it right.
  I was in Brussels the other day and I came across the question of the driving licence, which we debated in, I think, the summer of 1972 or 1973. I put a motion on the Order Paper then saying that we did not like this proposal and, after a lot of badgering every Thursday afternoon, the Government gave us time to debate it. In the end, they accepted the motion, and that decision went back to Brussels, and resulted in the proposal being withdrawn. I imagine it will be re-submitted in a more sensible way, bearing in mind the decision of this House. We need more debates in which we can actually take decisions.

  1735
  I see the problem of binding Ministers too closely when they go to negotiate. They must have a certain amount of latitude, but they should be bound within certain limits, and if they want to go further, they should have to report back to this House or to a relevant committee, if we ever establish a committee which is relevant.
  I see no reason for the House not having had a statement today on the Rome summit meeting. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are so embarrassed that they have ducked out of making a statement which could have been referred to in this debate. The date of the conference has been known for weeks and the Leader of the House could have put down this debate for tomorrow. The statement could have been made then and we could have debated it afterwards. The Government have ducked out of it and should be severely criticised for doing so.
  We must await the statement because we do not know yet whether the proposed European passport is to be compulsory. Am I to be asked to give up my British passport with the Royal crest on the front? I am very proud of it. Why should I be asked to give it up? What purpose is there in it? Surely I can use my passport in France, Germany or anywhere else? Why do I need a new passport with the word "Community" written on the front? This is a classic example of a step towards federalism. I know the Liberal Party will welcome it, but this sort of thing will go on happening until we are locked into a federal State from which we cannot withdraw.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North has adequately dealt with the commitment to direct elections to the European Parliament. May I ask the Minister to get his legal advisers to look at this again? I have seen the correspondence the Foreign Secretary has had with his colleagues, and his arguments are very debatable. I am a lawyer, though not of the eminence of the Foreign Office lawyers, and I try to interpret Acts. I do not see any commitment. How can we be committed to something if we do not know what it is? We do not know what powers the new Assembly will have or how many members there
  1736
  will be. It is an impossible situation to be committed to something which is unknown.
  If we were committed by the Treaty of Rome on 1st January 1973, why did the Government say in the White Paper before the referendum—and this is repeated in the White Paper we are debating today—that at the Heads of Government meeting in Paris last December there was support for the view that elections to the European Assembly was one of their objectives, but that the Prime Minister made clear that the United Kingdom could not take up a position on this proposal before the process of renegotiation had been completed and the results submitted to the people in the referendum? If he could not take up a position before the referendum, he still cannot take up a position. The referendum has not altered the Treaty of Rome one iota, and the Minister of State has said that we were committed by that Treaty.
  The White Paper says that any scheme for direct elections will require an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. What right has anyone to require an Act to be passed when Parliament has not discussed or voted on this matter? This is an intolerable attitude. If there are ever direct elections to the European Assembly, it will become a legislative Parliament.
  There are two indicators to back up my claim. Paragraph 12 of the communiqué issued after the summit meeting in December 1974 says:
  "The competence of the European Assembly will be extended, in particular by granting it certain parts in the Community's legislative process."
  I cannot imagine that, say, 600 people would go through the bother of getting elected and then just twiddle their thumbs and express opinions without having any power—and power means legislation.
  Article 3 of the European Parliament's draft convention on these elections says:
  "Representatives shall be elected for a term of five years."
  Paragraph 2 says:
  "The five-year legislative period shall begin at the opening of the first session…".
  It is clear that this will be a legislative body. If the majority legislating there is Socialist or Left Wing, it will pass

  1737
  the legislation it wants. As one hon. Member said on the day after the referendum "Now let us make it a Socialist Europe". That is how they will do it. But suppose the country elects a Conservative Government. How will they reverse Socialist legislation imposed on them by the European Parliament? They will not be able to do so. Equally, the situation could apply in reverse where the majority of the European Parliament was Right Wing and, for some curious reason, the electors of this country wanted another Socialist Government.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Never.
  Mr. Marten: They might. They are sometimes peculiar.
  We must recognise the extreme seriousness of this for our existing system of parliamentary democracy. Once the European Parliament begins to legislate, we are on the road down to a federal State. There can be no denying that. The passport proposal is an indication of what is in the minds of the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Prime Ministers of member countries. It is all part of the same game. Yet in a debate in the European Parliament on 9th July, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), referring to the referendum, said:
  "it would be a very grave error to assume that was a referendum in favour of a federal Europe…".
  So why do we go on down this track towards a federal Europe? Some people may deny that we are doing so, but I wonder if they really believe that. After all, it is the only way the Common Market will ever be able to work.
  In Germany last week, with the Select Comittee, I had the clear impression that the Germans intend that the Common Market should develop into a federal State. I was left in no doubt about that. Yet in this country certain people say that the Common Market will not become a federal State. I believe it must. We are wrong to mislead the Germans into thinking that this country will ever agree to becoming part of a federal State. Our leaders on both Front Benches should say firmly that we are in the Common Market because that has been accepted by the referendum, but that we will not be a
  1738
  federal State or a part of it. That would be a clear statement to the German nation.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell. May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is an alternative to a federal consummation, and that it is an alternative which is implicit in the Treaty of Rome? It is that we are on the way to a unitary State, for the Treaty of Rome imposes a legislative supremacy to the institutions of the Community. That is to say, it sets up the sort of relationship which used to exist between the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the subordinate Parliament of Ireland before 1782. While I follow my hon. Friend's argument entirely, therefore, it might not even be the powers of a federal province which remained in the ultimate to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Marten: I would go along precisely with what my right hon. Friend says. That is the main reason why I have always opposed our membership of the Common Market.
  Before Parliament agreed to direct elections—if it agreed, that is—we should have to know the precise powers that Parliament would exercise and the limitations imposed on those powers. We should need an absolute assurance that there would be no extension of those powers by the European Parliament itself, once it was directly elected, without the consent of each national Parliament.
  Direct elections would create certain problems such as how to deal with Berlin and the problem of representation from tiny Luxembourg. If Luxembourg had one member, the Parliament would have to consist of about 700 members, assuming that each constituency in the Community was the same size as Luxembourg. The thought of 700 members commuting into Brussels is an absurdity.
  Another problem would concern Belgium over the Walloons and the Flemish, but that is a particular problem for Belgium.
  On what day would the elections be held? If we had direct elections, say, one year after our General Election the representation would reflect the swing against the Government which traditionally occurs at that period after a General Election. The representatives

  1739
  going to Europe would not reflect the feelings of the Government who took office at the last General Election.
  Would the Parliament have a second Chamber. I am terrified at the thought of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) sitting in a second Chamber like some senior baron of Europe. I have looked at the idea of a dual mandate. I cannot see members surviving membership of both Parliaments. Physically, it could lead to a breakdown for people.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Member not agree that it is also of considerable importance whether or not parties are proportionately represented from Britain as well as the rest of the Community?
  Mr. Marten: It may be, but that is a different question which depends on what is meant by proportional representation. There are so many different variations of it.
  If we should agree to direct elections it would inevitably lead to a federal or unitary State, and I can see no escape from that. The Common Market will work only if it ultimately becomes that. We must deal very carefully with this issue and not be taken along on a tide because the Prime Minister agreed to it at the Rome conference.
  The real answer to the whole of our problems is to have a much wider grouping of what is really Europe—not this narrow grouping—based on a free trade area bringing in OECD and NATO so that it can grow organically over a much longer time scale into the sort of unity, but not union, which we all want whatever view we take of the future of Europe.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I welcome this opportunity to speak, not least because those of us who sit in the European Assembly have a special responsibility, which is to express our opinions on what is happening there to our colleagues in the House of Commons. One aspect of the European Parliament which is exceedingly helpful is that I can obtain there information about directives, recommendations and other aspects of Community policy that are not always
  1740
  made clear to an extremely busy House of Commons which, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made clear, has still not got into correct perspective its procedure for examining the flood of paper which flows from Brussels.
  I hope that we may be able to talk frankly in this debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is not here. He displayed an endearing ambivalence. It hardly behoves him to attack the demands of the British Government for a seat at the energy conference and then to delight quite so openly when the Government are unable to sustain their demand in the face of the other EEC nations. I bitterly regret the fact that Britain has given way on an issue so important as the energy problem. The Minister of State said that he did not wish to dwell on the referendum, but the White Paper on the terms of the renegotiation made it perfectly clear that Britain would never give up control of North Sea oil and natural gas, and said so in simple and straightforward terms. Many of us believe that that kind of control will not be achieved if Britain takes a subsidiary place, with someone else putting forward an agreed and general policy. It will come only by pushing for specific interests to protect an issue of fundamental importance to the British people.
  The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) shares with me the responsibility of representing a very outspoken county. He said that in the six-month period that we are discussing the British Government had been responsible for the Community dragging its feet on the question of direct elections. I think that he said that Britain was acting as a brake. I find it increasingly difficult to understand his attitude. When other nations in the European Parliament, quite justifiably, protect their national interests, even to the extent of discussing particular industries and industrial involvements, they are accepted as being wholly European. If the British endeavour to do the same in an honest and straightforward manner they are constantly accused of dragging their feet, of being difficult, of being bad Europeans, and of seeking to wreck the Community.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept a bit of advice. In future he

  1741
  should not to try to negotiate; he should simply be as intransigent as the representatives of other nations. He should use fiscal policies on our borders to protect our interests, so that we may be taken to the European Court. By that time we shall have had enough time to protect whatever industry is concerned. Perhaps if we adopted that approach we would make better progress.
  However, part of the problem in the discussion of matters such as direct elections is that the British are prepared to discuss the matter in their own Parliament, in straightforward terms. This afternoon there has been a great deal of discussion on the question whether or not there is a legal obligation. I do not want to follow too far in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay), although the position he has taken is the accurate one.
  I am concerned that we are not yet spelling out precisely what direct elections will mean. This afternoon there has been a great deal of talk about honesty and practicality. If we are practical politicians, do we seriously believe that the British electorate, pushed into a constituency of a size that would be almost inevitable to produce 67 members of a European Parliament, will take an active interest in those elections, will be deeply involved, and will turn out in large numbers to vote? Or do we believe that only a small percentage will vote—perhaps a similar percentage to that which used to vote in some county council elections—and send to the European Parliament representatives who, precisely because they do not have a dual mandate, do not represent the people in an accurate and honest fashion?
  European parliamentarians will not be more conscious of the real feelings of a democratic society if they hold a dual mandate than if they are simply sent there as representatives of one stratum of British society. We must resist attempts to remove from national parliaments the responsibility and power to make decisions that will affect the EEC while their representatives in the European Parliament are putting forward those ideas as a reflection of the views of the British people.
  I should resist any attempt to move towards a proportional representation
  1742
  system. I am sorry to have to say that I believe that many of the newspapers and the quite sincere politicians who are pushing direct elections to the European Parliament are doing so because they regard it as a means of opening the way to proportional representation in Great Britain. They do so because they can see a a political advantage to themselves. This is a quite defensible attitude, but they should be honest about it. They should make it clear—as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) does when he talks about a federal Europe—that their reason for seeking this kind of proportional representation is that under our existing parliamentary system they are unable to get enough Members into the House of Commons.
  Mr. Russell Johnston Mr. Russell Johnston rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This will be the second interruption from the hon. Gentleman, who has already addressed the House for 25 minutes.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Lady will concede that it is quite democratic to seek to ensure that all points of view are represented in an Assembly, in proportion to the views of the people in the country?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, precisely as long as one makes it quite clear, in the arguments one is putting forward, that one's interests are not only those of the European Parliament but extend to a much wider sphere, and that one is concerned about the political situation in this country. If that were so, and if the constant barrage of propaganda that is now beginning to pour out of some politically motivated—dare I say?—editors made it as clear as that, the debate would be very different from the one that has taken place so far. After all, it is precisely in the detailed work that takes place in Europe that the parliamentarians have a specific rôle to play.
  I was entertained to hear that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet did not believe that much had happened in the past six months. Those of us who sit on the committees of the European Parliament believe that there is a great deal of movement on all sorts of fronts—but never, I am sorry to say, on fundamental matters such as agricultural policy.

  1743
  Indeed, I have introduced the Agriculture Committee to a new, dirty word. I have only to say "consumer" to produce a gasp of horror around the table, because that word is hardly ever heard in any other place.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Lady does not agree, perhaps she can tell me an area in which, in the past six months, the consumer has been given protection of any kind that was not available before.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady is very selective in her choice of dates. Had it not been for the EEC we should have been paying vastly more for sugar, due to the desperate world shortage of that commodity. However, she chooses to leave that figure out of account.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady cannot lead me off with old temptations such as that. She knows very well that 70 per cent. of the budget of the EEC is spent on agriculture, and she knows equally well that the European Parliament, in which she and I sit, has virtually no control over 70 per cent. of that budget and will not obtain that control while the EEC progresses in its present manner.
  Unless there are some fundamental changes, it is no use discussing the Regional Development Fund. If one of the major Governments of the EEC say that they are not prepared to agree to any extension of finance for projects such as the Regional Development Fund, it is no use us, as a Socialist group, deploring the fact that the Social Fund is not large enough to help more people be retrained. One of the Commissioner's added up very neatly for me the problem of the EEC when, in Brussels yesterday, speaking on the question of employment, he said that it was not possible to do anything that was positive but it was possible to stop national Governments doing anything that was negative. His definition of "negative" was "protecting the interests of their own people in specific industries". That is not how I see my job, as a representative, or my future, either in this Parliament or any other.
  If there is to be any realism in our discussion of the EEC there must be far tighter control over the day-to-day
  1744
  directives and decision-making processes of the Commission. Those who wax most eloquent in this House about the over-officered local government in this country might find a fruitful area of examination if they asked how many multinational civil servants were employed at various levels to produce—if I may use the term—tiny eggs out of an elephant. If there is doubt about that, I point out that those of us who sit on committees of the European Parliament are fascinated by the way in which, like the tide, civil servants flow in and out, according to which item the committee is discussing. We can instance highly hilarious situations when we have spent an hour and a half discussing a particular item on the agenda—an item which, if costed in terms of units of account, would mean that our discussion has cost more than if it had been decided by the Commission in the first place.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a remarkable fact that, in total, the Community consists of about 14,000 civil servants, in comparison with over 500,000 in this country?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not disagree with the figure that the hon. Gentleman has given. When I see how many that is—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We cannot see them.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady should have rather more contact with both her own constituency and Government Departments. She would then see civil servants without any difficulty whatever. If the figure is 14,000 now, what will it be at the end of 10 years, particularly if we allow Commission institutions to grow at an even faster rate?
  Those who take part in the European Parliament have a responsibility to return to the House of Commons and make it clear to other hon. Members exactly what is happening. We never have time to discuss the implications of, for example, pollution policy, the battle which is coming on tachographs, or the considerable changes which are to come in many areas of industry. Unless we tackle those subjects, and unless those of us who have a dual mandate are able to learn the views of all our colleagues, it will be a question not of whether direct elections to a

  1745
  European Parliament will produce changes but of whether the European institutions bear any relation whatever to the ordinary man in the street.
  We are elected through a democratic system because people care about democracy. We must not forgo those responsibilities lightly, but we shall do so if we set up yet another tier, another bureaucracy, and another totally unrepresentative Assembly elsewhere.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: At first, I thought that I should find it difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), but in many ways I agree with her. It is an unfortunate accident of timing that this debate takes place the very day after the Rome summit meeting, because we have naturally turned away from what I regard as the main object of this debate, that is, for us to report back to the House and discuss events in the European Parliament over the past six months. I hope, therefore, that if I do just that and stick to one area which is of interest to me, something worth while will result.
  I serve on the Public Health and Environment Committee of the European Assembly. I had not dealt with these subjects in great detail before I went to the European Parliament, but I have learned a lot in the past few months. I have found a great deal of the work which passes through that Committee to be extremely worth while, and I believe that it will bear fruit in a better life for the peoples of the Community, irrespective of their countries.
  There are, however, some rather disturbing elements within that committee and within the Commission, of which the House should take careful note. In my view, irrespective of the Government in power, this country has been in the van of improvements in the environment. Indeed, we can be proud of what we have achieved over the past 20 years. We do not, therefore, need lessons from anyone on the way in which we should look after and improve our environment.
  The problem which I see us facing within the Community is the imposition of arbitrary standards which will be laid down for all Community countries, irrespective of whether those standards are
  1746
  required. I sense within the Commission an inability to take account of climatic differences or local considerations, and I am sorry to say that very often what is masked as an environment question and directive has its beginning in either political or economic circumstances. I deplore that. Within the Public Health and Environment Committee, the question of the bettering of the environment should take pride of place, rather than political or economic considerations.
  In our committee—we must try to bring this to the notice of the Commission as much as we can—we should proceed only by comparing like with like. We must work for a sensible pattern of standards for the environment throughout the Community. What possible reason can there be for comparing, for example, the Mediterranean with the North Sea, or the Rhine with the Thames or the Tees—or, to come to more local matters, for joining in the same consideration Spaghetti Junction and a roundabout outside Dorchester? Of course, one cannot do that. It is no good saying that the situation around Spaghetti Junction is impossible, so we must impose a standard right across the board and take everybody to the level of pollution control that is applied to Spaghetti Junction. We run into deep water if we do that, and we reach decisions which are impossible for any member of the Community to carry forward for any length of time.
  In my view, the Community, especially against the background of our present economic difficulties, should concentrate first and foremost on dealing with known problems on which we can reach a degree of acceptance that there is a risk to the environment and public health. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) mentioned motor car windscreens. Here is an obvious hazard on which we should all be looking for a common standard and working closely towards it.
  An example of going the other way is the decision on the lead content of petrol. This has now been passed through the European Parliament and has been accepted by the vast majority of people within the Parliament, and it is now in the form of a directive which will eventually go forward to the Council of Ministers for acceptance. It will impose a common standard on the people of this country and of the Community.

  1747
  Speaking on this subject on 11th April this year—I quote his words to give the background and explain the story—the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment said:
  "If lead is removed from petrol, more oil is needed to produce the same degree of efficiency. For balance of payments reasons the Government were not able to proceed with the next stage of the programme of reduction from 0·55 to 0·40 grammes per litre. Such a reduction would cost us £20 million per annum, provided that at current market prices all the other byproducts from crude oil could be sold."
  Those figures would, of course, have risen as a result of the rise in oil prices. The hon. Gentleman went on:
  "I am told that it is far from likely that, if more oil were imported to be processed, we should be able to sell off all the byproducts. If that were the case, the cost to the country of the further reduction would be about £60 million. Therefore, between £20 million and £60 million is the best estimate I can give of the cost of the further reduction of the lead content in petrol."—[Official Report, 11th April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 1636.]
  That is a low estimate. Estimates that I have had from the oil industry are far higher. However, I should have accepted that reduction and the consequent cost if it had been proved to be necessary for the health of our people and the environment in which we live. All that the Commission says is:
  "Whereas since in the present state of scientific knowledge there is no evidence to prove that existing concentrations of lead in the atmosphere do not constitute a danger to public health "—
  and so on, taking that as the basis for action.
  That is a ludicrous way to work. One could apply it almost anywhere. As I said in the Assembly only the other day, proceeding on that basis we should now be thinking of banning boats from Loch Ness because, certainly at present, there is no firm evidence to show that there is not a Loch Ness monster, and if we banned boats now we should be guarding against the possibility that one might one day emerge from the depths and overturn the boats if they were still there. It is a ridiculous state of affairs, and we ought not to tolerate it.
  There is always a clash between what is right for the environment and the economic cost. I know that other Governments—certainly the German Government—take the view that they have to balance
  1748
  these matters very nicely and, if it is regarded as in the interests of the Community and of the environment to take on the cost, they balance the economic consequences very carefully. On the question of lead content of petrol, my view, and the view of our group in the European Parliament, was that the case had not been proved, and we therefore opposed the directive, but I am sorry to say that we did not have the support of others within the Parliament.
  The hon. Lady spoke of the way in which the Socialist Group at the European Parliament operates. I fully acknowledge that hon. Members here are part of your group, but I believe that there are certain matters on which one should stand apart from one's group, especially in decisions of this kind, which are wrong for this country and are not necessary within the Community I hope that in the months to come, as your Socialist Group settles down within the European Parliament, you will feel able to take a more independent line.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall do my best, but the hon. Gentleman must address the House in the customary way.
  Mr. Spicer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is right for us to judge each case on its merits and not to approach it on the diktat of a particular group within the European Assembly.
  Many important decisions lie ahead of us. Tomorrow, the Public Health and Environment Committee will be discussing the problems of titanium dioxide—an important matter. From that discussion could come the closure of British factories. That could come about purely and simply because of the pollution that exists in the Mediterranean. I believe that the motivation behind the directive and the report that we shall discuss stems from a Mediterranean problem that is not applicable, for example, to the north-east of Britain. The economic consequences of allowing the directive to go forward and to receive the support of the European Assembly could be disastrous. From discussing the overall lead content of air we could go on and on.
  Above all, we must not accept harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation within Britain or within the European

  1749
  Assembly. If we do that we shall bring the Assembly into disrepute. That would not help the people of the Community as we wish to help them.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. George Reid: I start with the simple proposition that as power within the European Community grows at the centre there should be a corresponding growth of power at the periphery. It is significant that Lord Kilbrandon, having sat through five long and hard years on the Constitution Commission, has said that it is his considered opinion that the new constitutional relationship for Scotland will be between Edinburgh and Brussels, with Westminster withering away.
  Within the past week the Government have produced a mouse of a constitutional White Paper on devolution. The White Paper specifically excludes the Scottish Assembly from having its own links with the institutions of the European Communities. It argues, with gratifying frankness, that
  "no other course would be compatible with political unity."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), in her maiden speech in the European Parliament, recalled asking European officials what réle they suggested for Scotland. She received the answer,
  "the leader of the downtrodden regions of Europe".
  That will not do. With equally gratifying logic, the Commission recognises that the only way Scotland can get representation across the board is by first achieving independence—in other words, by the Nine becoming Ten, with the tenth member being Scotland. I hope that this is the path which Scotland, given adequate guarantees on oil and fish, will follow over the next decade. In saying that, I trust that Scotland will get terms sufficient to stay in.
  I am in good company because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has dared the Labour Party to accept full Scottish independence within the Community. How he expects to achieve that without simultaneously fracturing the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom is a curious exercise in both logic and semantics. Even the Conservatives in one of their more
  1750
  lucid moments have proposed a Scottish European Minister. Of course, in terms of devolution, the Conservatives now have a Thatcher position, a Heath position, a Rifkind position, a Taylor position, a Fletcher position and a Berridge position. I suppose that they are bound to be right at least part of the time.
  In Scotland we need a separate Treasury to get indigenous growth in the economy. Likewise, we need separate representation in the Community both to play our full part in European affairs and to safeguard our essential interests, especially oil and fish. That does not mean that we seek nineteenth century nation-State sovereignty. There will be many constraints in terms of our strategic position, our geographical position and our trading links in a self-governing Scotland, just as there are now constraints on the United Kingdom.
  In that sense, with Westminster having ceded sovereignty to Brussels, does the word "separatism" have any real meaning within the framework of the European Communities? That is an especially relevant question given the free movement of men and materials throughout the EEC. I ask the Treasury Bench and the Conservative Opposition to make it clear whether "separatism" has any meaning within the EEC. I have asked Ministers that question before, and, after an embarrassed and rather pregnant silence, I have been told that as the Government have ruled out separatism there is no point in discussing the matter. But that answer will not do today.
  Both the Minister and his Opposition shadow know full well that their Scottish colleagues have been painting black pictures of Customs posts at the border, of the night mail being stopped and searched at Gretna and of Scots being refused a passport to visit their granny in Blackpool. English Members may be surprised, but that is the trivial, injudicious and invidious level of debate to which the Scots have been subjected in the past year. Let the Minister be more open tonight; let him admit that central decision-making in London has turned Scotland into a rather dull provincial society. Let him admit that it is time we Scots were outward-looking again, and that we should take our traditional place in the councils of Europe. In that sense, how can one be an internationalist unless

  1751
  one is a nationalist first? I look forward to hearing a clear definition of what separatism means within Europe.
  I add a word of warning. The Minister should not make comparisons between Scotland and the "other regions" of Europe. The SNP has much sympathy for the Bretons, the Frisians, the Basques, the Occitanians and the Corsicans, though we deplore the methods that their wilder men employ. But there is a great difference in that they are minorities within their respective national boundaries. The Scots, representing the oldest nation in Europe within present boundaries, are an overwhelming majority in their own land.
  The Scots were the first people to enter a common market in 1707, but they retained the essential ingredients of national life in their own institutions—a separate and European legal system, a separate Church, a separate educational system and a separate system of administration. If Luxembourg, with half the population of Edinburgh, can be represented at the top EEC table, why not the people of Scotland? If Denmark and Eire are there, why not Scotland? Why cannot Scotland sit alongside its friends from England and Wales as an equal British State, linked in a confederation similar to the Nordic and Benelux unions? These matters will be decided at the next General Election. Let me remind Ministers that in Scots law it is only the people of Scotland who are sovereign.
  What is to happen in the meantime? In the past week we have had the White Paper. The SNP will now attempt to build on what devolution comes down to us and to strengthen the Assembly Bill. The Scottish Assembly will have some powers over Scots' health, education, transport, and a little power over agriculture and fisheries. Inevitably that means that Scottish Assemblymen will have a substantial interest in EEC decisions and in the growing stream of regulations from Brussels pertaining to those areas of Government. The EEC dimension will be an inescapable and integral part of the work of almost all Assembly committees. The Lord President should recognise that fact now and should take steps to ensure that Scottish participation in EEC decision-making is as complete as possible.
  1752
  The most important step is to get Scottish representation on the Council of Ministers. Even within the present system, Scotland has a separate role. On five occasions so far Scots Ministers have attended Council meetings, the most obvious ministerial involvement being at Lord Advocate level, the separate Scots legal system necessitating a separate Scottish voice.
  Although these concessions go beyond the token representation given to the German länder, it is the intention of the SNP to ensure that Scotland is represented as part of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers on all occasions and that the Ministers involved should be Assembly Ministers. To facilitate this involvement, the Assembly Government should include a Minister for European Community Affairs, accompanied at Brussels, where necessary, by appropriate Scots departmental Ministers. The Assembly should also be able to appoint an official who would be attached to the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative's Office and who should have ambassadorial rank.
  In addition to having at watching brief over developments and the opportunity to speak on Scotland's behalf, the Minister for European Community Affairs should have a trigger on the United Kingdom veto, to the extent that the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would not ratify any decision of the Council of Ministers until he had first secured his Scottish colleague's assent.
  When the Assembly Bill finally comes before the House, my hon. Friends and I will seek to ensure that there is Scottish representation on such bodies as the Economic and Social Committee, the ECSC Consultative Committee and the Scientific and Technical Committee. Nominations for those bodies would tend to be made by institutions such as the STUC and the Scottish CBI but would be subject to Assembly sponsorship. As many of those areas where EEC secondary legislation is necessary are likely to impinge on the Assembly, it is logical for the implementation of such measures to be devolved, and that could be done by a fairly simple amendment to the European Communities Act 1972. I therefore hope that the Assembly will be empowered to set up its own sessional

  1753
  committee on European secondary legislation, perhaps in time extending its scope to review the implications of continuing United Kingdom legislation as it affects Scottish interests.
  Finally, I look for an Assembly international affairs liaison committee which would have broad responsibility for protecting Scottish interests at international level, keeping a specific watching brief on United Kingdom foreign policy and preparing the ground for a final settlement of Scotland's relationship with the EEC.
  Must the Government endure political disaster, similar to that in Bo'ness and Bishopbriggs last night, with Labour families, as one commentator said,
  "crumbling away into tributaries of the self-government torrent"
  before they revise their view of Scotland's place in the world? Is no rational conversion possible? Surely, an Assembly active in EEC affairs and capable of negotiating and developing Scotland's terms would allow a rational choice to be made.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I am the third member of the European Assembly to be called in the debate. It is a happy accident that the debate falls on a day on which most members of the European Assembly do not have duties on the other side of the water. It does not always happen that way. We can only continue to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that, so far as is conceivably possible, it is important for him to recognise that European debates in the House should not conflict with discussions in Europe in which we would wish to be involved.
  Now that I have listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is not here to give her impressions of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Scotland had representation similar to that of Eire and Denmark it would have 10 members in the European Parliament?
  Mr. William Hamilton: Where is the hon. Lady?
  Mr. Barnett: I am sorry that I gave way. I hoped that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire would tell us that his hon. Friend was engaged in one of the committees of the European Parliament. I am disappointed not to have the pleasure of hearing her distinctive contribution to the debate.
  Mr. William Hamilton: She might have been sorely embarrassed in seeking to defend her vote for Franco Spain.
  Mr. Barnett: I was not aware that the hon. Lady had cast such a vote. It reflects rather ill on the Scottish National Party.
  I listened with the closest interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who, unfortunately, is not now present. I am sure that he will not mind my repeating something that he said to me. He was a little concerned that I might have changed my position, as expressed during the referendum campaign, but I was able to reassure him when he questioned me about it. The result of the referendum and my experience as a member of the European Assembly have in no way altered the opinion which I expressed during the referendum campaign. If anything, it has confirmed me in the prejudice that I expressed. The experience of closer contact with the Commission and European institutions generally has confirmed the opinions that I expressed in the campaign and have long held.
  In the light of the misrepresentation that has been made against people who expressed anti-Market opinions during the campaign, I wish to state the assumptions upon which I base my opposition to our continued membership of the EEC and to explain exactly what they are.
  We were gravely slandered when we were described as narrow nationalists. I have never been a narow nationalist. During the whole of my adult political life I have been a strong internationalist. This persistent attack may have been a vulgar calumny of people like myself—especially Labour Members—who feel strongly on international issues.
  Upon thinking further about it, and in the light of my experience in the European Parliament, I have come to a conclusion on the question why so many people persistently referred to those who

  1755
  took up an anti-Market line as narrow nationalists. The reason is that the conflict which occurs within the European Parliament is a conflict between integration and nationalism, or national self-interest. That is certainly a feature of the European Parliament and it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is also a feature of the European committees and of the bargains that are reached.
  Ever since its inception, the Community has proceeded on the basis that economic integration would lead inevitably and inexorably to political integration. That is the principle upon which the Community has proceeded. That was very much in the mind of Jean Monnet, years ago. That idea is a dangerous fallacy—a fallacy which is all too well illustrated in today's debate.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and others referred to the petty interference and regulation which has had the effect of driving public opinion against the very integration that the pro-Europeans seek. It is as though, with its concentration on economic matters, the Community has gone out of its way to annoy and irritate rather than to inspire and develop an interest in internationalism.
  Reference has also been made to the constant desire for harmonisation. A recent example is sheep meat, a commodity that is predominantly produced and eaten in this country. The Community insists on grasping a wider area of Community interest in matters which are not of Community concern and should not be matters of Community control. That has had a disastrous effect on the Community and is one reason why it has not progressed as far as it should. It is a reason why the White Paper is such a low-key document. It may even be one reason behind the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), which was on such a low key. It may also be one of the reasons for the attitude of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) who spoke in such disappointed terms about the progress of the Community.
  I believe that there is another argument, which I used repeatedly in the
  1756
  referendum campaign and which worries me even more now that I see the European Parliament in action and the Community at much closer quarters than I did before the referendum. My objective always has been that there should be a wider and wider area of international co-operation. I was very interested in the altercation which took place between the hon. Member for Banbury and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on the question whether the European idea was a federal or a unitary one. I believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South was correct. The kind of developments going on are towards a unitary State, which I find very dangerous. I do not want to see a unitary State, and I am quite sure that the members of the Scottish National Party are not aware of developments. They believe that they will have all kinds of reserve powers, but that is not at all what is taking place.
  Like the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I am a federalist. I am a world federalist. Many years ago I listened with respect to those pro-Europeans who argued that the Community could be the beginning of a wider federal development. But one only has to remember the situation in this country, when proposal after proposal was made that we should become a member of the Community, to see the sort of difficulties which arise. The longer the Community has existed, the more directives, regulations and harmonisation has taken place and the more difficult it has become for new accessions to occur.
  We have had appalling difficulties. We had to enter the Community as it was, with hardly any serious concessions being made to our special interests. We had to enter the Community as it was, at the stage at which we had to join. I pity poor Greece, and Turkey, and, perhaps one day in the future, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Portugal, if they wish to enter the Community, because, year by year, the Commission and the Council of Ministers are making it increasingly difficult for new States to join. That is of crucial importance, because those who tell us that they are good Europeans ought to accept that the European Community means nothing if it is not going to be able to take in the whole of Europe.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member is deceiving himself and the House. New members must join the Community as it is, but in future each will be given a transitional period in which to adapt itself to the Community as it will then become. This is important. The hon. Member is sliding over it.
  Mr. Barnett: We have been granted a transitional period, but it has no respect to our basic interest. The hon. Lady may not recognise it, but the fact that over 70 per cent. of the resources of the European budget is spent on the common agricultural policy seems to fly in the face of this country's interests. I do not see any likelihood of change. I hope that the hon. Lady is right and that there will be a fundamental change in the whole of the Community as a consequence of our accession, but there is little evidence of that happening in the near future.
  Of course, other countries can expect a transitional period. I hope that they will be able to expect something of that kind. But the Community does not seem to recognise that when it grows in size, in order to be a real Community serving the needs of all nations and all the people in them it must attempt to represent the whole of their interests and not deny the interests of its newest accessions.
  This is an important point about the Community, because each of its regulations is a brick in a wall that excludes other possible members of the Community. If I had to choose between a unitary and a federal State I would choose a federal State, because many decisions made in Brussels have no business to be made there. We live in an age in which we appreciate the need to ensure that decisions are made, wherever possible, as closely as possible to the people affected by them.
  One of the possible benefits of the European idea is that there should be the greatest possible diversity, rather than harmonisation. The whole history of our civilisation has been one of diversity, and it would be a tragedy for those who support the idea of the Community to allow it to go much further along the road to harmonisation or standardisation. The sad thing about the Community is the degree to which it has concentrated on the minutiae of its own internal econo-
  1758
  mic affairs. The future success of the Community lies in its external relations. Last week I attended the preparatory meeting of the Lomé Consultative Assembly, at which there were delegates from 46 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as representatives of the European Parliament. It was largely an informal session. The proper consultative assembly cannot hope to come into existence until ratification of the Lomé Convention is complete. Nevertheless, one can see the development of something in the future in which the Community will have a real rôle to play—its relationship with the continent of Africa, the whole of the Caribbean and many countries in the Pacific—because it has a common interest in and responsibility towards countries and areas which are less affluent than those in the Community.
  The contacts which the Community is beginning to establish with Latin America and other parts of the world indicate that there is a useful réle for such a Community, but possibly in the loosest possible way. Only by moving towards a loose federation, which is the kind of step we should take, shall we move towards the kind of association that can be extended, and which other countries can easily join.
  This brings me to the issue of direct elections to the European Parliament. I believe that direct elections are likely to mislead our people into believing that they are obtaining what many people describe as a European Parliament which, somehow, can check on the Council of Ministers, and to which the Council of Ministers will be responsible. That may be the case at some stage in the future, but it is not the case now. Members of the Council of Ministers are responsible to their own national Parliaments. When a British Minister goes to the Council of Ministers it is to us in this House that he is responsible. It would serve only to mislead the electorate of this country or any other European country to have direct elections to the European Parliament, because it would allow them to believe that they were electing people whose job was the European job as opposed to having responsibility solely for British matters in this Parliament.
  That, I believe, is the greatest danger. If we, in this country, and people throughout Europe decide that a federal

  1759
  Europe is wanted, with a federal Government, a federal court and a federal Parliament, that is one thing, but we ought to make that decision clearly. We ought to debate it, discuss it, produce a constitution, and then vote on it in our separate Parliaments, before moving towards a federal system. If we are not doing that, let us deceive ourselves no longer. Let us cut out the kinds of things that we have had in the past and deal with the practical and realistic situation.
  The European Assembly has an important job to do, but let us not mislead ourselves by idle dream talk about the sort of institution that we would like one day to see without recognising that an elected assembly can be meaningful only in terms of a federal constitution, upon which we, as British people and as European people, must make a definitive decision.
  6.52 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The period of seven months covered by this White Paper—the period since the Budget—has been one of deepening gloom about the British economy, with high interest rates, rising unemployment, a falling exchange rate and serious anxiety about many of our problem companies. This period has brought home to the great majority of the people the unhappy truth that the British economy can no longer flourish on the basis of a nation State, particularly since the virtual break-up of the old sterling area. But we have to admit that there are serious obstacles in the way of conceiving the European Economic Community, as it is at present, as the obvious point of departure for a new period of growth and expansion in this country.
  The EEC has all but completed its first phase, namely, the creation of a customs union; but it is sadly lacking in a sense of direction as to where it will go next. There is virtually no unity on capital account and practically no serious programme of development for creating a Community capital market.
  The floating rates that have taken the place of the old Bretton Woods structure have certainly worked very much better than many people foresaw, but the floating rates structure has given
  1760
  rise to unpredictable risks to traders. Though the agreement at Rambouillet may lead on to a more stable exchange rate system for the Community we still have to wait and see.
  It also has to be pointed out that our commitment to the free trade area has thrown up the over-valuation of the pound at the time of the Smithsonian Agreement, and indeed subsequently. Just at this time no one can be too confident that the pound will even be able to hold the exchange rate that it has reached in the last few days.
  I believe that major structural changes are now needed in the EEC, particularly since we have virtually had to abandon the old programme of advance towards economic and monetary union by a gradual narrowing of the margins and the locking together of the currencies, on the lines recommended by the Werner Report.
  Many people here and elsewhere thought at the time that the Werner recommendations were too ambitious, and it is now obvious that that approach is getting us nowhere. This is the problem which the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemans, has been asked to examine, and we look forward to his paper on European Union some time in the next few weeks. I hope that it will contain practical recommendations that can actually be implemented, and not only cloudy ideals that we can regard as an ultimate objective, with no particular relevance to the problems of the present time.
  I hope, too, that Mr. Tindemans will make recommendations that not only concern central banks and Governments but have a real meaning at ordinary level for the individual citizens of the Community. The European Community as conceived in the Rome Treaty is very much a matter for Governments and banks and national and European institutions. It does not really touch the man or woman in the street.
  In the coming weeks I hope to have the opportunity, in the European Parliament, of discussing the series of resolutions which I have ventured to put forward, mainly in my capacity as rapporteur for economic and monetary union in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.

  1761
  On this vexed subject of economic and monetary union, it seems obvious that a new approach is needed. It is no good simply reflecting that the Werner Plan has not achieved any very useful result. We need to think of something else. Let us start from the acceptance of the fact that the national paper currencies will not unite in the foreseeable future. National Governments and central banks will insist on keeping their autonomy. If they do not, their habits of mind will simply be changed by the democratic forces within the member States. It is no good a Government deciding to lock its currency to the Deutschemark, perhaps or to a unit of account, only to find that they have lost popularity and gone out of power as a result. If we are to build some kind of economic and monetary union we shall have to try some altogether different road.
  I believe that the increasing body of support for the idea of the alternative currency, or the "Europa", or the parallel currency—call it what we will—is pointing us tentatively in the right direction. I believe that there would be common ground if we said that the European Community needs a central reference point of unshakable integrity and certainty in monetary affairs, and that none of the paper currencies, not even the Deutschemark, is stable enough from the point of view of long-term transactions. I do not think that the basket of European Community currencies brought together to make the new Community unit of account will command much confidence in the long run.
  My recommendations are, first, that we should establish a European cost of living index. In every country there exists an alternative currency already, in the form of a cost of living index which we use for comparison with the value of the paper currency from day to day. It is valuable that the Community is about to produce comparative data on the cost of living in the different member countries. If we could establish an agreed means of building up a European cost of living index it would be a helpful beginning. From that we could go on to establish a European standard of value.
  A currency can have two functions. It can be a store of value or a standard of
  1762
  value, or both. I do not think that we can establish a European store of value all at once. That must come at a third stage, which may be quite a long way off; but I think it would be useful for long-term transactions to establish a European standard of value.
  I shall give one example of what I mean. If a man starts his career in Britain, completes it in Belgium and finally retires in Italy, his pension rights should be linked to some kind of European cost of living index that gives him some degree of security that they will hold their value.
  I hope that Mr. Tindemans will examine the various recommendations that have been made for launching a Europa, or at any rate a European central standard of value, and that this will be a new approach to economic and monetary union which will be more successful than the Werner Plan.
  I should like now to touch on what I call the European social contract. I believe that it will become increasingly necessary to think in terms of harmonisation of the levels of social security benefits. In this country we have a particular interest in this subject because our levels of social benefit, for the most part, are so far behind those of the other members of the Community.
  I should like to think that European citizenship guaranteed a minimum standard of living. In the first instance, it would be necessary merely to push up those benefits, in member countries, which were obviously anomalous, so that we did not have, as we do at the moment, a sharp change in the levels of family allowances for anyone moving from one Community country to another. I hope that in the not-too-distant future there will be an amalgamation of the national social insurance funds. That would be a gesture towards economic and monetary union which would have a direct relevance to the voters and bring genuine advantages to the man and woman in the street. I do not suggest that there should not be national levels of social benefit, regional schemes or company benefits; but I should like to see the establishment of a basic European social security scheme, supported by direct taxation and paid for from a central Community fund.

  1763
  It is not enough to give people a European passport and expect them to feel that they now belong to a great new society. There must be tangible benefits. Equally, there must be tangible commitments. I should like to see a relationship of obligation and entitlement between individual citizens and the Community, so that people could begin to measure in cash terms the benefits of belonging to the EEC.
  What I recommend here has a direct bearing on the reform of the common agricultural policy. The motives behind the policy obviously are right, namely, to give some degree of security and dignity to people in agricultural communities, many of whom still live at something very near the poverty line. The original concept was that by making sure that the price of what they produced never fell below a certain point they could be confident of always enjoying a certain standard of life. But it was a naive and ill-conceived concept from the start and it is obvious that it will have to be changed. Some form of direct income support for low-income families will have to be introduced in the Community.
  On the Continent, for the most part it is in the agricultural communities that there is an obvious need for direct income support, even for those in full-time work. But in the towns there is also a need for a benefit which will help people, especially those with families, who are on very low wages. The kind of European social contract that I envisage could begin to supplement the incomes of families in a way that would take the burden off the CAP, thus making it possible to reduce agricultural prices without forcing tens of thousands of people into destitution, or off the land altogether.
  There would also be implications for regional policy if we could arrange a system of redistribution of income between rich and poor areas at personal level. Up till now, all the schemes that we have seen for regional distribution have had an institutional character, and have been rather unconvincing. If we could move towards a redistribution of income which would automatically tend to put funds in areas in which there are the largest accumulations of poor people, it would have a beneficial effect—albeit a "watering-can" effect. But perhaps
  1764
  a "watering-can" effect is just what we need if we want a thousand new flowers to bloom in the European economy.
  Finally, I wish to touch on the question of institutional reform. We need to create a truly democratic community. Why should we not have direct elections? I have listened to several speeches today inveighing against the idea of direct elections, but I find it difficult to understand what the speakers fear. The European Assembly is not likely to become very strong while it consists only of nominated members of national Parliaments. If we trust the people, they, in turn, will begin to trust the European institutions. Initially, there might not be a very large turnout of voters, but when the European Parliament began to have real contact with the electors, it would grow in strength and we would have a two-way movement of ideas between voters and members which could only be beneficial.
  The Council of Ministers is becoming a sort of Community Upper House, and it certainly shares the powers of Upper Houses to enforce delay. But the Parliament has not yet found its footing, and direct elections will be necessary if it is to establish itself. I feel that the European constitution is rather like that of Britain in the fifteenth century, with the House of Lords having virtually all the power and the House of Commons very timid, not sure even of its procedure and very unsure of its power.
  Still on the subject of institutional reform, I wish to join the call for a single meeting place for the European Parliament, with suitable facilities for members and easy facilities for those who assist the Parliament's work. In my view, it should be in Brussels, and the move to establish a central meeting place for the Parliament should not be delayed. The ideal solution would be to get a new building ready by 1978, when we move ahead to direct elections.
  The present weakness of the Community is its lack of any sense of direction. We have completed the first stage—the setting up of the customs union. Now we are preparing for a new stage of European Union, which is still very imprecisely defined. If we try to stay where we are, we as a country will not reap the possible benefits of our membership nor make the contribution of which we are capable.
  Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that nine other hon. Members have sought to catch my eye and hope to succeed between now and 9.20 when, I understand, the winding-up speeches are to begin.
  7.7 p.m.
  Miss Betty Boothroyd: I intend to confine my remarks to the two wide areas dealt with in the White Paper. The first is the Community's relationship with the world outside the member States, and the second is the more domestic policies of the EEC which touch upon us at home.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) mentioned that early last week some of us went to Luxembourg to talk with our counterparts from the 46 ACP countries. We came together there in a reasonably relaxed atmosphere. One of my tasks was to draft the rules of procedure for the new parliamentary institutions which will govern our future discussion of the Lomé Convention. There was a considerable degree of unanimity, and it was gratifying to me that, before we got to that stage, this House had at least ratified the Lomé Convention.
  But I make one point here which I made last week in another place. It is that Government endorsement, parliamentary support and the pressure which we as parliamentarians put on the Government to do that little bit more are not enough. It is not enough simply to say that we have now ratified and have done our job. The important feature is the provision of the industrial co-operation and the transfer of technology to our partners in the developing world. To me, an essential ingredient of that involvement is the involvement of our social partners towards that end.
  Within all our societies there are institutions and groups which are not to be ignored. There are people with great skills, resources and experience. If we mean what we say, our social partners in the trade unions, the employers' organisations and all these people who have contributions to make must be involved in this new strategy. It is only by harnessing the resources at our disposal and by making practical use of them that we shall breathe life into the cold print of these conventions.
  1766
  Lomé is not only valuable in itself and in what it attempts to do, but it is also valuable for setting possible precedents. If the Nine can reach agreement throughout the world with 46 other countries, surely we have a basis and a platform for wider agreements with the poorest nations.
  In the short time that I have been a member of the European Parliament I have had to recognise that within the Nine there is what can be described only as a hard-line attitude towards further assistance from the Community to developing nations. Many of my colleagues in the European Assembly have made it clear not only that do we hope for such attitudes to be modified, but that we shall work towards bringing about a change in attitudes.
  Few people would deny that today there is a total interdependence throughout the world. Mention is made in the White Paper of a new relationship with Canada. Prior to the referendum the Canadian Prime Minister had talks in Brussels with the EEC and sought a type of contractual relationship. As a member of the European Parliament, I was involved in talks with Canadian Members of Parliament, and they showed a considerable willingness for closer economic and commercial co-operation which went beyond the bounds of bilateral trade arrangements and into the areas of joint ventures into development, research, the exchange of technology and the supply of raw materials to Europe, to our mutual advantage.
  Obviously, there are problems to be overcome. Some member Governments—certainly the British and French Governments—have historical and traditional trading links with Canada which mean a great deal to them. To interpose a new Community relationship while these historical and traditional ties remain is no easy task.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who leads the Parliamentary Labour Party delegation to the European Parliament, will be winding up the debate for the Government. It would be unfair to ask him, as I was about to ask the Minister, if he would explain a little more fully that section of the White Paper which deals with the negotiations with Canada and tell us how far these

  1767
  contractual links with the Community, on a Canadian basis, have advanced.
  I turn to matters closer to home and to the activities and adminstration of the Social Fund. I certainly welcome the increased allocation. This enlargement is an important step in the move towards making the Community concerned with developments which can be of direct benefit to people whether they live in West Bromwich or Westphalia. However, those policies must be relevant to the daily lives and needs of our people, otherwise they have little importance.
  In looking at it from the point of view of those applying for assistance from the Social Fund, the procedure seems to be unnecessarily long drawn out and to contain a great deal of red tape, for not only must projects be channelled through the appropriate Government Department but they must have the blessing and endorsement of that Department before they can be considered for assistance by the Commission.
  In his earlier remarks my right hon. Friend said—I think I quote him correctly—that he would like to see more accountability by Community institutions to those whom they serve. I agree with him. If we mean to make the Community a living entity and to involve our society directly in its activities, there must be direct communication between the people and organisations in the regions and the Commission itself. I recognise that Government Departments, of whatever political view, like to exercise authority. However, surely methods can be found of encouraging local authorities, regional development bodies and registered charities to have direct communication with the appropriate Regional and Social Fund Committees within the Commission in such a way that they present and argue their own case. That is one method of achieving greater accountability by the Community to those whom it serves.
  I respect your comments Mr. Speaker, about time, and, therefore, I shall turn to the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy. There have been many debates in this House and in other places about agriculture and the technicalities of the common agricultural policy. However, few debates seem to approach the
  1768
  subject from the consumer's point of view. Even so, one simple fact we might bear in mind is that while engineers, postmen, clerks and politicians make up percentages of the Community, the consumers form 100 per cent. of the Community. Within the Community consumer involvement is relatively new and pathetically inadequate.
  The Consumer Consultative Committee was established a little more than 12 months ago. Its task is to provide the Commission with information either on its own initiative or at the request of the Commission, but it has no influence whatever on decision-making. It cannot mount a pressure group or run a publicity campaign against decisions taken. That has to be done by associations within the member States. Further, the Economic and Social Committee is the instrument by which consumers can vent their concern about decisions, but they can do so only after decisions have been made. Moreover, that Committee has only six consumer representatives out of a total membership of about 150.
  The consumer involvement is no longer limited to questions of hygiene and the quality of food. Recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection participated for the first time—I hope it will not be the last—in a meeting of Agricultural Ministers. I suggested in the European Parliament that the appointment of such Ministers should be made by other member States in the hope of increasing participation at this level.
  There is need for much greater flexibility. We have recently seen a certain amount of shift in the orientation of the common agricultural policy from a policy which had as its prime purpose the protection of the producer to one which took a more balanced view of the interests of the consumer. I wish to see that shift continue so that consumers can become involved in the decision-making concerning food production targets, storage policy, the cost of such a policy and the priority of recipients when it comes to the disposal of surpluses. That is most important. In other words, there should be opportunity to participate at all levels.
  The White Paper clearly states that any scheme for direct elections would require an Act of this Parliament, and that is

  1769
  absolutely right. Indeed, I have no quarrel with that. However, I must be honest and say that in my view the day will come when we shall have direct elections. It is for that reason that I have sought, by my remarks, a greater involvement for our people—in whatever walk of life they may be—in the institutions of the Community. I welcome the debate as a means of attempting to find practical solutions to the real problems within our Community and our growing relationships with those outside.
  7.19 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: It was good to hear from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) the authentic note of internationalism. It is a note that we do not hear as often as we should like from the Labour Party. I had supposed that I should see upon the Order Paper in this House, especially from those hon. Members who have been complaining loudly about the way that the Chrysler Corporation is treating its workers in this country, a well-supported motion regretting the decision of the nationally owned British Leyland Company to dismiss its Italian workers in the Innocenti works in Italy.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) laid claim—I fully respect his claim—to be an internationalist and said that those who opposed British membership of the Community during the campaign did so on international grounds. However, I wonder whether he would feel able to sustain that line in view of the crude appeal to internationalism which was made by most Labour anti-Marketeers during the referendum campaign, and most notably by the then Secretary of State for Trade, who conducted a very able campaign against British membership of the EEC based solely on appeals to British internationalism.
  Mr. Guy Barnett Mr. Guy Barnett rose—
  Sir A. Meyer: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to be brief. I have not in any way traduced what he said. I think it better that I should go on and complete my speech.
  Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir A. Meyer: No. My hon. Friend has already had a very long innings, and enough is enough.
  If internationalism no longer constitutes a prime motor in the Labour Party, the one doctrine to which it attaches overriding importance is that of the mandate. If ever a Government and party had a mandate, it was—unlike the 28 per cent. of electors who put this Government into office—the 67 per cent. who voted "Yes" to Britain remaining within the Community. I do not claim that that 67 per cent. constituted a mandate for Britain to participate in a fully federal Europe, though I make no secret of the fact that that is what I would like to see. But that 67 per cent. constituted an overwhelming mandate for Britain to play a constructive part in the European Community of which we are now a permament member.
  After the humiliating fiasco of the British demand for separate representation at the oil talks—having tabled a motion at an early stage deploring that demand, I feel qualified to say that—it is not now easy to maintain that Her Majesty's Government are playing a constructive role. There is certainly nothing in the dismally boring document before us for today's debate to contradict the overwheming impression of still-reluctant Members being dragged to the European table by the overwhelming vote of the people and threatening to kick the table over if they do not get what they want.
  By insisting, as we brutally do, on getting every one of our short-term interests, we imperil our ability to defend our long-term interests. That was only too evident over the oil business. I submit that it is equally evident in the attitude which the Government have adopted towards the aircraft industry. If ever there was an insistence on the long-term interests of this country coinciding with European requirements, the aircraft industry provided it. Whereas a nationalist British Aircraft Corporation cannot conceivably survive in the conditions of the worldwide aircaft industry of today, there is manifestly an opportunity for a Europe-based aircraft industry to compete on reasonably level terms with the American giants. By nationalising the aircraft industry on a purely British basis, the Government have tragically missed a European opportunity.

  1771
  As I said, by insisting on our short-term interests we imperil our long-term interests, which are to secure a Community with true democratic control and prosperity fairly spread throughout the whole area.
  I speak with deep feeling on this matter as the representative of an area where unemployment is getting out of control, which is equipped with out-of-date industries, and badly needs a major expansion of the Community's regional aid programme.
  I observe the Government forfeiting their chance of securing a better regional aid programme and a common agricultural policy better adapted to the needs of our people because of their insistence on other purely short-term advantages, thereby debarring themselves from working in partnership with either the French or the Germans to secure our long-term interests.
  If Ministers simply cannot nerve themselves to explain to the electors the need for some kind of sacrifice of short-term interests to preserve our long-term abiding interests, what conceivable pretext can they offer for not making a contribution to the one area where every other European country confidently expected Britain to make a major contribution and where no material sacrifice whatever is called for—namely, democratic control over the Community's institutions? I simply do not understand what is holding the Government back. No British interests are at stake here. There is just the natural reluctance—the immobility which is built into all political institutions—to face issues.
  On Wednesday last week I put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary—it was not reached; it received a Written Answer—asking
  "what proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government for improving democratic control of the institutions of the EEC?"
  The Answer was:
  "Her Majesty's Government are seeking to improve financial control in the Community".
  As I understand it, the main object of improving financial control is to use it as a means of gaining influence over the evolution of policies.
  1772
  The reply continued:
  "and have proposed that the European Assembly should play a more active and effective role."—[Official Report. 26th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 206.]
  Yet they are not prepared to take active steps to equip the Assembly to play that kind of rôle.
  I do not want to appear to be concentrating my fire on the Minister of State. I know that nobody more than he has fought for the European cause within the Department. We on this side admire his staunchness in this cause under fire from both sides. I hope that he will recognise that, in appearing to attack him, I am in fact attacking the Prime Minister for his continued insistence on making concessions to an anti-European extreme Left element which has lost all credibility in this House and in the country. If the Prime Minister would at least stand up and proclaim what he must by now believe—that Britain's future lies in making a positive contribution to a living European Community—I believe that he would be astounded by the response from both sides of this House and throughout the country.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I shall refer to one or two of the points that the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) has touched on, but I want to make some general points before doing that.
  If there is one thing on which we can all agree it is that in the last 30 years, since the end of the war, successive national Governments of all political persuasions have signally failed to solve our problems in isolation from the rest of Europe or the rest of the world. At the same time, we can say that in the last 20 years, whenever either of the major political parties, be it the Labour Party or the Tory Party, has obtained power, it has seen solutions to our problems lying in entry to a wider community. The Labour Government did so between 1964 and 1970. The previous Conservative Government tried before then, and the succeeding Conservative Government, from 1970 to 1974, got us into Europe. The Labour Government decided, by means of a referendum, to stay in.
  Therefore, one can assume that when politicians in this country are faced with the realities of power, they understand

  1773
  better that the only solution to solving our problems, be they economic, social, or whatever, is to get into a bigger context.
  The bigger context that we had immediately available to us was, first, EFTA. I remember the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) negotiating EFTA at that time. I think I am right in that recollection. That was a precursor to entry into the European Community. That has now occurred.
  In historical perspective it is much too early to ascertain whether that judgment was right or wrong. All I am prepared to say at present is that both major political parties have sought this as a means of helping to solve the problems which we could not solve in national isolation. It may well prove that we were wrong in that decision. It is much too early to judge.
  Certainly as a relatively new member of the European Parliament, one's ideology and political philosophy is strained a little when one sees that Parliament in practice. Nevertheless, here we have what I think is most inspiring about it—and there is not very much—namely, the ability to talk to politicians from Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Holland and even Luxembourg, and to understand what they are driving at.
  Every one of those countries was occupied during the war. They are inspired by an idealism that is very often singularly absent from our talks. In this context we talk too much about what we shall get out of the EEC rather than what we can put into it. We talk in terms of material things rather than in terms of preventing another world war. What does it matter if the price of butter or the cost of living rises by 20 per cent. between now and 1976 if by keeping within this association, allowing it to evolve and playing our part in its evolution, we prevent the recurrence of world war? That seems to be the essence of our internationalism, to which I hope every hon. Member subscribes.
  In recent months Britain has been cast as the nigger in the European woodpile. We have been accused of lack of cooperation on the question of oil and on other matters, such as direct elections. There is an arguable position for our Government to take up. We have no need
  1774
  to be apologetic about these things. The other national States are still basically national States. They have a degree of idealism. However, when it came to the point, the French did not hesitate to take measures to protect their wine industry from cheap Italian wine, and the French have been taken to court on that account. One can cite other instances where German, French, Italian or British national interests have conflicted with the grander European concept and where the national interest has prevailed.
  That will happen for a long time. We must simply accept that it will happen as the Community evolves. In the same way, in this House the Scottish National Party and some Welsh Members advocate, quite properly and sincerely from their point of view, their own nationalistic aspirations. They are perfectly entitled to do that. I do not think that their separation will solve anything for them in the United Kingdom context.
  Mr. Reid Mr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman made his speech and walked out. He has only just returned to the Chamber. A members of his party should have been present—the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), who represents his party in Europe. The hon. Gentleman talked about participation. The least that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn might have done would be to put in a courtesy appearance for the debate. She has been singularly absent throughout. She might have thought fit to justify her vote in support of General Franco and his Fascist regime. If the hon. Gentleman wants facts, let me tell him that that is what is happening in Europe.
  That brings me directly to a point to which I wanted to refer—the triviality of so much of what takes place in the Assembly. I have now been there for three or four months and I can recall only three or four memorable debates. The first took place when we had hardly got there, and that was a debate on political union. Then there was a debate on the oil crisis, involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We had another debate on Spain. Those were about the only debates of real substance. The other debates have been what we would call statutory instrument debates. However, there is no reason why we should not

  1775
  put this matter right, and why the Assembly should not evolve into something better.
  That brings me directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Flint, West about the Prime Minister's speech—a speech that had very little coverage in this country—on the inauguration of a public accounts committee in Europe. The implications of that speech were very great. The Prime Minister was spelling out, in his own inimitable way, the fact that we were in Europe to stay, because he wanted to propose some machinery to control the vast expenditure that takes place in the Community, not least—indeed, in too large a measure—on the common agricultural policy, over which we as parliamentarians have no control whatever, either here or in Europe.
  The Prime Minister indicated to me, by that speech, that he was intending to raise this question at the summit conference in Rome, which ended yesterday. I should like the Minister who is to reply to the debate to indicate whether the Prime Minister raised this question, particularly with the Germans, because I think that this matter was initiated by the German Federal Chancellor. Will the Minister indicate what response the Prime Minister got on this matter? That seems to be singularly important. It is extremely important from our point of view to get, in the Community, the kind of control of public expenditure which we have here—although recent revelations may suggest that we are not all that good at it, either. At any rate, over about 100 years we have built up a system that is as good as any in the world, and probably better than most. That is all that one can say for it. However, one can learn and develop that kind of control in Europe, as we have developed it for over a century here.
  Similary, several hon. Members have spoken as if it were somehow obscene or undesirable to pursue the concept of a European regional policy. I remember that when the present Secretary of State for Energy was very much a pro-European he said that the only way in which one can protect the little man from the big multinational company is to provide a big multinational political counterpart. That argument is as pertinent today
  1776
  as it was then. If we are to prevent the big multinational companies from blackmailing small national States—be it Scotland, England, Wales, Holland, Denmark, or any other—we must, by having a common regional policy in Europe, prevent them from playing the one off against the other.
  At a recent meeting of the Regional Policy Committee, of which I am a member, I persuaded the Committee to visit Scotland and Lancashire. Its members will be coming in the spring of next year. This is part of the educative process. Ordinary men and women in this country are affected, and will continue to be affected, by decisions taken in Europe—not in Edinburgh or Westminster, but in Brussels. That being so, we had better have adequate representation in Brussels before these decisions are taken and not afterwards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who has had to leave the Chamber owing to a previous engagement, is strongly in favour of a common energy policy in Europe. We shall be the greatest energy producers in the Community. The coal reserves in England are vastly greater than the oil reserves found in Scotland, but together they put us in a very powerful position to model the common energy policy in Europe. That is how we should be thinking. We should not be wanting to hold on to the oil that happens to be near our coast, or the coal that happens to be under our county, and saying "To hell with the rest of the Community". That is counter to the ideals that hon. Members on this side and, I presume, some hon. Members opposite hold dear.
  Direct elections are a highly desirable, democratic procedure but the nuts and bolts of the system will be extremely difficult to work out. It is no good pretending that this can be done overnight. One of the great attributes of our democratic system is the fairly close relationship between an hon. Member and his electors. In a European Parliament there would be, perhaps, five members representing the whole of Scotland, and it would be very difficult to maintain this relationship. On the question of the timetable, I do not think that our European partners understand the tremendous constitutional implications of the devolution White Paper, the debates on which we

  1777
  are soon to embark upon. That will be the biggest constitutional upheaval in this country for hundreds of years and it will take a long time to get it through the House. It is bound to make the question of direct elections in Europe that much more difficult to work out.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) talked about the European passport as if it was something terrible. I have one British and one European passport in my pocket. I do not give a damn if I lose the British passport. It means not very much to me. I support the sentiments expressed by Ernest Bevin, as Foreign Secretary, in 1946, when he looked forward to the day when he could go from Victoria Station to anywhere in the world without a passport. The new European passport is a small step in that direction. They can have my British passport back in Petty France any time they like. I hope that this is the approach that the House will take during the next generation. We are building for our children and their children. It is no good continuing to fight the pre-referendum campaign. Whether we like it or not, the British people have decided that we must solve our problems in a bigger political and economic context than we have tried so far. That was the clear message they gave us, and we would be denying their faith if we sought to undo what they decided should be done.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise for the fact that, for unavoidable reasons, I had to miss the first part of this debate. I wish to look at the implications of EEC membership on Wales over the period covered in the White Paper. In the referendum campaign, my party opposed continued membership, but now that the result in Wales is quite clear and the people in Wales have shown that they wish to remain part of the EEC, we have accepted that decision and its implications and are now concentrating on ensuring for Wales the fullest possible role in the Community while we remain part of that institution.
  We are looking for our own place at the top table of the Community, our own team on the Council of Ministers, our own guaranteed numbers in the European Parliament on the same formula as Denmark and Ireland, our own representa-
  1778
  tives on important committees like that dealing with social and economic matters, and our own Commissioners.
  The future structure of Europe is very much under debate now, and this is touched on in several parts of the White Paper and has been referred to in a number of speeches. Much of the discussion revolves around various models—whether Europe should be a unitary centralised State or a decentralised State which might be termed federal or confederal in nature. If the European State is to be viable it must lead to the break-up of 19th century States which were developed for different purposes in a different age and cannot be sustained in the future.
  The other side of the same coin is the emergence of Wales and Scotland as self-governing communities in the EEC existing side by side with a developed structure on a European level. Some people say this is a contradiction. I do not believe it is. I think it is inevitable. If Europe is to have stability in future there must be a growing role for the natural communities within the EEC.
  The structure of the future of Europe will depend, to a large extent, on the possibility of direct elections to the European Parliament. My party has grave fears about these elections. We acknowledge the superficial democracy attached to the argument, but we have had 36 hon. Members representing Wales in this Chamber for many years, and with 600 other hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom there have been occasions when, despite the fact that all Welsh Members were united, they were thwarted by the majority here. One example was the drowning of the Tryweryn Valley and the village of A Capel Celyn in Merioneth.
  Having direct elections to the European Parliament will not necessarily give the Community democratic control over its future. Dictatorship by a 51 per cent. of a 49 per cent. is not necessarily democracy and in any structure for Europe there must be the right for communities which will be in a minority within the greater Europe to have safeguards to ensure that their own interests are protected to the maximum possible extent. Having four Welsh Members in the European Parliament will not be enough to safeguard these interests. If

  1779
  there is an elected European Parliament it should have transferred to it the minimum of powers, and only those powers which are essential for co-ordination on a European level. We believe that it is necessary for that Parliament to act with the concurrence and agreement of all the national Parliaments and not to overrule them. There is a need for a weighting in favour of the smaller countries, a contentious issue in mainland Europe, and it may be necessary to develop a second Chamber at a different level, a sort of House of Representatives, where the individual communities could have direct representation in order to counter-balance the effects of population within the directly elected model.
  We gave evidence to Mr. Tindemans on his visit to the United Kingdom earlier this year. It was on 2nd July that we outlined our proposals to him in Cardiff. We said that we saw the model of Europe developing as a confederal one. We said:
  "Plaid Cymru feels strongly that there exists a positive alternative to the development of another centralised state in Western Europe. That alternative is to create a partnership of self-governing European nations, in no way subordinate to one another. This partnership could take the form of a European Confederation whose purpose would be to maintain free trade and encourage economic and cultural development throughout the Community, and the co-ordination of effective regional policies to counter-balance adverse effects of free trade."
  So in criticising some possible developments within the EEC we do not want to give the impression that we are against any development of the European model.
  Let me turn now to the relationship of the Welsh Assembly to the Community institutions. We deplore that in the document being discussed today the summary showed, in dealing with representation from Westminster and from the British Government at meetings of the Council of Ministers in Europe, that of the 54 meetings not one has been attended by a representative of the Welsh Office. There have been representations on odd occasions from Scotland, but never from Wales, and many of the subjects have been of vital importance to Wales. The Welsh Assembly must have the right to representation in the deputations and teams going on behalf of the United King-
  1780
  dom during that period before we in Wales assume the full right to determine our own future.
  We need the right for the Welsh Assembly to have access to the European Investment Bank. Many projects will need to be developed in Wales which are essential to the economic infrastructure and which have a European dimension. For example, there is the A5 road, the artery linking Ireland through to continental Europe. Roads will come under our own National Assembly, but there will be no provision, according to last week's White Paper, for the Assembly to have direct access to the European Investment Bank and the EEC institutions. It is a little strange in view of last week's White Paper to read the speech by the Foreign Secretary which is outlined on page 20, in which he said:
  "I cannot promise we shall be able to put forward an answer"
  that is in relation to the elections
  "by July. Matters are complicated by the devolution of powers to Scotland and to Wales and I cannot promise…an early reply, but I do not intend to hold this up."
  I cannot see, with the White Paper which has promised us no right of access to the EEC, how this topic could have crept into the discussion unless at some stage we were to have had that right, but that it was subsequently cancelled.
  We hope that in the long-term development of the EEC there will be room for the emergence of natural communities. There are many such groups in Europe, some of them hitting the headlines, such as the Basques, the Bretons, the Flemish and the Bavarians, all of whom may have a réle to play in the future European structure. Take the situation in France, for example. There is at present growing free movement of people between all the EEC countries. In view of that, it is essential to harmonise much more on elementary human justice and human rights than harmonising on the size of eggs. We should, therefore, send to France the message that we deplore the imprisonment of Yann Fouéré and that we disagree with the right to hold him for six months without trial. This is indefensible, and if we are part of the EEC structure side by side with the French Government, we have the right to point out that they have their obligations too. If M. Giscard

  1781
  d'Estaing comes to the United Kingdom in the next few months I hope that we shall make clear to him the way in which we hold his Government in contempt for such action.
  The situation in Spain, with the absence of democratic institutions, leads one to the view that the time is far from ripe for that country to take its place within the EEC. There must be a much greater development of freedom there. The time may be ripe for those actively engaged in EEC bodies to press for a European charter of rights for ethnic communities. It is time for someone to take a lead in this matter.
  I turn now to regional policy. Given the ravages of the free movement of capital and trade in the EEC, there is every danger of things getting out of hand. There is a growing disparity between the poorer and richer regions within the EEC. There is a fund of £150 million over three years to deal with regional development. That is chicken-feed. The Industry Act 1972 gave Wales in the last financial year £40 million and more, which is considerably more than we shall get from the EEC fund. Even so, that £40 million was nothing like sufficient to overcome our problems. We need a much stronger policy of regional redistribution if we are to find an effective answer.
  Take the old county of Caernarvonshire, where the personal income per capita in 1972 was only 55 per cent. of the United Kingdom level. I wonder whether EEC policies will have any significant effect on that, or whether they will have the effect we have seen in the last few weeks in my home town of Caernarvon, where one factory has closed down because its products can be made more economically in Belgium. If there is to be a meaningful EEC regional policy, it must be stronger than the existing policy.
  We need a guarantee that EEC funds will be additional to funds channelled by the Government to regional development, and that the money will not pass from one pocket to another without giving additional benefit to areas like Wales. There must be regional plans throughout the EEC, fitting into a regional category. This is essential if regional disparities are to be minimised. The EEC must
  1782
  also be much more responsive to the problems of areas like Wales, to the problems of the steel industry, agriculture and coal, which are in danger of being adversely affected rather than improved by the EEC.
  My hon. Friends and I regard monetary union with great fear. The expereince suffered by Denmark, which has stoked up its unemployment in an attempt to keep its currency within the "snake" under pressure from Germany, is an example of why we should keep as clear of monetary union as we can. There may be an argument for more currencies rather than fewer in order to provide greater flexibility within the EEC.
  There is one reference in the document to the VAT situation. Perhaps I may issue a warning here. If VAT is put on food and if more rates are introduced there could well be a reaction from people in Wales and, I suspect, from elsewhere in these islands. The Government must bear that in mind.
  Wales is a historic European nation. It is European by language and culture as well as by religion. At many times in our history we have been European in trade as well. Over the next few years we shall have a full measure of self-government. As the EEC is now in the melting pot, I put it to the Government that they should let the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies have links from the start with EEC bodies so that when we become fully self-governing countries, and if our people wish us to stay within the European Economic Community, we shall have a firm footing on which to build.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), the spokesman for Plaid Cymru, at least endorsed the central idea of Wales being a member of the Community. I assume, by extension, that he endorses the idea of the United Kingdom being a member. I am sure that all hon. Member will welcome that statement. He mentioned difficulties that might be particular to Wales in the future. Other hon. Members have alluded to and described difficulties that apply to the whole country.
  Whatever future divisions or semi-divisionalisations may grow up in this

  1783
  country, depending on how the devolution proposals develop, the more I think about it the more I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that devolution will make European direct elections that much more difficult to carry out within a certain period of time. There are many other reasons why I, as an English Member, am anxious about some of the putative implications of the devolution exercise, especially as it affects Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales.
  As an hon. Member who has spoken in favour of direct elections, I hope that the natural and understandable anxieties of the hon. Member for Fife, Central will not materialise, because there will be a will in the House and in the British body politic to prevent that occurring.
  Undoubtedly many hon. Members wish to refer to the many subjects mentioned in the White Paper. However, time prevents that and there are still hon. Members who wish to speak, so I shall concentrate on two topics mentioned in the White Paper and on one topic that is outside it, in the overall context of the future development of Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked why we were so scared of European direct elections. I strongly agree with him. Just what is it that a combination of little Englanders and other Labour Members, but not those who have spoken recently, are anxious about—the idea of direct elections per se?
  All the ensuing developments will take place after those direct elections have occurred for the first time. There is no chance that any institutional development in the European Parliament can occur before, partly because of the time period envisaged and partly, but more importantly, because of the way in which the Council of Ministers will, as far as one can assess, encourage the idea of direct elections taking place in or after 1978, under the official formula, with Great Britain—I do not know whether the summit statement is accurate or not—apparently allowed to have a special timetable of its own, together with Denmark. We shall need to examine that in greater detail later on. However, in so doing the quid pro quo on the Council's part will be that the examination, development
  1784
  and construction of those future increased powers for the European Parliament will take place after the first set of direct elections.
  As more than a reasonably enthusiastic European, I do not object to that principle. It is right for us to get going with the first set of direct elections at the outset, and then for that directly-elected Parliament—with the confidence and self-assurance that can come only from the dramatic and exciting new universal suffrage that will emanate from the entire European Community—to take a lead as a new body in a dramatic historical context and at the same time develop its own powers. It is at that subsequent stage, which may be in the early 1980s, that the Council of Ministers will presumably engage upon a tussle and conflict with the new institution about just how legislative and, indeed, executive—that is very important—powers will be shared out in this dramatic and unique new venture.
  Everyone tends to make the basic mistake of assuming that a developing and dynamic set of European institutions—a unique, new community which is unlike any other in the world—can be compared with what has happened elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said that in due course it would veer towards federalism. That is complete nonsense. To suggest that it will become federalist in due course is a massive piece of self-deception, unless, of course, the will is there so to develop.
  This is a new construction. At least this time when the Minister of State spoke, not only did he repeat the pretty strong assertions that were made last week in Community statements by the Government that direct elections were a Treaty commitment; he went further and reinforced that commitment. He implied that whereas previously he had said that it would take 10 years to have direct elections, because the organisation was so complicated—he said that they might start in 1978–79—now it would be nice to start in 1978, the target date, if possible. I want the Government to say more than that. I want them to say that they will start the constitutional, physical and other preparations immediately, so that at long last this exercise can commence.
  It is not right for the United Kingdom to establish a separate timetable of its

  1785
  own, partly because, in practical terms, it would be unworkable and at the very least wholly undesirable in the context of what the European Parliament has proposed about the modalities of direct elections, and partly because it would be, for our part, a breach of faith in the wider European context in terms of the philosophy of Europe and the will of the other member States to go ahead, apparently without undue delay, in accordance with the summit target.
  Let us have an early debate about direct elections to the European Parliament and all those aspects contained within that complicated idea. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has definitely promised one. Let us go beyond that and start the Boundaries Commission exercise. At least let there be a provisional exercise to consider, with computer assistance—which nowadays is inevitable—just how those European constituencies should be constructed. According to the draft convention presented to the European Parliament earlier this year we shall have 67 seats, but if the majority of hon. Members deem another number to be suitable, so be it. A vast amount of work has to be done, and that is why it should be started now.
  There is also the constitutional aspect to be considered. The treaty commitment idea can be argued cleverly by lawyers on both sides. I happen to believe in that idea and argue that it was known before the referendum and accepted as a fundamental commitment, and that therefore, we should proceed. However, there are many ways in which this is handled by this national legislature. It may need a new treaty dealing with direct elections, as I believe some experts in the Foreign Service believe. It may need just a substantial piece of legislation in this House, or a less substantial piece of legislation, not quite, but almost, approaching merely technical amendment to the Representation of the People Act, the electoral disqualification Acts and so on.
  Whatever the ranges or the sum total of those arguments by both sides, let us make a start now. If we do not, we shall regret it later. If we get off to a bad start on that score, it could affect the atmospherics of that first directly-elected Parliament, or at least the British contingent in it, in a way that I would be extremely loth to see.
  1786
  Therefore, pragmatically and reasonably, without being excessively controversial or dangerous, one could assume that fairly soon after those elections the new European Parliament, meeting, I imagine, in continuous session and—let us be frank about these crude matters—with its members presumably drawing a reasonable international salary, would not wish to be a debating chamber or a continuous seminar on the virtues of titanium dioxide pollution control, which all too often tends to be a feature of the European Parliament.
  Worthy and honourable though that may be, let the Parliament politicise itself in the real party-political structure sense. If the energy and will is there, if the educational effort prior to the elections has been substantial, and if the Government machine in the proper sense of the term has been supporting all that effort to explain and to inform the public, the public will identify much more quickly with their new European members of Parliament and with their European constituency, even if it be a constituency of 500,000 or 600,000. The United States does it on that scale, though, admittedly, after a much longer history, and there is no reason why the British, one of the most sophisticated political publics, should not grasp the idea. We do them a disservice by suggesting how complicated it will be for them, and how remote, that we shall have only a 15 per cent. total turnout, and so on. I do not believe that it will be so if the work is done now.
  I repeat my hope that we shall not be pusillanimous in our approach to what happens between now and those first elections, and in what we do in our procedures here. Let us think again about the way in which the House organises its own scrutinising procedure for European instruments—so often called secondary legislation, and referred to as such in the White Paper, yet in most cases, as we all know, in fact primary legislative instruments emanating from the Commission on behalf of the Council of Ministers.
  This subject is referred to, albeit briefly, in the White Paper, yet it is, I think, one of the most important thematic elements for the House to consider in terms of its existence as a national Parliament in the EEC context. Today is a

  1787
  historic day, in the sense that our new European Committee has started to function along the Committee Corridor, under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). It considered an esoteric—indeed, incomprehensible—subject, so it was a very calm Committee with no fireworks and no trouble. But I do not think that that Committee will continue to be trouble-free for long, unless the Government reconsider the importance of what was pressed on them from both sides last week and the week before, namely, that it will be essential for that Committee to be empowered to make substantive motions and amending motions in due course if our scrutiny procedure is to be realistic.
  I turn now to a matter that is not referred to in the White Paper, but I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will nevertheless, in all justice, accept that I am not out of order. There is a central issue which is not really being debated in the European Council—perhaps I am mistaken there, and have not properly understood the accounts, and we have yet to hear from the Prime Minister—in the European Parliament or in the national Parliaments. Perhaps this lack of debate stems from the gigantic nature of the subject, or perhaps we do not discuss it because we are all immensely depressed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said that the European Community had gone too slowly for his liking, that it had lost the will and basic native energy to proceed as he wishes, and that he hoped that that energy would return. That brings me to the central point that I wish to make—that until the European Committee seizes on the seemingly intractable problem of restoring a rate of economic growth to the whole of the EEC, including the outlying areas to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon referred, the political will of the Community, in the fullest sense, will not return.
  We may institute sophisticated propping-up devices for outlying regions, and so on—I do not use that adjective in any perjorative sense—but that will be no substitute for the Community saying that
  1788
  part of its ideology, transcending narrower party-political viewpoints, has been, and has been acknowledged by all its citizens to be, the establishment of an area of prosperity and of regular expansion. Other industrialised countries have adopted the same kind of approach, and so have their citizens. The European Community must engage itself on that task.
  I make no narrow party point when I say that until we are all collectively, and primarily in the European Parliament—perhaps that is the most appropriate place—engaged on this task, bearing in mind the awful problems involved, true progress and the real will to achieve it will not return. We know that European industry as a whole is running far below capacity, and far below the likely resurgence of putative future consumer demand and demand as a whole. The public sectors—not only in this country, although we are the worst example—are regarded at least by many people as too large in relation to total resources.
  The problem of returning to a growth path for the Community is colossal. I know that it is easy and glib for me to say that in my closing sentences, but that is the key, and it all fits in with future political developments and the future assurance of the Community. As the hon. Member for Fife, Central said, there is an inclination on the part of one country to cling on to some national asset and be almost loth to discuss it with the other member States. All these things fit into that gross and tangible lack of confidence which all of us feel as a result of—I was about to say "the deep economic crisis" in Europe, but I think that "deepening economic crisis" would be more accurate.
  There is, therefore, an obligation on politicians throughout the Community as well as here, which we should start to take on now. It will fit in very well with the time scale for direct elections.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. John Evans: As one of the new members of the European Parliament, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, although I have thought it a curious debate in many ways since those of us who have spoken are members of the European Parliament. Perhaps we should have got together. We

  1789
  could have had a discussion in the aeroplane taking us to the European Parliament next week, when we could have debated the various issues which the House is debating today. It does not follow from that, however, that there is no interest in the House or in the country in what the future holds for Britain and for our society in Europe.
  I am a new member in the sense of being a new Member of Parliament and also being the only one among our 1974 intake to go to the European Parliament. What struck me most forcibly when I first arrived in that building at Strasbourg was the language problem, for I speak only English. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of how wonderful it was to be able to talk to an Italian, a Dutchman, a Dane, a German or a Frenchman. Indeed it is, if the other individual speaks one's own language or if an interpreter is handy.
  In my view, the time has come to do something about a common language. Indeed, that time may well be long past, I feel that the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament should discuss the language question. There should have been agreement on a common European language some time ago. Once that had been agreed, every nation which did not speak that common language would have adopted it in its education programme as the second language for its children to be taught.
  We must not forget that, although we talk about bringing nations together, it is essential that we bring people together, and if people cannot speak to one another in the same language they will never understand one another. This is an important question to be borne in mind in all our European debates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is in a wonderful position in this respect since she speaks four or five languages and is able to converse freely and fluently with almost any member of the European Parliament. For my part, however, unless I have an interpreter I am lucky if I can speak to 20 per cent.—and that is discounting the British delegation.
  Mr. Wigley: And the Welsh?
  Mr. Evans: Most of the Welsh speak English.
  The other depressing experience—it still depresses me—was to see the enormous torrent of documents which descends upon us from the European Parliament. An incredible amount of "bumph" is sent to us on almost every subject which the Commission or the parliamentarians discuss. I used to wonder how many trees were chopped down to make all the paper. I am beginning to wonder now how many forests are being chopped down.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said earlier, it is essential that we sort out our priorities in the European Parliament, and especially the various topics that we choose to discuss. Some of the topics which we spend our time discussing in the European Parliament are such that I doubt whether we could get half a dozen Members to serve on a Statutory Instruments Committee to consider them. It is essential that that matter is sorted out very quickly if the Parliament is to have any credibility.
  Another important matter is that we cannot agree on a common site for the European Parliament. At enormous expense the Parliament moves on alternate months from Strasbourg to Luxembourg. The staff has to lug huge boxes, packed with documents between the two cities. To compound the problem, when we have our committee meetings we invariably hold them in Brussels. Far from being an organisation that can reach unanimity on many subjects, we cannot reach unanimity on a site.
  Of course, that has nothing to do with the British. The Conservative Government decided to go to the Parliament two years ago and the British Labour delegaation decided to join six months ago. The European Parliament has been in existence for about 17 years. From what I am led to believe, it is still no nearer a solution as to where the Parliament should be sited.
  I have no intention of continuing the referendum debate, but I am bound to say that during the referendum campaign some of us were querying the claims that there were huge economic advantages to Britain and scarce export orders to be won if Britain remained within the EEC. Some of us had the

  1791
  temerity to suggest that the EEC was running out of economic steam. I hope that that is not the case and that things will pick up. However, we must bear in mind that there are now about 5 million unemployed persons within the EEC. In Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom there are 1 million unemployed. In Denmark 9 per cent. of the work force is unemployed. The exception is Luxembourg, which with about 400,000 people is approximately the same size as Wigan, one of my metropolitan districts. There is about 0·15 per cent. unemployment in Luxembourg, but I hardly think that we can regard Luxembourg as a nation in the true sense of the word.
  We have had a major debate and a major argument about energy. I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that some of us are very disappointed with the actions of our leadership. Some of us fought very hard in the European Parliament, meeting a considerable degree of hostility from the Europeans, in defending the British position. Those who are prepared to gird their loins to defend the British position in anticipation of the great arguments which will come about on transport—for example, tachographs and the 8-hour day—and other policies involving the Environment Committee, such as environmental and pollution problems in the rivers, wonder whether the Government will once again remove themselves from the firing line when the first shots are fired. We wonder whether the statements made by our leaders bear credibility. It seems that when the first shots of anger are fired it is us who are left in the firing line.
  When we meet our Socialist colleagues in Europe next week I am certain that they will have one or two words to say about the British position which we stoutly defended only a couple of months ago.
  One or two of the statements that have been made in attacking the Government's position, and particularly by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), should be set against the nationalistic position taken by the Germans, the French and the Italians. It would do the hon. Gentleman a considerable amount
  1792
  of good to attend the European Parliament and to observe those countries adopt their national positions.
  One of the first things I noticed when we attended our first European Parliament, when the wine debate was held, was the amazing sight of the Italian Communist and Italian Christian Democrats standing shoulder to shoulder in defending the Italian position. On many matters there will be a British position. I have no doubt that in the months that lie ahead the British Labour delegation and the British Conservative delegation will move closer together on some issues in defending the British position.
  In the early days it struck me forcibly that those of us who bore the tag "anti-Marketeer" around our necks were labelled chauvinists when defending the British position as we saw it, whereas other countries would put their hands on their hearts and say "We are wonderful Europeans". They say that they believe in the European ideal when taking a blatantly nationalistic view. That is true particularly of the French and the Italians.
  I am opposed to direct elections by 1978. I have no wish to go into the legalistic details which were dealt with so admirably by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I wish to deal with the practicalities. We are told that we must have direct elections, but why must we have them? Who is to suggest that democracy is maintained because once every four years, as is suggested, or five years people put a cross on a piece of paper? I do not think for one moment that that is democracy.
  I remind those who argue for direct elections that, strange as it may seem, every other delegation in the European Parliament, with the exception of the British, has been elected, whereas in our delegation we have representatives of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party and Members from another place who have been elected by no one and are responsible to no one.
  Those of us who are in this House are democrats. We have been directly elected by our people. I suggest that we are still capable of following the democratic ideal without direct elections. In

  1793
  one respect I am a microcosm of what an official European MP might be because of the hideous local government reorganisation disaster which hit Great Britain, and particularly my constituency. I have to deal with no fewer than three county councils, four district councils and a new town. I represent about 100,000 people.
  I think I am right in saying that British Members of Parliament who were members of the European Parliament would, in effect, have to represent approximately 500,000 people. I have an enormous job dealing with the local authorities in my area. Anyone who was elected from my part of the world would have Lancashire added to his list and probably one or two extra district councils.
  I have talked to many people about direct elections. The Socialist rapporteur, Mr. Patijn, is very keen on the subject and has produced an excellent report, saying "Let us have direct elections; that will make us more democratic and will mean more power." That is to beg the question. The European Commission is playing politics. It has watched the Council of Ministers take away so many of its powers over the past few years that it is attempting to use the European Parliament to get back power from the Council of Ministers. No one will ever give it any powers. The powers will have to be evolved.
  We have discussed today areas in which Parliament itself will obtain powers, and I suggest that that is the correct way to approach elections. Let the institution grow first and let the people know what the institution is about. Having spent three years as a full-time agent, I know the practicalities of politics and elections in this country, but not in other countries. I know that, between General Elections, at local government elections the British people have an opportunity to vote against the Government. Those who bother to turn out take that opportunity to show their displeasure of the Government. Hundreds of councillors of all parties have been hounded out of office because of the unpopularity of the Whitehall Government. We all know about that, and we know how unfair it is. Far from strengthening the European ideal, far from giving credence and power to the European Parliament if, as a result of
  1794
  direct elections, the members of the European Parliament are in opposition to their national Governments, the Council of Ministers will take even less notice of them than it does now—and that is little enough.
  Mr. John Corrie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people in our constituencies who voted us into the House did so because they wanted us to do a job in Westminster? He must know, as I do, that it is physically impossible to do a job in the House and a job in Europe at the same time, and the day will come when the two jobs must be separated.
  Mr. Evans: I reject that argument. I have one of the biggest constituencies, and I have to work hard. Although I have 100,000 electors, I have not received one criticism from my electors because I have attended institutions in Europe. I know of no other member of the European Parliament who has been criticised for that reason by his constituents.
  I am not a federalist. I am an advocate for my own country. I hope that as time goes by the European countries will get closer together, but the European Parliament and European institutions must grow slowly and not be forced. If they are forced, they will collapse.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: It is a pity in a European debate to hark on legalities and concentrate on minutiae. Until the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke I thought that the debate also lacked vision. In concentrating on small issues we tend to forget that the vision is to bring together the people of Europe so that they work togther for a constructive future in a world that is becoming increasingly unkind in the economic and social sense, if not in other senses. I am not sure that we have the right formula in Parliament for dealing with issues that concern our destiny in Europe. In my view, the procedures here and in Europe should be examined.
  I have heard the views of honourable colleagues in the European Parliament—of which I am a member—intermixed with the views of the Westminster Parliament. One of the virtues of the dual mandate is that the national Parliament

  1795
  can keep in touch with the European Parliament. I take the view that it is an impossible and intolerable burden for anyone to be a member of both Parliaments for an indefinite period.
  My experience is different from that expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). My electors expect me to represent them in Westminster, although the source of power is in Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg. I support direct elections as outlined in Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. I accept that we must debate how we are to achieve that goal, and the timing.
  If a member of the European Parliament represents his constituents well in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg—I wish there was only one place and not three—he should be entitled to be re-elected at the next General Election, and not feel that he has let down his constituents in the Westminster Parliament. I support direct elections, and I accept that ultimately we should move not towards confederalism but towards a federal structure because the necessity for power in the European Parliament in Brussels is urgent.
  Hon. Members complain of the plethora of regulations and papers issued by the Commission. Until Ministers control the output and until parliamentarians control Ministers—which they can do only by direct election—the Eurocrats will lead parliamentarians by the nose. But, in saying this, I in no way wish to criticise the competence and dedication of the European civil servants working in the Commission.
  Behind the White Paper is the concept of the budget and the desire of Ministers to reduce expenditure. The only danger is that certain items of expenditure, if drastically reduced, destroy continuity, particularly in science, research, and technology. If the Parliament tries to restore funds to maintain that continuity in order, for instance, to ensure that the regional development fund has the power it needs, the Minister must listen. That is the tenor of the debate we have just held in the European Parliament.
  I have been involved in the work of various European committees, including those concerned with energy, research and
  1796
  technology. Irrespective of Britain having to work within the Community, there are in addition the Paris energy conference and the Rome talks. Energy policies are the concern of all of us in Europe. The process obviously starts with oil policy and the need for the nations of Europe to work together. This is what we have been doing in committee in the European Parliament. European colleagues hoped that there would be a European hydrocarbon or energy policy. Here, we have been discussing whether North Sea oil belongs to the Shetland Islands, to Scotland or to Britain. As has been stated in the White Paper on devolution, just as coal in Yorkshire and Nottingham, where I live, is British, I hope that oil now is also British. Having said that, there should be a co-operative effort in exploiting these resources and using European skills in doing so. A number of items have been discussed, including liquid petroleum gases and the uses to which they could be put, the avoiding of flaring, and perhaps the use of power packs on the platforms to generate electricity, when it is too costly to convert into liquid petroleum gases and move them back here. This would avoid wastage.
  This all comes back to the discussion in Rome yesterday about the value of North Sea oil. In the North Sea the capital cost of extraction could be 10 or 15 times that of the cost of extraction of oil in the Middle East. We know that. The cost of production could be up to that figure as well. It is, however, difficult to estimate the exact costs.
  The Government have set up the British National Oil Corporation, which I have condemned as a method of dealing with this new industry. However, that is the way we are to do it. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether we want or need to share the market for our oil. I hold the view that, because the cost of extraction is so high for us and we are in competition with the traditional OPEC countries, we need a guaranteed market. Our European friends want a guaranteed source of supply for some, if not all, of their oil. Do the Government think that we can go it alone? But we should be co-operating and co-ordinating with the Community countries, because we may fail on our own. We have been

  1797
  insular and isolated at a time when we want friends to help us in other directions, particular economically.
  I recognise that Lord Carrington and successive Secretaries of State for Energy of both parties have said that this is our oil and that we should control the rate of depletion, because if depletion is too fast the resource will go before it need have done. If it is too slow, capital assets will deteriorate or maintenance costs will be too high. These are issues on which we must co-operate.
  Again, it is very costly for one nation to go it alone in energy research, whether it be into solar systems, the transfer of energy, or the use of geothermal resources. One example is the JET—Joint European Torus—project, which involves plasma fusion. Much work has been done in Culham on this. We have been the world leaders in this. In the last committee that I attended the question was where the work should be located. I do not think that British insularity, and the line taken by our Prime Minister, will help other Ministers or Members of Parliament to ensure that this new work can come to this country. Insularity in one respect may mean that others will isolate us in different ways, and, therefore, it is a pity that the independent line has been taken at this time by the Prime Minister.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) stressed the disaster of the debate on the aircraft industry yesterday, and the nationalisation of that industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) pointed out from the Front Bench that there is a need to look at the aircraft industry as a European industry rather than as an isolated industry in this country, although we have had the greatest capacity of any EEC country.
  A paper produced by the Commission, now being discussed by the committees, concerns not only the aircraft industry but the operation of the airlines. If I may criticise that paper, it is that it has dealt with a type of aircraft on which there has been co-operation, and it has not dealt with the industrial aspect, the plant, the lay-out, and the capacity to produce.
  1798
  There have been remarkable difficulties, and obviously we understand the case of the Lockheed Tri-Star aircraft using a Rolls-Royce engine. This is by no means the only independent line criticised, but if we look at the structure of the aerospace industry of Europe first, we realise that, working together, we can evolve a pattern that will ensure jobs in Britain and in Europe. If we work on our own and shut our eyes to the rest of Europe, we shall have no market for our skills, despite being one of the leaders in this field.
  In airline operations we have debated Eurocontrol as an ideal for uniform aircraft and flight traffic in Europe, equivalent to the system in the United States of America, but accepting the difficulty that, until we have unified control for military as well as civil flights, Euro-control as a concept is futile and useless. This has been put to us by IATA in European terms. We should think of it as well in this country.
  Touching briefly on transportation, we have had discussions in the Transport and Regional Affairs Committee with the Commission and with the Ministers on the issues facing us. Obviously, here we are concerned with the social recommendations, in respect of the tachometer, and the 450-kilometre driving distance limit, as well as the drivers' hours, which concern operators in this country. I hope we shall be able to find from the Ministers the extent to which we can get deferment of the introduction of the tachometer and the extent to which we can comply with the European pattern.
  When we were having the debates on entering the Community there were questions of vehicle weight, axle weight, size and dimensions. We are nearing agreement, but the final compromise has not been reached. Until that compromise is reached, road haulage will not flow on a uniform pattern. That matter is on the agenda for the ministerial conference this month. It is urgent to reach a compromise. I shall be most disappointed if the Ministers have not moved towards that package.
  My next point, on which I have no time to dwell in detail, concerns the operation of the Regional Fund. There has been pressure by Ministers to reduce the value of the Regional Fund. The

  1799
  German Government have been behind this because they are funding most of it. We in this country want the continuity to be maintained, but as parliamentarians we must ensure that our claims are put forward effectively, and with the right timing, compared to the claims of other countries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and I and many others have seen the list. Our list has been on infrastructure grants. The other list has been in respect of factories and other schemes which will provide employment. I have asked a series of Parliamentary Questions about various areas of the country, including Ireland, and about the various claims which have been put forward, the extent to which they will bring employment and in what area of employment. In answer to a Written Question today, I have been told:
  "It is not possible for reasons of commercial confidentiality to give details of industrial applications under the Fund and it is not desirable to publish details of other applications which are still under consideration. When decisions are taken on applications announcements will be made."
  I hope that we can have a list not only of European money going into a project but of national financial contributions and other outside funds. The Regional Fund is only part of the catalyst for a much bigger investment in areas where employment is required.
  The ideal situation is for the Parliament of Europe to work together, if possible speaking with one voice, to ensure our survival and to forge our prosperity for the future. The leadership of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the energy question has perhaps not been an example of working together but an example which shows Britain as the odd man out. The challenge is to comply as far as we can and to work together for a European future. With a prosperous European future, a prosperous and successful future for Britain will surely follow.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is a privilege to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) because he happens to serve on a committee in which I have certain interests, namely, rail transport. He said
  1800
  that this committee had been discussing road haulage but had been unable to come to any agreement. However, he did not make any reference to rail transport, which in this country is publicly-owned. In land values alone, our railways are worth thousands of millions of pounds, quite apart from rolling stock and other assets. It is most regrettable that an hon. Member who sits on the European committee dealing with these matters should be unable to enlighten a Back-Bench Member who is vitally interested in rail and road haulage and in transport as a whole.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the committee deals with all aspects of transport policy—air, road, rail and inland waterway navigation. The shortage of time prevented my referring to them. The vital issue to be dealt with next month is that of road transport.
  Mr. Spriggs: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but he will agree that he did not mention the railways, which are vitally important to Europe as a whole, bearing in mind that we are awaiting from the Government a policy statement on transport and that the United Kingdom has been devoid of a Government transport policy for many years.
  I would never accept the position as Chairman of the British Railways Board, because Ministers of successive Governments have interfered with the management of our rail transport system. It has never been able to operate as a commercial undertaking should. Moreover, because it belongs to the nation, in the interests of the movement not only of people but of goods, I believe that there are other aspects to be taken into consideration—for example, the environment. We talk about the dangers of the lead content in petrol, but nothing has been done to remove it. All the experts have admitted that it is a danger to the nation's health.
  I wish to refer to the White Paper. Hon. Members may care to refer, for guidance, to paragraphs 55 to 58. One cannot but realise that unless we have more of these debates and more reports of the type we have heard this afternoon from my right hon. and hon. Friends, many people will be left in partial ignorance about what is taking place in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

  1801
  When my hon. Friends and other hon. Members return to European parliamentary business in the near future I hope that they will take back a message, because I believe that British transport lacks direction and Government support. No matter how clever the British Railways Board and its Chairman may be, it is well nigh impossible to run a viable railway transport system in any country. Yet Britain is one of the few countries which at present are cutting back their railway undertakings. The great danger is that it is much easier to close a system down than to find a body or a Government which will provide a railway undertaking which will operate in the interests of the nation as a whole.
  Whilst listening to some very valuable contributions to the debate I looked up at the Strangers' Gallery and realised that there were five times as many people in that Gallery as on the Benches of both sides of the House. I admit that I was against entry into the Common Market, but I appreciate that this debate is of great value to the people of this country and to Members of Parliament. I regret that this debate has not attracted the interest of many more hon. Members than have participated.
  It would be wrong to continue making any contribution to a debate such as this without congratulating those who have had the experience, which most of us have not had, of giving us what I would term a report. It has not been a very exciting report, or the type of report which we were led to expect prior to entry to the Common Market. However, I shall not reopen old sores.
  The hon. Member for Hallam said that he served on the Regional Policy and Transport Committee of the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman—for what reason I do not know, because he did not explain; it may have been because of the time allowed for speeches—failed to deal with pollution. This country is bedevilled with pollution of the environment.
  During proceedings on the Local Government Bill, which created the redistribution of local government boundaries, particularly in England, we were told that larger authorities would be able to deal with domestic and industrial waste by industrial means. The cost of
  1802
  dealing with poisonous or toxic substances as waste was accepted as being beyond the ability of the smaller local authorities.
  Local government has been settling in since it was reorganised in 1972. One of the great problems facing us—I do not know about our European partners—is the use of open tips. My constituents are very worried. People in St. Helens have spent many thousands of pound buying homes in areas where it is now proposed to develop tipping, including toxic materials, on a very wide basis.
  When my right hon. and hon. Friends next serve on committees of the European Parliament, I should like them to take this message: the hon. Member for St. Helens, on behalf not only of St. Helens but of other places in this country, would like the assistance of the experts in Europe to help to develop an industrial system for the destruction of toxic and unwanted materials and for the recycling of glass and ferrous and non-ferrous metals back to industry.
  A few years ago I endeavoured to help a chemical firm in St. Helens to import sulphuric acid from Belgium. To my surprise and shock I found that the sulphuric acid was contained in unsafe tankers, which were put on ships to be brought across the Channel. In one instance the fire service had to play cold water on a tanker for the whole of its journey across the Channel on a vessel. In another instance a tanker reached the deck of a vessel but was taken off because it was in such a dangerous condition that the skipper refused to accept responsibility for it.
  If the European parliamentary committees are really serious about the environment and transport, there is much to be done. British transport, especially the railway system, is in need of some guidance and, if necessary, financial help. I am sure that if there is any money to be given to help a transport system such as ours, it will be more than welcome. Dick Marsh, the Chairman of British Rail, has appealed time and again for the finance promised by various Governments who have failed to deliver the goods.
  We have a system that cannot possibly operate on a long-term basis. It is impossible to operate our railway system on a

  1803
  year-to-year basis. If we are to run a proper integrated and co-ordinated transport system, whoever the management may be, for goodness' sake let us give the management the power and the time, at least. Let them plan for 10 years ahead and then look at things again.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I assure the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) that I myself represent a very proud railway town—Carn-forth. I keep, and certainly shall keep, a very close watch on the interests of railwaymen and on the railway system in this country in the Regional Policy and Transport Committee on which I have the honour to serve in the European Parliament.
  I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) with great interest. He said that the Community paid too much attention to details and did not get down to the fundamental changes which were necessary if the Community is to flourish. He went on to point out that the Community spends 70 per cent. of its budget on the common agricultural policy, and that there is little sign of any change in that.
  The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong in that regard. In its early years the Community set out to achieve an agricultural revolution which took us in Britain 150 years and caused great hardship in our countryside. The Community set out to achieve that in a fraction of the time and without the hardship that we here endured. The Community has very largely succeeded by now. It is ready now to move on from that stage to the next vital stage of raising the standard of living in the poorer regions of the Community.
  I am not ashamed to admit that I accepted the invitation to join the European Parliament because I believed that this country could never achieve the prosperity needed to help our own regions, such as the North-West which I am very proud to represent, unless we were inside the Community. Just as the CAP formed the bond between the original Six, so I believe that in the next stage of the development of the Community the Regional Fund will become the cement to bind the new Community of Nine, and later more members, together.
  1804
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), referring to applications for help from the Social Fund, said that putting forward projects was a very long-drawn-out process and that before an application can even be put forward it must have the blessing of the Minister. She went on to say that there must be direct communications between the regions and the Commission and between local authorities and regional development associations in this country for them to present and argue their own case.
  Hon. Members must appreciate that that is equally true—in fact, more so—of the Regional Development Fund. Governments can make mistakes. Our present Government frequently do, especially in their regional policy. The regions would feel very much happier and have much more confidence in the regional policy of the Community if they could put their projects direct to the Regional Committee, as the hon. Lady suggested in relation to applications to the Social Fund. The Regional Fund in its infancy and the way Governments deal with their share of the Fund will be a test of their good faith with the rest of the Community. Our own Commissioner, Mr. George Thomson, has said:
  "The regional fund should be a bonus to help disadvantaged regions, over and above what would be spent on regional aids by member governments."
  Unfortunately, there is a grave suspicion that the United Kingdom Government will not do this. Both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Planning and Local Government have put on the record in circulars that local authorities will not be allowed to embark on additional projects because of the availability of additional funds from the EEC Regional Fund. But the Fund was not intended to bail out ailing national Budgets. It was intended to be of direct assistance to our regions, particularly at this time of very high unemployment.
  In my own constituency, unemployment this month has risen to the horrifying figure of 7.4 per cent., with the even more horrifying statistic that there are 55 people for every vacancy. Every hon. Member who represents a constituency in the regions should urge the Government to keep to the spirit of the Regional Fund and not allow others to misuse our share. If this is done, our

  1805
  regions can at least begin to enjoy a standard of living which more fortunate areas have long taken for granted.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: This has been one of the strangest debates I have taken part in for a very long time. We are dealing with six months of Community activity at a time when the European Council has just met, various statements have been made by Prime Ministers and Presidents and Press conferences have been held at Heathrow Airport. We have been denied the benefit of hearing exactly what happened at the Rome summit meeting from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, yet we are holding a debate on these very issues. I am sorry that the Minister of State refused to give us any information about what happened at the conference. In the past six months the European Parliament has been debating the issues which have led up to what took place in Rome. A lot of the work we have been doing has been concerned with the issues raised in the summit. If we had not been discussing them, the summit would not have taken place on these problems and issues.
  I agree with the hon. Members on both sides who have said that they hope this will not happen again. It was a mistake for neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister to make a statement today. Alternatively, the debate could have been postponed until tomorrow. Those who arrange the business of the House knew when the conference would be finished and when this debate was to be held. Rearranging the business would not have required much ingenuity. Enough has been made of this point in the debate, but I hope that a similar situation never happens again.
  Of the 20 speakers in the debate, 12 have been members of the European Parliament. That shows the vast amount of interest being taken by other hon. Members who are always talking about wanting to know more of what is going on in Europe. It is strange that when the opportunity is offered to them, it is not taken up to the extent that one would have expected.
  The main themes of this debate have been clear, to the extent that the debate
  1806
  has lent itself to themes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) said, it has been a diffused debate. The principal issue has concerned direct elections. At one point I closed my eyes and thought that I was back in the House in the pre-referendum period. Some of the speeches had a most familiar ring, and I thought that we were about to fight all the old battles once again.
  We are now, thank goodness, in the Community. Of course, that is not irreversible. This House could take a decision to change that situation, but to all intents and purposes we are in the Community to stay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten) and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) have been talking about the mandatory position of direct elections. As I understand it, it is mandatory under Article 138 for the Assembly to draw up proposals for direct elections on the basis of universal suffrage, and for the Council, acting unanimously, to lay down appropriate provisions and to recommend them to member States. The European Parliament has done that. The decision was taken there by an overwhelming majority in January, and it is now for the Council to fulfil its obligation.
  I gather from statements in the Press and from what I have heard from the Prime Minister on the radio that the right hon. Gentleman states that there will be no hindrance from this country. The Danes seemed to be saying the same thing last week when I met the Danish Prime Minister, so it seems that Foreign Ministers will be given the go-ahead to fulfil their part and to make proposals to their various national Parliaments.
  The national Parliaments will have the right to reject what has been recommended, but there is a basic principle here. It is that when we signed the treaty and when we had the referendum result we accepted Article 138(3). We said that we agreed in principle to accept that article. The provision is not mandatory; the House can throw out the proposal. But what is the point of signing a treaty which contains an article clearly stating that proposals will be put to the House of Commons for direct elections if we

  1807
  have no intention of accepting that article and using our best endeavours to do so.
  The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has written to me explaining that he is unable to be here for the winding-up speeches, and I am sorry that he is absent. He suggested that my party had been unclear about whether it supports direct elections. I must tell him that of course we do support them. The details, of course, must be worked out, but that will be taken care of in the proposals by the Council of Ministers. However, let me assure him that in principle we accept that there will be direct elections to the European Parliament.
  I thought that this was no longer an issue of controversy across the Floor of the House. The controversy will arise when the Government, whichever party forms it, put a proposal before the House. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North will trot out all the arguments we have heard from him over the past five or 10 years, and that is when the controversy will begin.
  A second main theme has emerged. It concerns foreign policy. There is no doubt that the White Paper shows that progress has been made, albeit not very great. If we put on one side the Helsinki conference, at which the Community spoke with one voice, I believe that we have made progress in foreign affairs. For instance, we have stopped the rather ludicrous procedure of having the Davignon Committee procedure whereby Foreign Ministers sat down, then got up, went out of the room, took off those particular hats, went in again and sat as the Council of Ministers.
  Progress has been made on co-operation in foreign affairs. I welcome what has been said by hon. Members about the combined approach to deal with the difficult situation in Portugal and how the Community has definitely helped to support the democratic forces within Portugal and is helping to stabilise the situation there. We sincerely hope that this support will continue.
  The Minister of State referred to Greece, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that Greece would
  1808
  join the Community as soon as it was ready. Indeed, an association agreement was signed way back in the 1960s stating that Greece could be a member of the Community when it is ready. I hope that the next step will be taken soon, and that there will be a recommendation from the Commission that negotiations should commence with Greece for the purpose of working out the transitional and final terms for it to become a member. Greece's agriculture and industrial base need to be strengthened during this transitional period so that it does not find it too difficult to accede to the full provisions and can face the full blast of Community membership.
  The House should not forget that there is another country which is an associated State under the same kind of agreement as Greece; namely, Turkey. There are problems connected with Turkey's membership—as there are with that of Greece—in relation to the Cyprus situation. This is not the moment to go into those problems in detail. Turkey has an association agreement with the Community on exactly the same lines as Greece. We must bear in mind Turkey's point of view and interests when the Foreign Ministers of the Community negotiate the terms of final membership with Greece. We must ensure that Turkey's interests are safeguarded and the door is left open for her to join.
  The Minister of State mentioned the powers of the European Parliament and the budgetary aspects, which are referred to in the White Paper. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that when the Council of Ministers met to deal with budgetary questions it would be with what the European Parliament has, in point of fact, asked to be put back into the budget—that is, just over 360 million units of account—and that a proportion of what the European Parliament has been asking for the social programme will indeed be put back by the Council, in conformity with the original proposal of the Commission.
  There are many more issues in relation to the budget that I should like to underline, but many Members have spoken of the powers of the Parliament and, if there is a directly elected Parliament, what it will do and what will happen there. One of the areas in which gradually—I underline that word—the

  1809
  European Parliament is increasing its ability to control events is through its control of the budget. There is an enormously long way to go. A mere 15 per cent. is a small proportion of what we can control and we can put back even less after the Council has decided to cut the budget. It is about 70 million units of account this year compared with the total budget of many thousands of units of account. Gradually, however, as our own resources and our control over them increase within the Community, so will the European Parliament have greater control over Community expenditure for social, regional, agricultural and other purposes.
  There is a continuing argument about whether we should give more power to the Parliament, but I hope that progress here will come gradually and naturally as the Parliament develops its various institutions and methods of financial control. One of the issues raised in the White Paper is the setting up of a mechanism for the control of expenditure. The Prime Minister has said several times recently that he would like to see a system equivalent to that which we have here, a Public Accounts Committee system, established as a European Committee of Parliament to scrutinise expenditure.
  The establishment of a court of audit will be part of that procedure. If one is to have a PAC system, one must have the necessary tools for the purpose, and a court of audit is a sine qua non if we are to have a committee of that kind examining expenditure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, will do all he can to bring this idea forward as soon as possible even though it may entail a small increase in expenditure during the coming year, 1976.
  I have no time to go deeply into the question whether the European Parliament and the Community itself should develop along federal or confederal lines. That is not the purpose of our debate today. But what is important—this arises from what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—is that we do not want an over-centralised unitary form of administration in the EEC. No one wants that, not even the most ardent federalist or those who, like myself, take a rather more pragmatic view and believe that change will come
  1810
  naturally with the development of the European Parliament and the financial powers of the Community as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) outlined.
  In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet spoke about harmonisation, and many hon. Members have taken that matter up. One of the many achievements for which we in the Conservative Group at the European Parliament can claim a certain credit is that after we first joined the Parliament back in 1973, through persistent harrying of the Commissioners and putting our case to them, we succeeded in getting the Commissioner in charge of that policy area to make a statement that harmonisation would never be done purely for harmonisation's sake and would happen only when it was essential to improve or to enable conditions of fair trading and fair competition to exist within the European Community.
  If right hon. and hon. Members would look at the record of what has taken place during the six months covered by the White Paper, or even the year before that, they will see that there has been a great reduction in legislation and directives dealing purely with esoteric subjects for harmonisation.
  However, there still remain certain problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) gave one example, the question of the lead content of petrol. This is an important issue. I firmly believe that what was proposed was wrong. There is not much danger in the level of lead content in petrol which we have in the United Kingdom, and I know of no scientific evidence to prove that there is. Nevertheless, this was a harmonisation proposal from the Commission which would have had a serious effect, as my hon. Friend pointed out, on the whole economy of our petrol industry and would quite unnecessarily have increased costs. I was astonished to find Labour Members voting for that harmonisation in the European Parliament. If the European Parliament had accepted it and it had gone through to the Council of Ministers it would have entailed a considerable increase in costs. Luckily, Parliament rejected it. In principle, the European Parliament and the Commission are not embarking

  1811
  on a great deal of unnecessary legislation in that direction. The right area in which a great deal more should be done, and will be done, is that of pollution. It is right to say that some forms of pollution are common to all States and to all areas. In those instances it is right that there should be a general level of harmonisation legislation to deal with pollution, be it on the land, in the sea or in the air. However, in many cases what is good for the Mediterranean area is not necessarily required for the various estuarial waters around the United Kingdom. It is not sensible to try to find legislation to deal with the whole complex.
  One of the jobs which we have been trying to do in the European Parliament is to take great care to ensure that unnecessary harmonisation legislation is resisted. We try to see that it is introduced only for specific areas where, for example, pollution control should take place, but there is the argument that where we are contiguous, and there are many such areas, there pollution legislation should be introduced on a European basis.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke about the safety and health of workers and consumers. In that context it is right that there should be European legislation on a Community basis.
  Finally, I deal with what we have been doing in the European Parliament and in Europe generally concerning overseas territories, including the third countries. One of the successes which took place just before the period covered by the White Paper was the signing of the Lomé Agreement. As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) said, the 46 Lomé Agreement countries have had their preliminary meeting in Luxembourg. I had the honour of being present at that meeting for a short period last week. It was an extremely interesting development, and it should be recognised that the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) played a great part in bringing about the agreement. It is only fair to give praise where praise is due.
  The Lomé Agreement will undoubtedly do a great deal to improve relationships between the Community and the 46 countries. The gibe which has so often been heard over the past few years is that
  1812
  the Community is an inward-looking body. By the Lomé Agreement the Community has proved that suggestion not to be true. There is nothing on which the Community seems to spend more time than attempting to find ways and means of improving its trading positions and relationships with third countries.
  There is a tremendous movement in co-ordinating and developing trading relationships with the Mediterranean countries. New agreements are coming forward all the time. That also applies to South-East Asia. I am glad that reference has been made to the problems which exist in giving food aid to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Community is not in a position to give a vast amount of food aid to those countries. Indeed, I do not think that they want aid in the form of food. I think it would be better if some form of agreement along the lines of the Lomé Agreement could be negotiated for South-East Asia, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
  In conclusion, I come back to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He was disappointed that the Community was not making great progress and that the Government were not taking initiatives. That is true. Those of us who work in the European Parliament know that there has been steady, slow grinding work which never seems to stop and the work load never gets lighter. There has not been the galvanic advance that we expected, even in these grim economic days, from Her Majesty's Government, the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend once the referendum was over and we were firmly within the Community.
  After this six months of regaining their breath and their powers of imagination, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government during 1976 will help to revitalise the EEC. What one hears from one's colleagues of other countries in the European Parliament and the Community institutions is true. We are the ones who have been dragging our feet and who have put up obstacles, problems and difficulties which it has taken endless man-hours to solve, as in Rome this week.
  I hope that this kind of performance will cease and that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman will do everything they can to further Community

  1813
  ideals—for which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so bravely during the referendum campaign—and to see that the United Kingdom takes a lead in building a unity of the European countries so that the Community is a force for good in the world in the years to come.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Mr. Michael Stewart.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for intervening at this stage, because we are all waiting with great interest to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) has to say. When the Minister of State said that there would not be a second Government speaker and expressed the hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham would catch your eye, I assumed that he would reply to the debate but would give up perhaps half his time to his right hon. Friend. As we are considering a Government White Paper, is it not right that, after listening to the views of the House, the Government should respond to what has been said in the time-honoured tradition of accountability to the House? I therefore make what I hope is an appropriate protest.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make his protest, but it is not a point of order.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: We listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I am sure that he will not misunderstand me when I say that we all regret that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) is not with us, and hope that before long he will resume his work, both here and in the various places where European parliamentary work is done.
  If we look at the debate as an attempt to strike a balance sheet on the past six months, I am not sure that we shall all take quite so gloomy a view as did the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). It is true, as he said, that the Community is not making much progress on industrial policy. In some respects it does not seem to be aware of the importance of the issues involved. It is symptomatic that among the various committees of the European Parliament no
  1814
  committee is dedicated specifically to industry. There is a gap there.
  It is also true that only a little progress has been made on the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy, although the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) fairly said that that policy was intended to carry through an agricultural revolution and, in the end, to reduce the number of people employed in agriculture and increase the efficiency of the agricultural processes. There is no doubt at all that it has made progress. It has cost a good deal on the way, and I think that Europe has now reached a time when the costliness of the agriculture programme has to be very severely examined.
  Against these criticisms it is also fair to say—nobody has disputed this—that in the last six months the Community has shown an increasing capacity to use its political influence. There is not much doubt that the great resources of the Community, standing ready to help a democratic Government in Portugal, had a significant influence on events there. I think it is possible—although here one ventures into prophecy—that a similar development will occur, if things go well, with Spain. I believe that in both countries of the Iberian peninsula a number of people have for years deeply regretted the estrangement of these two countries from the family of European nations. If it can be made clear that the price of their entry into that family is the firm establishment of democratic institutions, it will be an advantage to Europe as a whole.
  There is a credit balance also in the Community's increasingly generous and imaginative approach towards the problems of the developing world. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whose speech I was not able to hear, described her experience of this. We in Britain should be particularly proud of this approach, because so many of the countries concerned are linked with us in the Commonwealth. Like others, I felt anxiety that entry into the Community might estrange us from the Commonwealth. In view of the many points at which the Commonwealth countries and the Community are linked, we should have found ourselves further removed from contact with the Commonwealth if we had remained outside the Community. [Interruption.] I did not

  1815
  expect that remark to carry universal agreement. I suggest, however, that those of my hon. Friends who do not agree might at least think the matter over. I have listened patiently to many things with which I did not agree in this debate, and I have been thinking them over.
  I do not propose to go on summing up. One of the advantages of replying to a debate when not on the Government Front Bench is that one is not under an obligation to summarise all the speeches. The way to make a successful reply from the Government Front Bench is to say, "The hon. Member for so-and-so made a most valuable point and my hon. Friend the Member for so-and-so made a very interesting point." It is not necessary to answer the points; one simply needs to show that one has noticed them. This goes down extremely well. But it is not necessary for me to waste the time of the House in that exercise. The House will expect me, in view of the position that I have the honour to hold, to comment mainly on the work of the European Parliament and the way in which it relates to the events of the last six months. In commenting on the European Parliament I should first raise the question of direct elections.
  Mr. Reid: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that point, will he comment on the points raised by the hon. Members for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and myself, about Scottish and Welsh representations in terms of the institutions of the Community, and say whether separation has any meaning within the European Economic Community?
  Mr. Stewart: I was going to talk about the European Parliament. If I followed the hon. Gentleman's speech correctly, he was particularly concerned with the way in which Scotland could make her voice heard, as Scotland, in the European Parliament and the other organs of the Community. He will forgive me if I do not give him a full reply on that question, for what it involves is the question whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. I must record my own opinion that it would be to the advantage of both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland were to remain part of the United Kingdom. I
  1816
  think that certain consequences follow from that in relation to the EEC.
  If one talks of the European Parliament one must say something on the question of direct election. There has been argument as to how far we can be regarded as committed on this. It is quite clear, from Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, that no nation is bound to accept any plan that comes along for direct elections, or to have a plan imposed upon it by majority vote. But I think it is also clear that any Government which entered the Community, having signed the Treaty of Accession and read Article 138, should not at the same time have in its mind a private resolve to oppose any scheme for direct election. A Government behaving like that would not be behaving in a straightforward manner. In common sense and honesty, quite plainly, Governments are required, in good faith, to try to make the idea of direct elections work.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the problem is not quite that, but that there is also a commitment to find a common method of election, which is a very different problem for Great Britain?
  Mr. Stewart: I quite agree, and on that point we are obviously not obliged to take any scheme that comes along; but we are under an obligation to try, in good faith, to make the idea work. If I may say so, my hon. Friend and I are particularly committed, because the Government of which we were both members in 1969 were party to the Anglo-Italian declaration affirming Britain's faith in direct elections.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I record the fact that I voted against my own Government's obligation. Therefore, my commitment is perhaps not as strong as that of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Stewart: I think we might remember what happened in 1969, when the last Labour Government were in power. The reason why, in practice, I believe that we should go ahead with direct elections is that it is difficult for any Member, however conscientious, to fulfil the dual mandate now. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) said. It is not impossible, but it is very difficult. I think that the Parliament will grow, in terms

  1817
  of the scope of its work, and that will make it increasingly difficult to fulfil the dual mandate properly, and particularly to fulfil it for any length of time. Our delegations to the European Parliament are constantly having to be changed because people feel that they cannot be separated from Westminster for too long. To that extent, our delegates will never play a really leading part in the European Parliament. These are practical considerations in favour of our pursuing the object of direct elections.
  As to the nature of the European Parliament, any hon. Member going to it from this Parliament and measuring it against this Parliament will no doubt experience a sense of disappointment. This Parliament, after all, is sovereign, pragmatic, and stationary at Westminster. The European Parliament is subordinate, pioneering and nomadic, and one becomes acutely aware of this as the months go on. I say that it is subordinate: one could fairly say that Europe has at the moment, in effect, a two-chamber legislature—the Council of Ministers and the Assembly—in which the Council of Ministers is in every conceivable meaning of the word the Upper House. Indeed, it recalls to some extent what I believe was the position of the Commons in the very early history of the English Parliament, when a Bill was a kind of humble petition from the Commons to the great Lords of Parliament and the Crown, the Commons hoping to get something through. However, we notice over the years what has happened to the Commons House of Parliament.
  Despite its subordinate nature, the Assembly possesses what might be described as certain nuclear weapons. However, they are of such a horrific nature that it is extremely difficult to use them. It can, if it goes through the proper procedures, sack the entire Commission. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Governments reappointing the same Commission. However, I suppose that the Parliament could do it again. A little more realistically, it can reject the entire budget. Although these powers sound too sweeping and too clumsy to be used, they should not be entirely ignored.
  The tone of the recent budget debate in the European Parliament was striking. In many parts of the House there was the angry reiteration, "If we get this sort of
  1818
  thing from the Council again, we shall reject the budget." It was not done this time. However, I do not regard it as in any degree impossible. If again, we were presented with a budget in which expenditure on the agricultural policy was regarded as sacrosanct, where all the cuts had to fall on other forms of expenditure, and where they had been slapped on in an extremely disproportionate and haphazard fashion. I do not rule out the possibility of the Parliament rejecting the budget. That would oblige both the Commission and the Council to think again.
  There are the avenues towards greater powers for the Parliament suggested in the Vedel Report, which was made some lime ago. It was suggested that it should be possible increasingly to give to the Parliament powers of co-decision on certain matters which are at present determined solely by the Council, and to give the Parliament increasing power over the allocation of expenditure on what are known as the "non-obligatory functions"
  I think that it is towards the development of its power in that direction that the Parliament should concentrate its mind. One of its weaknesses at the moment is that it can so easily be left off to discuss this, that and the other immediate topics of the day, instead of asking itself what is the relation between the time that it will spend on that topic and the amount of power that will come out of it.
  That is another reason why I am inclined to believe in direct elections. There will be a power struggle. I doubt whether people who can give it only part of their time can engage in what may be a long tactical struggle with the Council and the Commission to increase the Assembly's powers.
  That brings me to my next point about the nature of the Parliament. I have described what I mean by calling it a subordinate body. It is also a developing body. By contrast with this House, which, over a long period, has developed highly articulated procedural methods which, on the whole, we adapt very skilfully to meet new needs as they arise, the European Parliament is still very much feeling its way. After all, in its full life it is only 17 years old, and the events of the past two years have been very much a new chapter in its existence.

  1819
  I remember how one of my hon. Friends once wished to raise a point in a debate, and there was considerable doubt whether he would be in order in doing so. It took the occupant of the Chair rather longer to decide whether he was in order than it would have taken my hon. Friend to make his point in the first place. That is because there is not the same authority in the Chair, or even, sometimes, the same clarity about the rules of procedure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made a most interesting and significant speech. It occurred to me that many of the points he was making could, with advantage, be said in the European Parliament and their implications fully discussed. The trouble is that the amount of time available to the Parliament for that type of reflection on its problems is limited because, as my hon. Friend says, we have to spend so much time on the minutae of business. It clearly means that the Parliament must get to work on reforming its procedures. Indeed, Labour Party delegates are glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is the Chairman of the recently appointed Committee on Procedures.
  I have described the Parliament as a subordinate and developing body, but it is also a partisan body. Indeed, I regard that as a very good and necessary thing. It is organised on party lines.
  Several hon. Members have deplored the thin attendance tonight. We all know the reason for that. It is because there is not a vote either on this business or on any of the subsequent business. I am not suggesting that there should be a vote. I think that we should approach European politics in the spirit not that it would be almost indecent to have partisan votes about them, but that they are as much the subject of party controversy as anything else. For example, in the European Parliament my hon. Friends and I, together with our colleagues in the Socialist Group, secured the defeat of a particular report emanating from the President's right in that Chamber, or that quarter of the House. The report concerned the attitude of the Community towards competition. The point we were making was that the passages in the
  1820
  Treaty of Rome and elsewhere about freedom of competition are not to be interpreted as a charter for unlimited free enterprise. They are a prohibition in terms of purely nationalistic restrictions on trade. They do not inhibit public ownership or social actions by Governments. That type of consideration will be increasingly important.
  The Community deals—I hope that in time it will deal more fully—with such matters as health and safety at work, the rights of workers to participate in industry and the attitudes which the public authorities should take towards multi national companies. These are strong controversial matters—controversial between parties and controversial between different class interests. In my view is is good that the European Parliament is organised on partisan lines, because it will help to give vitality to direct elections to the European Parliament.
  I have already described the Parliament as subordinate, nomadic, developing and partisan. The final adjective that I would apply to it is "prophetic" or "pioneering". For example, the action taken first by the Commission and later the Ministers over the negotiations that were taking place with Spain was preceded by a debate in the Parliament. It is extremely likely that that debate influenced the action of the Commission and the Ministers.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us were very disturbed by reports, emanating from Brussels between the time of the debate and the actual engagement with the Spanish authorities, which suggested that the Commission's diplomatic services, or whatever they are, were disheartened by the attitude taken by the European Parliament?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not mind whether they were disheartened or not. I am glad that we passed what I think was the right resolution in the European Parliament and that the Commission subsequently took what I regard as the right action.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us believe that, in practice, the wording of the resolution condemned those men to death?
  Mr. Stewart: That is a view which many of us do not share. I was referring to the pronouncement by the Parliament on the continuing negotiations with Spain. The Parliament was performing a pioneering function, and I think that it can continue to do that.
  During the debate hon. Members have mentioned a number of problems which the Community ought to tackle, but so far it has scratched only the surface.
  Mr. Dykes: I apologise for interrupting and asking the right hon. Gentleman to go back a little. I thought that he was continuing with the same point. He was clearly proud of the action that was taken on the competition policy within the larger group of which he is a member. Will he explain why Socialists in the Committee stage, which was a thorough preliminary discussion of the same policy, did not oppose it then?
  Mr. Stewart: By the time it came to the later stage the Socialist group was somewhat enlarged, and perhaps inspired. Anyhow, I am sure that we took the right line. We ought not to deplore partisan conflict.
  I am glad, too, that we stuck out over Portugal and insisted that the Community should help as soon as possible and not wait, as some suggested, until next February when, possibly, the next elections would have been held. Again, we were able to press home a partisan point usefully. I describe that as a pioneering function.
  There are several problems which hon. Members have mentioned of which the Community has so far scratched only the surface. Frequently a debate in the Parliament will bring out the critical issues and will possibly serve the kind of purpose that a debate on a Green Paper serves here, assuming that the Government are genuinely paying attention to it.
  1822
  That is a function which the Parliament can increasingly perform.
  I believe that all the limitations, frustrations and in spite of laborious business of the European Parliament, participation by this country is worth while. In that I think that I carry with me those of my hon. Friends who have participated in its work.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I record that it is extraordinarily unusual for a debate of this importance to take place with no member of the Foreign Office staff being present in the Official Box throughout?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I cannot even see the place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Communities, April-October 1975 (Command Paper No. 6349)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (LOANS) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  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.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (RATES)
  10.1. p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
  That the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  This Order amends the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which consolidated and amended the then existing law on rating and valuation in Northern Ireland to achieve broad parity with England and Wales. However, it was not practicable in that Order to deal with certain kinds of hereditaments which are used for public utility purposes, or with the ratability of plant and machinery.
  In addition the 1972 Order provided a temporary limitation of rates for playing fields, which ceases after 31st March next year.
  The major purpose of this Order is to deal with these matters. Consultations have taken place with interested parties, including local government representatives, professional bodies, the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, the Gas Employers' Council and harbour authorities.
  Article 11 and Schedule 2 deal with the ratability of certain items of plant and machinery. In Northern Ireland it has always been considered that plant in the nature of a fixture is ratable but recent legal decisions have thrown doubt on the view that the law regarding ratable plant had a wider interpretation than corresponding law in Great Britain.
  In order to resolve such doubts and to achieve parity of assessment, Schedule 2 contains the precise classifications of plant and machinery as those in rating law in Great Britain. The new basis of assessment will not affect the continuance of the derating of industrial hereditaments.
  Article 10 and Schedules 1 and 2 provide the new basis for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and for gas undertakings. For each of the undertakings any houses, showrooms and administrative offices will be assessed as separate hereditaments in the normal
  1824
  way, that is, on an estimated rental basis. Each undertaking is deemed to occupy a notional hereditament for which an aggregate ratable value will be fixed by a formula based on throughput. It is proposed that discussions will take place with representatives of these undertakings to fix the basic aggregate ratable values and the formula for up-dating annually.
  Article 11 and Schedule 2 provide the formula for calculating the ratable value of docks in Northern Ireland. Over the years there has grown up a what one can only describe as a hotchpotch of methods of assessing the major docks and harbours in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Harbour assessment is made on a tonnage basis, Larne Harbour on the "profits" or "accountancy" basis, Londonderry and Coleraine are exempt from rates, and Warrenpoint is assessed on a capital value basis. The proposed formula follows directly the present method used in England and Wales and will provide uniformity between docks in Northern Ireland.
  The new basis of assessment will not affect the continuance of the derating of docks as freight transport hereditaments. This involves a reduction of 75 per cent. in the rate bill for qualifying hereditaments to be applied to keeping down freight charges.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does this mean that the docks in Coleraine and Londonderry will now be paying a rate under this new assessment?
  Mr. Concannon: This means that all the docks in Northern Ireland will be treated equally, and they will be treated on the same basis as the docks are treated in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mines and quarries are given the same concession by Schedule 2 as that available on the mainland. In assessing the net annual value of this type of hereditament in Northern Ireland, only one-half of the royalties paid will be taken into account.
  Article 6 and Schedule 2 empower the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to determine by order subject to affirmative resolution the method by which the net annual value is to be assessed for undertakings such as canals, natural gas

  1825
  terminals, railways and rediffusion. Any such Order will be made only after consultation with interested parties.
  The last major change in the Order concerns playing fields. The temporary provision for relief from rates contained in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 terminates on 31st March next year. Article 4 of this Order simplifies and makes permanent this relief by providing for a 35 per cent. reduction in the amount of rates payable in respect of playing fields which are occupied by non-profit-making organisations using the land wholly or mainly for open-air games or athletic sports. In addition, this article empowers the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to make an order extending the relief to other types of recreational use.
  I will now turn to some of the minor changes in the Order. Article 7 removes any doubt which exists concerning the right to relief from rates for property used for charitable recreational purposes; that is, those involving social welfare and those used for public services. Article 9 extends the derating of fish farms to shell fish beds, and makes the ratable value of oyster beds two-fifths of the net annual value.
  Article 12 provides a safeguard for an agent who is chargeable with rates as "owner" of a hereditament who is liable to the extent of the money he holds or has held for his principal. Any sums he has been compelled to pay in respect of public health expenses are to be ignored.
  Article 13 provides a complementary rule where an agent charged with public health expenses has paid out money in respect of rates.
  I commend the Order to the House.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I always understood this was a technical matter but until I heard the Minister speak, I did not understand just how technical. Northern Ireland should have some form of local representation if this is the way its rating system is to be commended to the legislature. I want to ask a number of rather more fundamental questions than the Minister has dealt with.
  1826
  The order at least has the one commending grace that it does not increase expenditure in Northern Ireland, but it certainly raises issues of tremendous local importance. Local government in Northern Ireland was reformed three years ago and the 69 districts were amalgamated into 26. The whole basis of the reorganisation was that there would be a local Parliament in Northern Ireland. Housing, planning, health and education were removed from local authorities and taken into the central Executive, which no longer exists. The whole system of local government in Northern Ireland pivots on the pre-supposition that there will be a Stormont.
  I accept that we cannot reform local government again, but there are a number of points the Minister should recognise. First and most important is the frustration felt in Northern Ireland at the moment. Most functions of local government have been taken into central hands and local control is now largely nonexistent. Rates are levied and imposed, but there is very little democratic control over the way in which the money is spent.
  The rating system in Northern Ireland is based on two rates—the district rate and the regional rate. Is the Minister satisfied that the system of imposing a regional rate related to an English district is proving a satisfactory way of dealing with Northern Ireland? Or should there be some way in which Northern Ireland interests can be taken more seriously, with the rates related to Northern Ireland conditions and problems?
  Are the Government satisfied that a 40 per cent. increase in the district rate which now faces many ratepayers is simply due to inflation, or is it due to increased expenditure in Northern Ireland? May we have an explanation about the differences which occur in Northern Ireland rates? The regional rate varies according to area, and that arose because when Stormont disappeared the old councils had different rates. Regional rate varies from one district to another. How great is that variation and how soon may we see the change?
  Has any thought been given by the Government to the revaluation of property in Northern Ireland? I understand that the system is based on 1939 values, and I can assure the Government, having

  1827
  experienced two revaluations in my constituency, that nothing causes greater trouble than the use of old values and attempts to change them.
  Mr. Concannon: A revaluation is in progress at the moment. It is due to finish on 31st December and will apply from 1st April next year.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I am glad to hear that. I expect that when the revaluation takes effect the Minister will be glad that he does not have to depend on Northern Ireland votes.
  In England there is a considerable uptake of rate rebate. How far has this been the case in Northern Ireland? Are the present troubles there and the obvious differences between the various areas making much difference in the take-up of rate rebate?
  Ministers have discussed with the authorities in Northern Ireland the rebate which should be given for sports facilities there. They have been pressed on a number of occasions by the sports councils in Northern Ireland and those interested in sporting facilities. Surely if there was one place in the United Kingdom where it was essential to have sports facilities and to enable people to get out and do things together, like playing football, it is in Northern Ireland at the present time. What possible justification can there be for the fact that in English constituencies—I have looked them up—50 per cent. is the average that has been given and is the figure that has been recognised and recommended in the White Paper? Why is the situation in Northern Ireland not comparable with what is happening over here? Would it not be sensible to give to the Northern Ireland authorities the rights that are now open to authorities over here to give a grant up to 200 per cent. if necessary or to recommend that 50 per cent. should be given rather than 35 per cent.?
  I hope the Minister can help us. I have no doubt that he will be asked a number of other questions and, in spite of the arid description of the Bill which he gave, will deal with what is really happening in Northern Ireland.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are two aspects, as always, to any measure on rating. One is valuation and
  1828
  the other is rating itself—the assessment and imposition of a rate. In considering this Order I want to deal with those two aspects separately.
  The principle which underlay the reform embodied in the 1972 Order was that of a deliberate harmonisation of the principles of valuation as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or, at any rate, England and Wales. Certainly we on these Benches would have no quarrel with that principle. We see no reason why plant and machinery in a firm in Northern Ireland should be assessed to rates or not assessed to rates on a different principle from a firm in any part of England. We see nothing peculiar about the difficulties of assessing public utilities to rates which would prevent a satisfactory, or fairly satisfactory, system, if it can be evolved, from being applied just as much in Northern Ireland as it is on this side of the Irish Sea.
  When I refer to the assessment of public utilities to rates, I mean, of course, the problems of localising the value of a public utility which is itself not localised in its operations. It was quite a nostalgic experience for me to study this Order and the background to it, because it sent me back almost 20 years to the time when I remember chairing an interdepartmental committee on the exciting subject of the assessment of gas undertakings—perhaps one of the most complex subjects to which I have had to devote my mind in any Ministry I have ever occupied, but a subject which is essential if that which is the basis of the whole rating system—a sense of fairness to all concerned—is to be achieved. I remember being astonished to find how many different interests, aspects and points of view had to be fed into any solution, in order to arrive at a suitable method of assessing public utilities to rates.
  This Order carries further the harmonisation which was instituted by the principal Order, if I may so call it—the 1972 Order. It does so, as the Undersecretary pointed out, mainly in the two areas of plant and machinery and of public utilities. As one studies the order, one cannot fail to be struck by the clumsiness of the procedure which we are using. After all, basically, if it is the general will of the House—and it is certainly, as I have already said, not a will from which hon. Members on this

  1829
  Bench would dissent—that there should be a uniform system of valuation for rating in the United Kingdom, the natural way to go about it, the simplest way, the most economical of parliamentary time and most productive of sensible debate with perhaps an even larger attendance than we are enjoying this evening, would be to apply the legislation to the United Kingdom, as indeed a good deal of legislation on domestic matters which goes through does apply to Northern Ireland. We had for instance a fisheries scheme only a night or two ago which in terms applied to Northern Ireland as much as to Great Britain.
  For the most part, however, for reasons which I quite understand are partly historical and perhaps at this stage not wholly avoidable, we seem at present determined to build upon unsatisfactory and different foundations on the two sides of the Irish Sea. The Order before us and the principal Order are saturated, if I may so put it, with defunct constitutions. For example, in Article 2 we find a reference to the Interpretation Act applying to the Order
  "as it applies to a Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  I do not know whether anyone today still remembers the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have become accustomed to refer to it by the perhaps more graphic description of "the Heath Robinson constitution". It was a constitution which those of us who knew anything about Northern Ireland knew would never work, which never did work, and which collapsed disastrously. Whatever difference of view there may be about the future government of Northern Ireland, one thing on which all, I think, will agree is that, though it is still on the statute book, although the coffin lid has only just been screwed down upon its scarcely cold corpse, there will be no resurrection of the 1973 constitution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yet here in a necessary Order, in a piece of legislation which looks forward and of which the very object is to provide a system uniform with other parts of the United Kingdom, we find ourselves using these cast-offs, as it were, of "old, unhappy" things—not "far-off" things but things from the past.
  Again, in Articles 4 and 6 we find that such-and-such an order is to be subject
  1830
  to affirmative resolution. Hon Members not expert in these matters who read that in the course of their detailed study of the Order must have been somewhat surprised to think that when orders have to be made upon such detailed affairs they will be subject to an affirmative resolution, moved, no doubt, by the Under-Secretary of State in this Chamber at some unearthly hour. They would be mistaken. There is no question of an affirmative resolution being required. These expressions relate to a constitution which is not in force and probably never will be in force again even in this respect. There will, therefore, not be an affirmative resolution required for these orders.
  I hope I have it right when I say that in both cases, in Articles 4 and 6, there is the possibility of a Prayer in the House; but so complex is the matter that it is quite possible that I am wrong and that no parliamentary procedure whatever is available. Yet here we are solemnly directing that there shall be inserted into the 1972 Order provisions which we know are not in force and never will be in force.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Hypocrisy.
  Mr. Powell: I hear my hon. Friend say "hypocrisy", but I do not think it is really that. I think that the Government find this as distasteful and as ridiculous as we do, and are scarcely less embarrassed than the rest of us by the detritus left over from the constitutional disasters of the preceding administration, for which they share only the qualified blame of having given it occasional encouragement.
  Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be good enough to inform us whether the possibility of a Prayer still exists.
  Mr. Concannon indicated assent.
  Mr. Powell: I see the Under-Secretary nods his head. I hope it is rather the nod of Olympian Jove than the nod of Homer. It seems, then, that even amongst the wreckage of the 1973 Act it will still be possible, should we be dissatisfied in respect of Article 4, for example, which deals with playing fields, to have a further debate in the House; and, indeed, there ought to be some possibility of debate.

  1831
  Another matter, which has some seriousness attached to it, illustrates the clumsy method by which at present we are partly condemned to build on separate foundations in Northern Ireland—a procedure which produces unsatisfactory results. If hon. Members can bring themselves to look at page 17 and the following pages of the Order, they will see set out the principles dealing with ' notional hereditaments', an enjoyable concept much savoured by all who interest themselves in local government finance. Where we are dealing with notional hereditaments occupied by electricity or gas undertakings, the House, by confirming the Order, is confirming the express principles on which they will be charged to rates. When, however, we come to mines, quarries, docks—to some extent—and canals, we find that the principles are left open to be dealt with by departmental Order. Part XIII in page 19 provides:
  "The Department may by order (a) provide that paragraph 2"
  which sets out the principles of the Order
  "is to cease to have effect",
  so that in (b) some quite different method can be applied by Order. One finds something very similar applying to docks and canals in Parts XIV and XV.
  I make no criticism of the object behind those permissive provisions. The development of the methods applied in Great Britain in these respects is still fluid, and it is desired that we should not, by enacting something rigid in the Order, fall out of phase once again with the methods of valuation which prevail in Great Britain. Yet because we insist on proceeding separately in Northern Ireland we are obliged to write into the Order these discretionary provisions which are objectionable in their width and scope. It does not arise from any desire on the part of the Under-Secretary of State or his colleagues to take excessive powers; it is that he wants Northern Ireland to keep in step with Great Britain in these matters—and so do we—but instead of proceeding in the normal way and producing enactments in due course for the whole United Kingdom, he is doing it at present in this double fashion, which produces a result unsatisfactory not merely in form but in substance.
  1832
  I turn now from valuation to rating itself. As the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) found, it is this aspect which leads to the more serious and more politically-charged questions. When we come to the imposition of a rate, to the manner in which a rate is assessed upon the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, we are brought face to face with the consequences of the virtual destruction of local government, which was not brought about by this House but was accomplished in Northern Ireland before the demise of the old Northern Ireland Parliament and Stormont administration. It was that Parliament and that administration which virtually destroyed Northern Ireland local government and left the Province as it is today—with no representative local government above a district level restricted to a humble and limited range of administration.
  The consequences were clearly brought out in a letter which the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to write to me a day or two ago. Struck by the fact that the ratepayer in Great Britain receives a detailed statement of the subjects on which the product of his rate is to be spent and the various shares which go to the various subjects, I innocently, and, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will retort, ignorantly—
  Mr. Concannon indicated dissent.
  Mr. Powell:—the hon. gentleman is very charitable—put to him the suggestion that we might do the same in Northern Ireland. It will not be amiss if I read to the House the crucial sentence in the hon. Gentleman's reply. He mentioned that there are two rates, as there are two rates in the greater part of Great Britain, a district rate and—in Northern Ireland—a regional rate. He continued:
  "In making the regional rate the Department of Finance is required to take into consideration the average amount required to be raised by means of district rates and, having done so, endeavour to pitch the regional rate at a level "—
  these are the crucial words—
  "which ensures that the total rate burden is related to that in comparable areas in Great Britain."
  In other words, the regional rate is not a rate at all. It is an arbitrary imposition by way of a rate to bring about a certain

  1833
  equilibrium between the yield of rates and the rate burden in Northern Ireland and that in Great Britain.
  In present circumstances, one would not necesarily have any criticism of that principle, but it brings one face to face with the reality of the destruction of local democracy. The essence of local democracy is that expenditure administered by the elected representatives of the people has its repercussions on the rate which they are obliged to levy to sustain their activities and thus completes the chain or circle of administration, taxation and electoral responsibility.
  To some extent that circle works in Northern Ireland in the limited sphere of the district; but in the major areas it does not exist. There are no elected bodies in charge of the administration of the major services. Consequently, a notional rate has to be imposed so that the ratepayers in Northern Ireland neither get away with it lightly in comparison with the rest of the Kingdom nor have to bear a figure which is plucked from the air. Still, for the major services in Northern Ireland there is no relationship between the level of the rate and the efficiency, volume or quality of the service. That is the total negation of democracy; and again I venture to prophesy that whatever is to be the future form of administration in Northern Ireland it will not be possible—it will be a great mistake if we attempt it, and I hope we shall not—to dispense with the restoration of genuine democratic local government. I use the term "local government" in its natural, normal sense as we use it in Great Britain. It is an indispensable element in the totality of democracy, an element only less indispensable than proper representation in this House itself. This Order brings out very dramatically how deprived in present circumstances, as a result of the wreckage of past, even pre-1972, decisions, are the people of Northern Ireland in this respect.
  Reference has been made to the rating of playing fields and of indoor sporting provision by non-profit-making bodies and the contrast in this respect between the system which prevails in Great Britain and that of Northern Ireland. This, I believe, will be dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and others. My only point on it is that here again we
  1834
  suffer from the absence of local government; for the 50 per cent. relief to which the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North referred, which prevails in Great Britain, is an average derived from the freedom of the local authorities there to make such dispositions as they think fit, for institutions within a much wider ambit than is provided for in Northern Ireland.
  I suggest that, even in this relatively limited case, Northern Ireland suffers from the fact of there not being the administrative discretion which can only be entrusted to a democratically-elected body that is itself going to take the electoral consequences of what it does in terms of a rate—no body which will have to go to its ratepayers and say "This is the cost in terms of rates of the reliefs we think fit to accord to various forms of activity, and we ask you to approve it or otherwise."
  Finally, I want to put this question. I have reminded the House, in the Undersecretary of State's own words, of the principle upon which at present the regional rate is determined by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland:
  "…to pitch the regional rate at a level which ensures that the total rate burden is related to that in comparable areas in Great Britain."
  I believe I am right in saying that there is no unavoidable procedure which accompanies the making of the regional rate by the Department. If we refer to Article 7 of the principal Order, we do indeed discover that the order of the Ministry
  "shall be subject to affirmative resolution of the Commons."
  But let us not run away with the idea that that means us. It is a "Commons" which has not existed for nearly four years now. If we look at Section 4 (5) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, we discover that there is no procedure at all: an order is just going to be made, and we cannot even pray against it.
  I put, therefore, to the Minister and the Department something which need involve no demand at all on parliamentary time, but something which I think they will agree is fair and necessary and, in addition, good public relations. I ask that at the latest when the rate is made, and preferably before the rate is made, they should publish a document—it need

  1835
  not be a formal document—which gives the statistics and the considerations upon the basis of which a particular figure has been selected as
  "ensuring that the total rate burden is related to that in comparable areas in Great Britain."
  Let them indicate what they consider is meant by a comparable area. Let them give the reasons for the comparability. Let them give the figures which prevail in the comparable areas in Great Britain.
  I do not say it will necessarily be appropriate for this to form the subject of debate under any of the procedures which we have; but I do not think the hon. Member would wish to deny that it is the kind of information which ought to be available to hon. Members of this House who authorise the imposition of a regional rate, or to the inhabitants of Northern Ireland who are to pay a rate imposed by unchallengeable ministerial order.
  I hope the hon. Member will be able to indicate that favourable attention will be given to that request.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I should like, in the context of Article 4, to make some remarks on sport and recreation, following the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell).
  In the course of the most recent of my regular visits to Service men in Northern Ireland, I was, as spokesman on sport for the Conservative Party, able to spend a day with the Northern Ireland Sports Council. As a preface to my few remarks on Article 4, may I say that I am most impressed with what the Sports Council is doing in the broadest sense in Northern Ireland. I think that the Chairman, Donald Shearer, and his committee, and the Director, George Glasgow, deserve a very special tribute for their achievements. Such successes as the sports complex at Craigavon and the very welcome development of the Mary Peters track enable all of us here to say "Well done" to Northern Ireland.
  Subsequent to my visit I wrote to the Minister of State and was very glad to have his reply. I think we are on the same wavelength, although he will
  1836
  understand that in my view more resources should be channelled to sport and recreation.
  I appreciate that there is an overall ceiling, but within that concept of an overall ceiling there should be an element of flexibility in priority. I would certainly prefer to see rather more spent on sport and recreation and rather less on some of the measures in the Queen's Speech, such as nationalisation. I am talking in terms of £10 million for the whole of the United Kingdom for sport and recreation, as against the £2,000 million we spent in one day yesterday on the Bill before the House.
  In the circumstances that I am putting forward, there should be rather more resources made available to Northern Ireland for sport and recreation. I want to look particularly at Article 4, relating to the relief of rates for sport and recreation.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Before my hon. Friend gets on to that, could I ask him whether, when he saw Mr. Shearer and Mr. Glasgow and others connected with the Sports Council, he had any discussion of my idea of an Ulster games meeting bringing together both Gaelic sports and British sports—an idea which the Minister of State put to the Sports Council? I am eagerly awaiting some word from the Sports Council or from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Monro: Only in superficial discussion of what seemed to be a very commendable idea, but perhaps the Minister of State might say more about that later on.
  I accept right away that Lord Donaldson, when he saw the Sports Council in Northern Ireland, made a valuable concession in that he, subsequent to that meeting, accepted that indoor recreational facilities should be eligible for the 35 per cent. concession on rates which had previously been available only for playing fields and, presumably, for the pavilions attached to them. I welcome this move, but it is still far out of step with the remainder of the United Kingdom where, of course, discretionary derating is available and is commonplace, often up to 100 per cent. and usually at least 50 per cent. In paragraph 32 of the White Paper on Sport and

  1837
  Recreation, the Minister for sport himself recommends 50 per cent. Why is not the Under-Secretary following his colleague's advice and increasing the discretionary derating to 50 per cent. now, rather than the 35 per cent. mandatory recommendation in the Order?
  As the right hon. Member for Down, South rightly said, numerous authorities in the United Kingdom give 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. derating, and yesterday a number of hon. Members saw a film of the tremendous work being done at Gateshead under the direction of Brendan Foster, which shows what can be done if an authority has the power to put its full weight and drive behind developing sport and recreation.
  We should bear in mind also that there is substantial derating in Northern Ireland for charities, the arts and church halls. Why are there no additional resources for recreation and sport?
  To demonstrate the magnitude of the problem, I mention two cases. The first is the McCallum Hall, in which badminton and squash are the main facilities. Last year, its rate bill was £1,350, even though it lost £300 over the year. This year it would be £1,650 if it were not for the 35 per cent. reduction which has been announced. But it will still have to pay more than £1,000 in rates, and, with rising costs, the Under-Secretary will see what is facing that body of volunteer sportsmen.
  The other example is that of the Lisburn Racquets Club. It was derated as an open-air club, but subsequently it has been rated because it has indoor facilities. Even with the 35 per cent., it will still have to pay more than £300 in rates.
  I want also to make a plea on behalf of other sports clubs which charge a modest gate, so making themselves ineligible for derating. I have in mind the Northern Ireland League, for example. I hope that the Minister will look at their position, too.
  I conclude my remarks with a mention of paragraphs 4 and 66 of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation, which highlight the necessity of providing these facilities, especially so in the very special context of the problems facing Northern Ireland today. All in all, we are talking
  1838
  about facilities run by volunteers at no profit to themselves, and it is extremely difficult to raise funds through the traditional methods in Northern Ireland at present. Therefore, although of course it cannot be done in this Order, I believe that all hon. Members would support the Minister if he felt able to amend the next order to provide for a mandatory 50 per cent. derating or even make it discretionary at the earliest possible moment so that it could be increased to 100 per cent. where the case was deserving. The whole matter is too obvious to require a detailed explanation, but I believe that the Minister will be sympathetic about it. If he can assure us that he will go even further than the Lord Donaldson after his talks with the Sports Council, I am sure everyone will be very glad.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has put his finger on the most serious defect in both the rating system and the local government structure, or, perhaps more accurately, the lack of any local government structure in Northern Ireland.
  It was put to me earlier today, by one who is long experienced in these matters, that we might be more honest in our approach if we were to scrap the whole idea of rating and settle for Schedule A income tax. I confirm my right hon. Friend's view that the blame for this situation in no way attaches to the present Government or, indeed, to their predecessors. I can well remember, and so can most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the occasion when the Minister of Development of the day in the former Stormont Government rather arrogantly said that he would not be held up or in any way delayed in bringing in his new arrangements just because there was a queue of self-appointed advisers outside his office door. I suggest, and I think my colleagues would agree, that it might have been better for Northern Ireland had he listened to some sound advice.
  Article 6 of the Order deals with the basis of valuation. I cannot help wondering how accurate that is likely to be. My doubts are, to a great extent, based on experience of the operations of the self-same valuation staff engaged in related matters.

  1839
  Reference has been made to church halls in Northern Ireland. In the expanding town of Antrim which lies within my constituency, the valuation officers have arrived at the most extraordinary piece of arithmetic. The Antrim Parish Church sought to purchase a site the assessment for which was many times the amount which had been assessed for similar churches purchasing similar sites. I know that the valuer's actions have so far defeated the sincere efforts made by the Under-Secretary to resolve this problem, but I trust that he will accept my cooperation in perhaps endeavouring to see that in the near future this matter is brought to a happy conclusion. This is not a question of discrimination, sectarianism or anything else. Indeed, I would hasten to clear my hon. Friend he Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) of any vested interest in this particular argument in Antrim town.
  I am sure the Minister recognises that the Churches in Northern Ireland, despite all the unkind things said about them, without exception provide many recreational facilities and do a great deal of community work. In the new expanding towns it is important that the new communities take root quickly and easily. Therefore, it is all the more important that they should be facilitated in every possible way in establishing their structures and providing these services which supplement and complement what is being done by many other bodies.
  One of those bodies is the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. We are gratified that the Government have seen fit to concede the point made in our submissions, as well as in many others, that certain sports grounds should be exempted.
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the remaining two submissions. Submission 6:2 points out that in England local authorities have discretion to grant rate relief up to 100 per cent. My reading of the submission is that the White Paper gives local authorities discretion to apply relief of 50 per cent. or more if they feel that is justified. In Northern Ireland, local authorities have not, as the Order makes clear, been given such discretionary powers. Therefore, they are at a grave disadvantage when it comes to encouraging the provision of recreational facilities in their areas. This
  1840
  restriction on their iniative is difficult to understand.
  One wonders whether it is imposed because it is felt that Northern Ireland does not have the same need for recreational facilities as the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that is the view of our present Northern Ireland Ministers. They have given every encouragement. There has been some confusion or muddle, and we may possibly strengthen their hand by highlighting this point tonight.
  Is it because local authorities in Northern Ireland are so low powered that they cannot be entrusted with responsibility of this nature? I hasten to add that I do not think that is the view of Northern Ireland Ministers.
  The Sports Council in submission 6:3 brings out the point about admission charges. That would seem to be an unfair restriction. There does not seem to be anything objectionable in a sporting organisation making a modest charge to cover expenses, provided the powers that be are satisfied that it is not engaging in a money-making operation or exploiting those engaged in the sport or spectators. I should be grateful if the Minister would look sympathetically at that point.
  Another matter which concerns many people in rural areas is the upkeep of village halls and halls belonging to various voluntary organisations. They are in desperate straits. They find their rate burden escalating every year. It might be said that is their affair and they should be able to pay their way. However, we must recognise that they are placed at a disadvantage because in many areas in Northern Ireland primary and secondary schools are in direct competition with village halls and halls belonging to organisations as regards lettings. Those schools are being subsidised by ratepayers. In many cases the people who are responsible for the upkeep of village halls, by paying rates, are literally cutting their own throats because they are providing the capital expenditure, or a large part of it, to build the schools and contributing to their upkeep. The rents charged by schools are extremely modest and do not take into account all expenses, other than what can be computed for light, heating, cleaning, and so forth. It would appear that

  1841
  no consideration is given to the element which should be included if those schools were rated. We would like the Minister to examine that matter.
  In a related category are halls belonging to the Royal British Legion. I am thinking of the Royal British Legion branch in the village which uses its hall for its annual meeting; for a meeting once a quarter; for organising its poppy sales; and doing charitable work for the Legion. I understand that the Area Secretary of the Legion in Northern Ireland has been in touch with the Department, but my impression is that it was not possible to put into the Order anything helpful to the Legion.
  The Minister referred in his opening speech to charitable institutions. He seemed to draw the line rather tightly. He was rather narrow in his approach because he seemed to define them as those providing recreational facilities and engaging in community work. Many charitable institutions in Northern Ireland possess property but would not provide this kind of activity, although, nevertheless, they make their contributions to the well-being of the community.
  Which of these articles provides for any kind of appeal against valuation? Will the procedure be clear-cut and simple? Can we avoid the very expensive kind of machinery we have now, which is largely ineffective? We seldom hear of anyone successful in a valuation appeal. One wonders why all this rigmarole is preserved, and why we are contributing to very expensive machinery which does not bring any benefit to the aggrieved ratepayers?
  I look forward with fear to the coming months. In the first six months of 1976 50 per cent. of the mail bag of Northern Ireland Members will contain complaints about new rating assessments.
  I trust that the Minister will see that we have some clearly defined procedure to handle complaints if there is not going to be a hard and fast appeal system.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Carson: I thank the Minister for the concessions made in this rating Order, especially in Article 9 relating to the derating for the fishing industry. The people of Northern Ireland will also be very grateful for the many other concessions.
  1842
  There are a few questions I should like to direct to the Minister. In Article 6 paragraph (a) we have, to my mind, the rating department looking for a blank cheque for changing rates whenever it cares to do so. How difficult will it be, after this legislation, to modify the Order?
  Would "recreational charities" cover citizens advice bureaux and community centres? We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the Ministers in charge of community work in Northern Ireland have done a great deal towards this, and yet these community centres are being held down tremendously by the heavy rates being imposed upon them. Will the Order cover senior citizen's clubs under the heading "recreational charities"?
  How many people are getting rate rebates? I have in my hand a list of some rebates for private property. It may be difficult for the Minister to give these replies tonight, but perhaps he will note the queries and let us know the answers at his earliest convenience.
  How many people have benefited from rate rebates on commercial property and industrial property?
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to some areas of Belfast, especially in my constituency. Duncairn Gardens is one of the worst interface areas in Belfast. Some of the people living there have met the Minister in their fight in relation to the rates on commercial property there. Duncairn Gardens being one of the worst interface areas, unfortunately, people have been leaving the area very rapidly. The shopkeepers are trying to keep their doors open, but they are faced with tremendous rate bills.
  With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, who spoke about Antrim as an expanding area and about my attention to Glengormley, no doubt at the next General Election my hon. Friend will have great joy in seeing his majority vastly increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is trying to catch up, but with the rate of increase in the population of Antrim and Glengormley, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South will keep his lead.

  1843
  However, in these areas the rates are the same as the rates throughout Northern Ireland. But people are leaving the district very rapidly. Small shopkeepers are fighting tooth and nail for a living. Day after day some are forced to close their doors because they cannot meet their overheads. The greatest overhead for many of them is rates.
  Unfortunately, we cannot compare the situation in Northern Ireland with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I should have thought that it would be possible in Northern Ireland to have a two-tier system of rating for commercial property. As I have said, in outlying districts which are expanding rapidly and are densely populated, districts which have experienced little or no trouble since the beginning of 1969, the shops are full and the people are spending money. Shopkeepers in such areas are finding that their businesses have had a tremendous boost, in outlying areas of Belfast and elsewhere. Yet they pay the same rates as those I have just mentioned in Duncairn Gardens and other parts.
  I have said that Duncairn Gardens is the worst interface area in Belfast. I want to highlight one case involving a furniture store which is behind a security gate. Whenever any trouble erupts in the area, the gate is closed. That store is then completely cut off from the people. It has appealed against its rates, but the appeals system has to be seen to be believed. Solicitors and barristers have to be employed, and in 99 cases out of 100 the appeals fail. Such firms are having to pay exactly the same rates as companies elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are trading in peace and without hindrance or violence.
  I realise that the Minister may not be able to give me the figures I have asked for tonight, but perhaps he will note my request and pass on the information in due course.
  11.11 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to emphasise what the leader of our coalition, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) have said about the rating appeal system. The
  1844
  Minister will have to put his mind to this problem. Rates soared as a result of the revaluation he mentioned, and we must have an appeals system in which justice is done to the individual and is seen to be done. That is not happening at the moment.
  I have helped constituents with their appeals. Almost all of them are turned down. One feels they are inadequately investigated. No reasons are given and the arguments put to the valuation officers seem to be brushed aside as though the ordinary individual did not matter.
  Many people from Belfast go to Newtownards to do business. It is an up-and coming business town, but the people behind the barricades in Belfast are finding life very difficult and, with the resurgence of IRA activity and bombs again being planted in the centre of Belfast, people who were coming into the city to do their shopping are being driven out again by these acts of terrorism. Something must be done to ensure equality in this matter.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Concannon: By leave of the House, I will reply to the debate, though I think I may have to gabble through as much as I can. Most of the anomalies and the questions put to me in the debate basically stem from the rating system in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that, but I shall try to get some other points out of the way first.
  Most speakers have referred to the sports field exemption of 35 per cent. In England and Wales local authorities can offer any figure from nil to 100 per cent. I have tried to frame this proposal in line with the situation in England and Wales under the present rating system. In Northern Ireland the rating system comes under the Department of Finance. There are no local authorities in that sense. I can hardly operate a nil—100 per cent. system which involves using my discretion, as a local authority would, in each individual case.
  The local authorities in Great Britain vary from being very generous to being very tight. Some pay and some do not. We have calculated that the average figure is 35 per cent.
  Mr. Miscampbell: Is the Minister aware that in the North-East of England,

  1845
  Bradford, Doncaster, Harrogate and Scarborough, relief of not less than 51 per cent. is granted? In general in the South of England 50 per cent. is the norm, and it is a rarity for an authority to offer less. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he cannot influence these matters, but in Northern Ireland, particularly, this is a most important factor. It is no good his merely saying that he cannot give 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. relief. We want to know why he cannot.
  Mr. Concannon: I did not say that we cannot do it. I concede that from the broad range of cases the hon. and learned Gentleman can quote figures of 50 per cent. and more, but our figure takes in the whole range of relief offered between nil and 100 per cent. I can assure him that the average is slightly higher than 35 per cent. We could have exceeded that figure. Even at 35 per cent. there will be some winners and some losers, but not many either way. We are anxious to get this figure incorporated, because if it is not it will disappear by 1st March.
  My noble Friend Lord Donaldson is consulting the Northern Ireland sports councils over the other matters, such as indoor sports arenas and bowls. The power is written into the draft Order to enable an extension of relief in subordinate legislation. Once the power is available and the consultations have been held, I understand that the matter will be brought before the House again.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to motions under the affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly. These are the same as the motions under the negative resolution procedure in Westminster, and they may be prayed against.
  Rate rebates taken up in Northern Ireland number 42,000 or 10 per cent. Rate rebates to that extent are not allowed for commercial purposes. However, grievances can be taken to the valuation officer, who can re-examine the rate. I am surprised at what has been said about the appeals procedure in Northern Ireland, because every household in Northern Ireland will be sent a copy of this procedure in the form of a booklet which will deal with valuation questions.
  1846
  Any matters that I fail to deal with will, of course, be dealt with and hon. Gentlemen will be contacted.
  Almost every hon. Member who has spoken tonight referred to the rating system. The rating system in Northern Ireland was forced upon us by the reorganisation of local government. It throws up quite a lot of anomalies. However, I have conducted some research into this matter, and many of the questions which hon. Gentleman have asked tonight were asked by the Minister of Finance in the Assembly on 4th April 1974. In his speech he said that with the reorgainsation of local government quite a lot of the important local services were transferred into central Government. He said:
  "In this new situation it was no longer appropriate, or even possible, to continue the old system and it was decided that the rate-payers contribution to the cost of these services should be made through a rate to be struck and collected by the Department of Finance at a uniform rate for the whole of Northern Ireland. It was also decided that the district councils—which replaced the former local authorities—should have power to raise a district rate towards the cost of the district services which they were to provide."
  We cannot use the same principle for the district rate. This is one of the difficulties, because the regional rate could not be linked in any meaningful way to the cost of the services being provided. We have to find some other method of rating in Northern Ireland.
  The method that was chosen was to select a comparable area in Great Britain on the basis of information as to average, total, weekly household income contained in the annual family expenditure surveys. on the argument that ability to pay rates and the kind of house a person lives I are related to personal household income. The United Kingdom Family Expenditure Survey for 1972, the latest year for which information is available, indicates that the areas in Great Britain which are most comparable to Northern Ireland are the North of England, and the Yorkshire and Humberside Regions.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister not agree, with his experience of Northern Ireland, that there is no area in England that could be comparable at the moment with Northern Ireland in its present situation?
  Mr. Concannon: That is certainly true at the moment. However, those carrying out the survey were looking for comparable areas with which they could equate the rates for the services being supplied. They picked these three regions because they were a broad cross-section of rural and urban areas and had the same sort of unemployment difficulties and the same relative lack of wealth as Northern Ireland.
  The comparison of rates at that particular time for this area showed that the rates in Northern Ireland were 10 per cent. lower than those in the three areas. It might surprise hon. Gentlemen to know that at present rates in Northern Ireland are 27 per cent. below those in the areas named. Instead of the gap narrowing, as it should have done, it has broadened. Our information shows that an average increase of 14 per cent. was necessary, but it turned out to be nearer 30 per cent. Therefore, the differential widened. The differential between the rates in those comparable areas in the United Kingdom and what is being paid now on average in Northern Ireland is still 27 per cent.
  Mr. Powell: These are interesting facts which the hon. Gentleman is giving the House. I hope that he will accept that this strengthens the case for a formal and detailed statement being made available when the rate is struck.
  Mr. Concannon: That is why I am giving these figures and the intention behind them. At the time when it was done, there were great anomalies in area rates in Northern Ireland. For example, the domestic rate in the former Dungannon rural district was 70p in the pound, and in the former Banbridge rural district it was £3·06 in the pound. There was a great disparity, and some areas had to increase their rates more rapidly than others did. The difficulty is that one cannot equate the rate being levied with the services being applied.
  It is fair to point out also that rates not collected as rates are collected in Great Britain will have to be paid, say, out of income tax, according to the formula which made up the rest of the addition to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Miscampbell: May I put a quick question, taking up the point made by
  1848
  the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Why make any comparison at all? Why not simply base it on what Northern Ireland needs to raise?
  Mr. Concannon: One had to base the regional rate on something. Once this came into the Department, one could not work a rating system such as we have over here where there are local councils in a relationship to their regions. One had to reach a formula, and this formula was adopted from the very start. It may not be to everyone's liking, but it was a way of reaching an equitable rate value for people living in Northern Ireland on the basis of a relationship to similar areas in Great Britain, those areas being, as I say, the North of England, Yorkshire and Humberside, because of the terrain and characteristics.
  I do not know whether that satisfies hon. Members to any extent, but I thought I had better spell it out, since this is one of the bases of a lot of the problems of rating in Northern Ireland. I agree that if we could have shown the apportionment in a memorandum or note to all householders in Northern Ireland, showing just how it fitted in with the services being applied, that would have been helpful. But the Department is now, in effect, the local government authority, we are acting as a top tier of local government, and one had to find a formula. It is not perfect. I agree that it raises anomalies, and deputations come to see us about it at various times.
  It should be remembered that the valuation for rating system in Northern Ireland is now 30 years old, and this is the reason for some of the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) referred. But revaluation will not in itself increase the rates. Obviously, with inflation at its present level, there will be some increase in rates. but that will not be due to the revaluation. That will have nothing to do with revaluation, but revaluation will provide a fairer distribution of the total rate that is applied.
  Reference has been made to the appeals procedure. Under the Act appeals can be made against valuations at any time, and the old procedure can be started again. Appeals will be made to the tribunals. The appeals that can go right through will be listed and sent

  1849
  out. All the information will be supplied. The people concerned will be told how and when they can appeal.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: The complaint has been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) that it is costly to make an appeal. He said that very often expensive legal advice is required. Does the Under-Secretary of State think that the brochures will make legal advice unnecessary, and that those concerned will be able to conduct their own cases adequately?
  Mr. Concannon Mr. Concannon rose—
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)
  11.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
  That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  This Order in Council amends the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, an Act which has already been amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.
  Last year we carried out a review of the firearms law in Northern Ireland. As a result of that review, the Government came to the conclusion that a number of amendments and clarifications could be made. The Order is intended to put those clarifications and amendments into operation.
  I am afraid I must tell the House that there is no uniform theme running through the Order. Therefore, there is no alternative but for me to draw to the attention of the House the amendments which are being made.
  The first amendment of substance is the abolition of the firearms permits. The permits, which are quite different from
  1850
  the permits under corresponding legislation in Great Britain, allow a person in Northern Ireland to keep a firearm within his dwelling-house, but he is not permitted to use it. This was a device introduced in an earlier phase of the Northern Ireland troubles in the 1920s. There are now only about 1,300 permits on issue. The permits will continue in force until they expire. At that stage holders may apply for a firearms certificate.
  The responsibility for issuing a firearms certificate is that of the Chief Constable, but I anticipate that he will permit the retention of weapons covered by permits by issuing firearm certificates. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that. There will be a modified fee to be charged for the grant of firearm certificates in those circumstances.
  There are some minor amendments made to Section 10 of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland), the Act which permits exemption from the firearm certificate procedure. One addition to the section provides legal sanction for the use of air weapons at fairs and places of that sort. The police have been mildly indulgent towards such activity in past years. The amendment will bring the matter on to a proper legal footing and will regularise what is an innocent past-time. Institutions of higher education or approved research centres where studies in forensic medicine, ballistics or other matters were being undertaken were given special facilities for undertaking such work. As they all held their arms under a certificate, the exemption was unnecessary. Those institutions are being brought into line with the general law.
  Firearm and shot-gun certificates issued in Great Britain are valid in Northern Ireland, but the law requires additional approval in Northern Ireland for shotguns held under the authority of a shotgun certificate issued in Great Britain. That is mainly because the tests for the grant of a shot-gun certificate in Great Britain are not as stringent as they are in Northern Ireland. The relevant Northern Ireland provisions will be redrafted to define more clearly the conditions under which firearms can be brought into Northern Ireland.
  Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier, and there has always been a traffic in

  1851
  sportsmen from South to North, and vice versa. Until now residents of the Republic of Ireland coming to Northern Ireland for however short a time had to obtain Northern Ireland firearm certificates if they wished to take part in sporting events in the North. This is not satisfactory, and the law is now being amended to provide that a person normally resident in a country outside the United Kingdom may have a firearm or ammunition in his possession in Northern Ireland, for sporting purposes only, if he has the authority to possess that firearm or ammunition in his own country.
  Regulations will be laid before the House under this Order to bring this into effect. They will apply to sportsmen from other European countries besides Southern Ireland.
  As in Great Britain, persons who are convicted of crime in Northern Ireland are prohibited for certain periods after conviction from possessing a firearm certificate. In the case of a person sentenced to more than six months' but less than three years' imprisonment or borstal training, the prohibition extends for five years from the date of his release or, in the case of a person sentenced to three years or more, for life. There has been some difficulty in applying this prohibition in the case of suspended sentences, and in future, as a result of this amendment, the prohibition will extend from the date of conviction of the person found guilty, and not from the date of release. The prohibition will extend for eight years. Any person who is subject to such a prohibition, however, will have the right to apply to the Secretary of State for the removal of the prohibition, if he feels that he has a case.
  The opportunity is being taken at the same time to amend the law to ensure that persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Great Britain are subject to prohibition in Northern Ireland, as is already the case in the reverse instance.
  Whilst the Order was before the House for consideration, considerable interest was shown in the Government's proposal to raise the minimum age for possessing a firearm certificate from 16 to 18. As a result of representations made to us we have felt that we could make two
  1852
  exceptions to the general rule. It has been represented that shooting for sport is a recognised international pursuit, and that to be proficient the earlier one starts the better. So we have provided that persons under 18 but above 16 may have a firearms certificate, provided that they are using it in the company and under the supervision of a person not under the age of 18 who holds a firearm certificate for that firearm or ammunition.
  We have accepted that farmers have to deal with the problems of vermin control, and that the farmer may in some cases be a person over 16 and under 18. Accordingly, the Order provides that the Chief Constable may allow a young farmer within those age limits to acquire a suitable firearm for use on his land.
  The Chief Constable, who is the controlling authority in all these matters, has powers to revoke a firearm certificate if he feels that the person holding it has no longer any good reason to have it. The law is now being amended to complement the existing power of revocation with the power to demand the surrender of the relevant firearm or ammunition when a certificate is revoked. At the moment, the Chief Constable has the power only to demand the surrender of the firearm certificate. I emphasise that this provision is in the interests of the former certificate holder. It legalises his position after the revocation of his certificate, as he cannot legally hold the firearm or ammunition after revocation. The firearm will be held safely in police custody until he can make suitable arrangements for its disposal.
  At present, transactions between registered firearms dealers are not required to be notified to the police. There is a gap in the law here. The Order requires that a firearms dealer will have to notify the Chief Constable of any transaction involving firearms or ammunition, not only between himself and another dealer but also between himself and members of the public.
  Certain weapons in Northern Ireland other than shot-guns and air weapons are ballistically tested and their characteristics recorded for forensic purposes. This being the case, it is important that certain repairs or alterations to firearms are notified so that arrangements can be made to have the

  1853
  firearms retested if this is felt necessary, and the Order provides accordingly. It is the intention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to test ballistically all bullet-firing weapons when the present certificates fall in and have to be renewed.
  I turn to the question of control over firearms clubs. There are about 57 clubs in Northern Ireland which are active. Three use full-bore or military-type rifles, about 20 use air rifles and the remainder are active on miniature ranges, usually using 0·22 rifles.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will the Minister say what decrease there has been in the number of clubs?
  Mr. Moyle: I shall try to get that information for the hon. Gentleman before the conclusion of the debate.
  All the clubs operate under the authority of a declaration of approval issued under the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819. This simply permits the members of the club to meet for target practice. The only other form of control is the need for the club or its members to hold firearm certificates for the weapons used. The Government do not regard that as entirely satisfactory. They regard it as an inadequate form of control, and the Secretary of State is now being given power to impose conditions on any declaration of approval granted under the 1819 Act. The conditions we have in mind are not unnecessarily strict. They will be concerned with keeping up-to-date records of membership and the security of club premises, equipment and ranges.
  We have consulted the governing bodies of the sport about the proposed controls, and they have welcomed our suggestions in principle. An undertaking has been given to those bodies that the conditions and limitations to be imposed will be discussed further with them, after which regulations will be laid before the House embodying the conclusions of those consultations.
  I hope that I have been able to give to the House an indication of the matters covered by the Order. It will improve and clarify our firearms legislation, and I commend it to the House.
  11.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: It has been generally appreciated by those in Northern Ireland who use firearms of all sorts that such a genuine form of consultation and discussion has taken place with representatives of user interests. It is refreshing to find that the most careful and constructive thought has been given to all representations made by clubs, individuals, the Joint Shooting Committee for Northern Ireland and many other responsible bodies. The result is that the Order has emerged much better than the original draft and it is likely to command much more general respect and acquiescence. That view is widely held in Northern Ireland amongst those concerned in these matters, and I am glad to have the opportunity to say so.
  I will give an example. The Department and its officials made a careful response to the widespread criticism of the original proposals in Article 8, which relates to the acquisition and possession of firearms by persons under the age of 18. A much more sensible approach has now been made, recognising that, by simply banning possession of a firearm when under the age of 18, with a failure to recognise that the ages between 16 and 18 are the most formative years, and that, without prior legal handling of a firearm, adults could be loosed on the world with no training whatever, and recognising that the provision in its original form was an encouragement to law-abiding people to break the law and would positively have prohibited young boys and youths from entering employment, such as that of game keeper, where weapon handling is still necessary.
  Article 3 simply represents a changeover from the present firearms permit system to the new certificate system. I would like an assurance that in the case of a substitution there will be no charge of £5, as would be the normal case with a renewal. In the case of a substitution, there is a minimum amount of administrative work, and possibly there could be no charge at all or only a nominal one.
  Article 8 meets the approval of both sides of the House, but I have a point to raise about Article 9. Again, the Department and its officials were most helpful and co-operative. The worry was

  1855
  that where a firearms certificate was revoked or not renewed, under the original intention it would have been difficult for the person who had possessed the weapon to have got a fair market price for it when he had to dispose of it. This has been put right by the amended form of the article. The article says that the chief superintendent "may" give notice in writing, but I hope that in practice he will always give notice in writing in order to give proper warning to a recipient of a revocation order, thus enabling him to get a fair price for his weapon.
  The regulations in Article 12 are generally welcomed. It would really be preferable perhaps when if another Order of this kind is introduced provision was made for appeals from decisions to the courts, as in Great Britain, and not to the Secretary of State. It would be useful also in future firearms legislation if compulsory third-party insurance could be incorporated. I feel that this would be widely welcomed.
  I hope that the splendid consultation which has taken place on this occasion—the really meaningful exchanges between the Joint Shooting Committee and the Department—will continue when future legislation of this nature is introduced.
  11.49 p.m.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: This is the second time this year that the thorny question of firearms in Northern Ireland has been discussed in the House. In discussing this difficult problem—made more difficult by some persons for political reasons rather than for reasons of logic—we should do it coolly and logically, dealing with the situation as it really exists.
  I have read not only the present Order but the proposal for a draft Order with some care, and, among others, I made representations to the Minister in this regard.
  Although the permit system is being phased out over three years, I regret that there is no automatic right of transfer of a firearm from a permit to a certificate. I hope the Minister will try to ensure that this matter is dealt with at least sympathetically, because many of the weapons have tremendous sentimental value to the persons holding them, and I do not think that any of them have ever been used for violence.
  1856
  I welcome that otherwise such transfers will be treated as renewals, and I echo the words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that a reasonable fee might be charged, and I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again.
  I have also noted with some interest what is now laid down concerning air-guns—6 ft. lb. kinetic energy for handguns and 12 ft. lb. for others. I understand that this will take out of circulation the pump-guns and the gas-operated guns, because they would normally be above that energy level. I welcome this more scientific approach to weapons used in fairgrounds and elsewhere.
  Concerning Articles 5 and 6, I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how long the Great Britain or overseas authorisation will last in the case of people visiting Northern Ireland. Is this to be limited to countries within the European context or can it be extended to Commonwealth countries? Northern Ireland people have friends and relatives who visit them from Australia, the United States, Canada and elsewhere. What is to happen to people from areas such as the United States, where no firearms certificates of any kind are needed?
  Further, can persons who come into the country with these overseas certificates buy ammunition for their weapons in Northern Ireland? That has not been made clear. Again, what would happen to the firearms at the end of the period covered by the certificate brought in by the visitor if he then settled in Northern Ireland? Would he have an automatic right of renewal, or would it be treated in such a manner that he could very well lose the weapon?
  Do Articles 5 and 6 include competitive shooting?
  Concerning Article 7, I have always thought that the punishment should fit the crime, and, if I am correct in my reading of the Act, while it would appear that it is very reasonable that a person should lose a firearm certificate for taking part in ordinary crime such as robbery or burglary—or, for that matter, for terrorist activity—what would be the position of persons imprisoned for drunken driving or for failing to obey a court order? Are they likewise caught in this net, or are they to have a very sympathetic hearing when they come out and want to take up their sport? It is

  1857
  a small point, but some people will be caught by this.
  Under Section 19 of the 1969 Act 1 recognise that if there is a sentence of over three years there is always an appeal to the Minister, but what is the position of persons given suspended sentences? What is the position of a person given a sentence longer than eight years? Will he automatically, under this legislation, get a firearms certificate when he comes out at the end because he has stayed inside beyond the period of time during which application cannot be made? What is more, does not Section 13 of the 1969 Act cover the point which apparently is dealt with in Article 7(3) which enacts the new subsection (3A)?
  I give a general welcome to Article 8, but I ask the Minister to cast his mind back to 20th March, when he said:
  "The order will also raise the minimum qualifying age for a firearm certificate from 16 to 18 years, thus bringing the law into line with current practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 2039.]
  On that occasion, was he saying that the police were putting into practice something that they had no legal right to do? My experience with at least one young man indicates that that was the case.
  Article 8(3)(b) also says that if a person purchased or acquired a firearm or ammunition before the coming into force of the article at a time when he was not under the age of 16, he shall have the right to keep it. But if, as the Minister said in March, the police took the opposite view, cannot someone who may be 17 or nearly 18 now get a firearm certificate immediately? Is there any reason why it should be denied him?
  I welcome the provision in Article 8(4) for young people to go shooting with their elders, in many cases their parents, and for a farmer's son to shoot on his parents' or his own land. But why the restriction on 0·22 rifles? That is probably the weapon most widely used for the control of vermin.
  In Article 9, we read that "the chief superintendent" is the person who is to decide whether a person is competent to handle a firearm. Does that mean the local superintendent, who probably knows the person concerned, or one in RUC headquarters who has no idea with whom he is dealing and must rely on the
  1858
  views of the local sergeant? This article meets the general points made, but I draw attention to that provision because it is important.
  In Article 10(2) we read that the words "to purchase or require" are to be changed to "to purchase or acquire". According to the 1969 Act, the word "require" means to hire, to accept as a gift, or to borrow. Why is this change of a single word being made? What is the practical end result of the change?
  As for Article 10(3) and the new subsection (1A), are we to take it from the change which has been made from that originally proposed that the responsibility for notification has been changed from the firearms dealer or gunsmith to the owner of the weapon? Does the firearms dealer or gunsmith have no further responsibility, which seems contrary to what was originally in the draft of this Order?
  Moving on to Article 11, it appears mat paragraph (2) as proposed in the original draft order has been omitted. What is the reason for this? Are we to assume that the position is to remain as it was under the 1969 Act, with a fine of £200 for the misdemeanours created by that Act?
  Does the change under Article 11(5) mean that the fine is now unlimited? If so, is it unlimited in the strict sense of the word? I find it surprising that there should be a time when a fine can be completely unlimited.
  Article 12 deals with new restrictions on clubs, but there does not seem to nave been any clear and decisive effort made to lay down exactly what the requirements for clubs will be. This is something which I know my local club is most concerned about and wants cleared up as soon as possible. Clubs want to know the conditions under which they can operate so that they can get on with their sport. I must confess that I do not think that the Government have been very helpful to them. Indeed, one could say that a blank cheque has been given to the Secretary of State concerning this matter and that the House has been given no opportunity to discuss it.
  I presume that existing clubs will have to re-register. Will that be automatic under this Order or will the process start from scratch?

  1859
  There is a slight change in Schedule I which, in my view, seems to be tighter than before. I think that it should have been drawn up so as to include 0·22 rim-fire rifles, because those weapons are widely used. I accept that those rifles are rather more dangerous than perhaps a shot-gun, but they are not as lethal as some of the weapons which are floating around in Northern Ireland.
  I too believe that we should have compulsory third-party insurance along with a firearm certificate. That has been overlooked in not only Northern Ireland, but in Great Britain. It is something which all true sportsmen would welcome. Some sort of help should be given to the shooting fraternity in Northern Ireland. In view of the large fees and the cost of game licences, surely something can be done to improve shooting in Northern Ireland?
  A greater effort should be made to bring the law in Northern Ireland completely into line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. The people in Northern Ireland desire the same rights as their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom, including the same rights for young people. Moreover, the right of the citizen in Great Britain who has a statutory right to have a firearm should eventually be extended to Northern Ireland. It should not be a discretionary right which can be taken away at the whim of the police or the Secretary of State.
  How many appeals against refusal to grant firearm certificates in the past 12 months have been successful? If the police are completely free from political pressure, as we are always assured and I certainly believe, why, if firearms are specifically a police matter, does the Secretary of State have to be brought in even on the matter of appeals? If we are so intent on getting rid of political pressure on the police, I should have thought that the courts, and only the courts, should be used to deal with appeals. Indeed, I look forward to the day when that is so.
  12.4 a.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for the way that he met me and my colleagues and listened to our representations. We are grateful for some of the matters he has put into the Order.
  1860
  I should like to echo that there has been a great deal of consultation, cooperation and good will between the shooting fraternity in Northern Ireland, the Minister, and representatives of the public. That is not always the case with Orders in Council.
  The House realised a few minutes ago the inadequacy of legislating for Northern Ireland in this way. The Minister replying to the previous debate did not have time to complete his remarks. However, there has been adequate consultation on this Order. Our representations have been noted and would seem to have influenced or helped the Minister in coming to a decision which will be accepted by all people in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that when we have other Orders in Council we shall have the prior consultation that we had in this instance as it will make it possible for representatives from Northern Ireland to take part in a meaningful debate of an hour and a half.
  The people of Northern Ireland are grateful for the concession on the age limit. It is a good thing that a person over 16 years of age should be able to commence shooting as a sport as long as he is accompanied by an adult.
  The provision concerning the farming community is also to be welcomed. It is right that a person over 16 years of age who resides on a farm should have the opportunity of possessing a shot-gun or 0·22 rifle. That point is deeply appreciated.
  There are other matters to which I should like answers tonight. One concerns how the regulations will be made. I take it that we are dealing with an amendment to a Northern Ireland Act which was enacted by the old Stormont. I am told by officials in the Table Office in this House that regulations made by a Minister in Northern Ireland under an Act passed there cannot be prayed against. Therefore, the Minister has an opportunity of making Orders in Council and regulations about which we cannot do anything. I had occasion to wish to pray against a certain regulation, but I was informed by the Table Office here that I could not because it was based on a Northern Ireland Act.
  Article 6 of the Order begins,
  "Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State"

  1861
  This article concerns people from a foreign country coming into Northern Ireland with weapons for sporting purposes. Will these regulations be made in such a way that Members of this House will have an opportunity to discuss them? Alternatively, will they be made under the Northern Ireland Act? If so, we shall have no opportunity to discuss them?
  Article 12, which concerns the control of firearms clubs, refers to
  "an order made by the Secretary of State".
  Is that an Order in Council made under the Act? Will it be made in such a way that we can discuss it in this House?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) made the vital point that if we are to have no say whatsoever in these matters, the regulations being made under an Act passed at Stormont, the Secretary of State will have a blank cheque to do whatever he likes with no restriction upon him.
  I would take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Again, we have an outworn and out-done constitution under Article 2:
  "A Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  I would like to emphasise the arguments he put forward about the rating draft Order.
  I wonder why in these Orders in Council we refer to something which is defunct. Even the most hopeful of upholders of the old Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Deputy Executive of that Assembly, would not believe there is going to be any resurrection. The Assembly is defunct and dead and has passed to the stage of corruption. None of us believes there is any hope for that measure. Why do we have mention again of the Assembly in this Order?
  I come to paragraph 3 of Article 3, on the abolition of firearm permits. Paragraph 3 says:
  "A firearm permit which is in force at the commencement of this Order shall, unless previously revoked or cancelled, continue in force for three years or such shorter period as may be prescribed…".
  Is that the period when the permit would cancel itself out, or is a period going to be prescribed for these permits? Perhaps the Minister will help us on that
  1862
  Will it continue in force from the coming into force of the Order, or such shorter period as may be prescribed?
  I thank the Minister for paragraph 4, in which he has given a proper concession to permit-holders. They are going to have the same relation to holders of firearm certificates when they come to renewal, and are not going to be discriminated against.
  What is the law under Article 5 with regard to guns licensed in Northern Ireland and carried in the rest of Great Britain? Is there a reciprocal arrangement for a sportsman who has a weapon licence in Northern Ireland, and wants to go to Great Britain to take part in shooting and sporting activities? Will he have the same privileges as his colleague from across the water? Is a certificate issued in Northern Ireland at the present time applicable only to Northern Ireland, or does it enable the holder to carry his weapon in the rest of the United Kingdom?
  We look forward to seeing the regulations under Article 6. There are people in the South of Ireland who are gun-holders, but who would not be welcomed by the people in Northern Ireland to come across the border with their guns, even if they were licensed. The Order says—
  "…if that person may lawfully possess that firearm and ammunition under the law for the time being in force in the country in which he resides."
  I know this is going to be limited to regulations made by the Secretary of State. What sort of regulations has he in mind to keep undesirable people who hold guns in the South of Ireland out of the North of Ireland?
  We are grateful for Article 8. When we were discussing this matter on a previous occasion, the Minister of State said,
  "the responsibility for the grant and renewal of firearm certificates rests solely with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary."—[Official Report, 20th March, 1975; Vol. 888, c. 2036.]
  If that is so—and the Minister repeated it tonight—I fail to understand why Article 9 says
  "the chief superintendent refuses to renew it."
  If it is only the Chief Constable who is "solely" responsible, surely the words in

  1863
  the Order should be "Chief Constable" and not "chief superintendent".
  I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. If it is the chief superintendent, what chief superintendent? Is it the chief superintendent in the area in which the person who applies for the certificate resides, or a chief superintendent acting under the Chief Constable? I suggest that the particular line of the Order should read "Chief Constable ", keeping in line with Article 10(2) where "county inspector" is changed to "Chief Constable." I am sure that the Minister is aware that in Section 25 of the original Act it is the county inspector that is referred to.
  As regards cases of appeal where a person has had a firearm certificate but the Chief Constable refuses to renew it, until the appeal is heard and decided upon will the owner be allowed to retain his weapon? This is a matter upon which we have all received representations. Our constituents say to us, "My application to renew my firearms certificate has been turned down. Can I hold on to my weapon until the appeal is heard?" The people concerned need to know exactly what their position is.
  I wonder why the Minister has increased one fine from £20 to £50, and another fine from £200 to £400. For the lesser offence he is more than doubling the fine but for the greater offence he is only doubling it. I know that the amounts of money are vastly different, but what is the principle in regard to this matter?
  For 14 years' imprisonment the Minister is substituting life imprisonment. What is life imprisonment? Some life imprisonment sentences prove to be not even 14 years. I am not sure what the Minister is doing in Article 11(2), where it says,
  "for the words '14 years' there shall be substituted the words 'life imprisonment'."
  Will the Minister define what he means by life imprisonment? His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that in regard to life imprisonment for terrorists it was not an eight-year or nine-year sentence but was really imprisonment for life. Is that what the Minister has in mind?
  We appreciate the manner in which the Minister has met with us.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement on life imprisonment meaning life imprisonment, he also stated that certain prisoners would have their sentences reduced by half. If a person is sentenced to life imprisonment under this legislation, how could it be reduced by half? What are the criteria to be used?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I conclude my remarks on a point that has been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). Some 400 firearm certificates have gone astray in the post since 1st January this year. That is the information which my hon. Friend has received Would it not be a better procedure if certificates had to be collected personally at police stations? Those that have gone astray could be used as a cover in illegal operations. I hope the Minister will give this problem some attention.
  Mr. John Carson: Does my hon. Friend realise that it would be easy to change the photographs on certificates that have gone astray and that they could then be used by members of illegal organisations to carry weapons under false pretences?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe the certificate of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry went astray in this way.
  Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Member aware that in Great Britain firearms certificates are deliver by the police in person? In that way, there is no danger of the certificates being lost.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Evidently, that is the way it used to be done in Northern Ireland.
  I would like to see the system changed so that appeals are made to the courts rather than to the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will keep in mind the number of certificate renewals that are refused by chief constables and then approved, on appeal, by the Secretary of State.
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. Gerrard Fitt: It has been said in similar debates in the past that legally-held firearms are no problem—in Northern Ireland. It is the thousands

  1865
  of illegally held weapons that have led to the death of innocent people, and any legislation that loosens the law enough to put lethal weapons into the hands of potential murderers should be considered very carefully indeed. Shot-guns are lethal. I represent an urban constituency and I do not have a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members from rural areas who seem to want shot-guns in the home of every farmer in their areas.
  One death would be sufficient to justify my case, but a number of people have been killed with shot-guns. A UDR man was brutally murdered with a shot-gun, and the police have not been able to apprehend his murdered, whether he came from the IRA or an extremist Loyalist group.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: There may be isolated cases, but has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that shot-guns are universally or generally used in terrorist operations in Northern Ireland? Would it not be rather surprising to find that, uniquely in Northern Ireland, they were used, when they are not used in this type of offence elsewhere?
  Mr. Fitt: I agree that more lethal weapons like revolvers and machine guns have been used, but people have been killed with shot-guns. With most murders, it is possible to prove that the weapon was used, but I understand that forensic scientists cannot prove that a person was killed with a particular shot-gun. I live in Northern Ireland and I regard any legislation that enables more people to hold firearms as dangerous. Last year a young man from Antrim, who held a weapon quite legally, was killed in Belfast by men who intended to take that weapon. It would seem that they wanted that firearm not for sporting reasons but to use in the terrorist war which is now raging. Many people in Northern Ireland have had to forgo the normalities of life in the present tragic situation. Many of them have no social life, but stay in their homes after darkness falls. It would seem, therefore, that undue representations have been made for members of the sporting fraternity to be allowed to use these weapons.
  I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian
  1866
  Paisley) express reservations about firearms which are legally held in the Republic. I would be more general. Article 6 would seem to open the door for people from other parts of the world to bring legally-held firearms into Northern Ireland. There must be a contradiction here, because that article does not refer specifically to shot-guns. It deals with
  "Firearms lawfully held outside the United Kingdom"
  and that seems to include any type of weapon. Surely it is the job of the security forces to apprehend such people when they attempt to enter the country with those weapons.
  Another provision enables a person in Great Britain with a legally-held firearm to use it in Northern Ireland. Again, there is no specific reference to shotguns, and that could permit the use of revolvers or other weapons. I should be interested to know how a person would get such a weapon into Northern Ireland. When I and my colleagues travel to Northern Ireland by air we are subjected to the most rigorous searches. I do not complain. The more rigorous, the happier I am, but there must be an inconsistency here. Perhaps there are even people who are allowed to carry firearms in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. In what circumstances would a person who is allowed to carry a revolver in Great Britain be permitted to take it into Northern Ireland?
  Article 11 deals with punishment for firearms offences. It says
  (2) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 14 (possession of firearm with intent to injure) and section 15 (1) (use of firearm to resist arrest) for the words "14 years" there shall be substituted the words "life imprisonment"
  I am no lawyer, but these two offences seem to me to be vastly different. If a person in Northern Ireland were found by the security forces to be carrying a weapon, could it be said in court that he held that weapon illegally with intent to injure someone? That could bring with it a maximum penalty of 14 years.
  Section 15 of the 1969 Act deals with the use of a firearm to resist arrest. There can be no doubt that a person using a firearm to resist arrest is guilty of a serious crime and should be subject to the maximum penalty prescribed under the law. However, there could be some

  1867
  doubt that a person who is found with a firearm may not—I think that some juries may be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt—have that weapon in his possession with the intention of injuring someone in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not believe that such a person would come before a jury in Northern Ireland. This would be a scheduled defence under the Diplock Commission.
  Mr. Fitt: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but there could be a vast difference between the intentions of persons in possession of firearms under these circumstances. One person may deliberately resist arrest and use the firearm to resist arrest. I have absolutely no sympathy for him. However, the other person may have no serious intention of injuring anyone with the firearm in his possession. If he were brought before the special courts in Northern Ireland, which require no juries, he could be sentenced to the same term of imprisonment, namely, 14 years. The Minister should examine the uniformity of sentence that could be brought about under this situation.
  I turn to Article 6. I question the advisability of allowing people into Northern Ireland with firearms certificates and, thereby, firearms. Many may say that they come from European countries and have come to Northern Ireland for the sport of rough shooting. Are there any EEC regulations that would make it imperative for the Government in Northern Ireland to allow such a free flow of personnel, firearms certificates and firearms?
  I have reservations about any type of legislation that permits an increase in the number of firearms in Northern Ireland, whether they be legally or illegally held.
  12.33 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: We have had quite a wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked me about the statistics for rifle groups and similar organisations in Northern Ireland, and their rate of decline. There were 110 rifle clubs in Northern Ireland in 1970. There are approximately 80 in existence now, of which about 57 are active. Therefore, there has been a decline.
  1868
  We appreciate that in the current security situation restrictions have to be imposed, and this will lead to a restriction on the enjoyment of quite a lot of people in the Province. Many in the Province recognise that they must inevitably face this situation. On the whole we are grateful for the co-operation of the gun-sporting community.
  I am grateful for the expressions of thanks by the hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for the consultations which were organised. I have found some of them socially pleasant. That is an incentive to continue them on future subjects with even more enthusiasm in the future than there has been in the past.
  A modified charge will be levied on the substitution of certificates for permits. I gather that the full charge will not be levied. I understand that the Chief Constable will be sympathetic to the substitution of certificates for permits. As the responsibility is ultimately his, I cannot be any more positive than that. But I should expect that permits would be substituted by certificates without any difficulty and that that would go ahead fairly well.
  Several hon. Members raised the question of appeal to the court from refusal to grant a certificate, as happens in Great Britain. The executive control of firearm certificates is a long-standing practice in Northern Ireland. It has gone on, I think, almost as long as, if not as long as, Northern Ireland has existed as a Province. One of the reasons is that in a security situation which demands executive action, it would possibly not be to the advantage of either the police or the appellant himself for these matters to be aired in open court. That is something which hon. Members might like to consider in this context. There is also the sheer weight of business. About 700 appeals per annum might have to be heard, and this imposed on their normal business would create severe problems for the courts of first instance.
  Another advantage of the executive procedure lies in the fact that, as the proceeding takes place outside court, it is probably quicker than it would be if there was an appeal to the court, and it is, of course, considerably cheaper. In view of what we heard about appeals

  1869
  against rates in the earlier debate, perhaps that also is a consideration which hon. Members would bear in mind.
  It has been suggested that there should be third-party insurance. It seems that there are not many shooting accidents resulting from the use of legally-held weapons; that is, among the sort of people who would follow the law and take out compulsory insurance if it were introduced. Moreover, with about 79,000 firearm certificate holders, compulsory insurance might provide added problems of enforcement for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which had substantial commitments in other directions. In any event, it is doubtful that in present conditions in Northern Ireland insurance companies would be willing to take on that type of business. For those reasons we are not attracted to the idea of compulsory third-party insurance.
  There have been references to the nomenclature of police officers in the Order. The principal Acts in this connection and the subsequent amending Acts and Orders will be reprinted soon, and the standard nomenclature for police officers will be introduced into the legislation at that stage. The procedure is this. People should apply to the chief superintendent of the division in which they live, but he does not take the decisions. All questions of firearms appeals are referred to police headquarters at Knock, and the Chief Constable is the official responsible for taking the decisions on these matters, involving interviews, documents and the like, with an ultimate right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
  I think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North questioned whether the Secretary of State should be involved in these matters. The fact that he is involved is always to the advantage of the appellant anyway, because if an application for a firearm certificate is rejected by the Chief Constable, there is always the possibility that the matter could be reviewed and a certificate granted by the Secretary of State. As far as I can recall, there has never been a situation in which the Chief Constable has allowed a firearm certificate and the Secretary of State has rejected it. The addition of the Secretary of State in the procedure is a matter which redounds generally to the advantage of the applicant.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I understood the Minister to say that if the Chief Constable granted a certificate it is hardly likely that the Secretary of State would turn it down, but the applicant would never go to the Secretary of State under those circumstances because his application would be granted. He would hardly appeal against himself.
  Mr. Moyle: That is indeed the position. That is why the addition of the Secretary of State as a stage in the procedure is an advantage rather than a disadvantage to those seeking a firearm certificate.
  A query has been raised about the number of appeals, and I shall try to find the list of appeals. I have the statistics.
  Mr. Wm. Ross Mr. Wm. Ross rose—
  Mr. Moyle: Perhaps the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will contain his impatience for a moment.
  In 1975, for example, 118 appeals were refused and 27 were allowed. That means that some appeals are allowed, which is to the advantage of the constituents of Northern Ireland Members. The equivalent figures for 1974 were 431 appeals, of which 69 were allowed.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: Before we get too far away from chief superintendents, will the Minister tell us whether the local chief superintendents make recommendations to Belfast? If so, is it not upon their recommendation that the decision is taken in Belfast?
  Mr. Moyle: There is also the question of policy that the Chief Constable has to take into consideration in reaching his final decision. In a number of cases there are interviews with the persons seeking a firearm certificate by other members of the constabulary. It is a Royal Ulster Constabulary operation, and the official responsible is the Chief Constable.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry asked me many detailed questions. I can answer some of them, but if I miss any out I promise to write to him. As far as I can gather, people from other European countries will be allowed to bring their weapons into Northern Ireland for sporting purposes under the existing legislation. They will be able to bring ammunition with them if they are entitled to hold it for their weapons in their own country. The procedure is

  1871
  that the person will have to have a firearms certificate for the use of his guns and ammunition in his own country. He will then have to get a certificate of approval for the use of those weapons and accompanying ammunition in Northern Ireland. That will be for sporting purposes only. The police will have a record of all people bringing guns and ammunition into Northern Ireland. The use of those guns and ammunition will be limited to sporting purposes. That is, of course, if people enter the country legally. If they enter illegally, that is another matter altogether.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell. Will the Minister explain under what powers the additional requirement of permission to use the firearm in Northern Ireland for sporting purposes is given? It does not appear on the face of the Order, but there may be provisions or powers elsewhere.
  Mr. Moyle: That is the intention which the Order must bring about. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a more detailed explanation, I shall supply it to him subsequently.
  A person who settles in Northern Ireland will be dealt with under normal Northern Irish firearms certificate law, once there is evidence that he is settling permanently.
  The eight-years' prohibition from holding a certificate runs from the date of conviction, but that does not mean that after that period has elapsed the Chief Constable must give a person a certificate; the position is that after eight years a discretion exists for the Chief Constable to issue a firearms certificate.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of what happened to people under the age of 18 under the law that we are amending. The Chief Constable had the right, within the powers given him, to refuse a firearms certificate to anybody up to the age of 90, let alone 18. He decided to exercise his discretion and apply the policy in such a way that those under the age of 18 would not generally be allowed to hold a firearm; therefore, we decided to raise the age for holding firearm certificates to 18, to conform with the general practice. At the same time, we have made two concessions, as a result of consultations
  1872
  which I have already described, and the result is that probably rather more young people under the age of 18 will be able to hold and use firearms and ammunition, under certain conditions, than was the case before. This means that people under the age of 18 who feel that they come within the exempted categories can apply forthwith for a firearms certificate.
  With all bullet-firing weapons the Chief Constable has a rather more restrictive attitude than he has with shotguns and similar weapons.
  Mr. William Ross: Can the Minister tell me when the age was raised from 16 to 18? My understanding is that it was proposed in the draft Order that the age would be raised from 16 to 18, but the Order put before the House gives a discretion between the ages of 16 and 18.
  Mr. Moyle: It would appear that my powers of exposition tonight are not as good as they are normally. The fact is that under the law that we are amending young people over the age of 16 could be given a firearm certificate if the Chief Constable of the RUC felt that they should have one in accordance with the general policy of granting firearm certificates. In fact, he so interpreted the general principles of the policy of granting firearm certificates that he did not readily—in fact, hardly ever—give a young person under the age of 18 a firearm certificate.
  We are now amending the law to raise the minimum age for being granted a firearm certificate from 16 to 18, to bring the matter into conformity with the practice of the Chief Constable, but we have had representations from other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and from organisations concerned, to the effect that there was an argument for giving certain types of people practice in the use of firearms at as young an age as possible, because they would then be able to develop good habits in the handling of firearms. We conceded that there was a case, and we have made two exemptions. Young people under the age of 18 will be able to use firearms under two sets of conditions, which we have laid down in the Order. But the minimum age for

  1873
  handling firearms will be raised from 16 to 18 by this Order.
  I hope that I have explained to the hon. Member what we are about.
  On the question of the registration of transactions by firearms dealers, after he has repaired a weapon such a dealer has no further responsibility for reporting that sort of thing, even though the ballistic signature of the weapon has been altered. That is a matter on which the RUC will be checking. Under Article 11(5) fines are unlimited.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry made a final appeal that the law on the control of firearms should be the same in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain. When the situation in Northern Ireland becomes similar to that in Great Britain, I am sure that that factor will be borne in mind by the Government of the day.
  In answering the hon. Member for Londonderry, I have answered most of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The relaxation in the minimum age of 18 was one of the improvements in the Order sought by him during the consultations. The hon. Gentleman asked about the procedure for the making of regulations. The advice of the Table Office, as one would expect, is an accurate assessment of the position, and there will be no opportunity on the Floor of the House for consultation on the regulations, but we shall consult the trade and sporting interests concerned before making them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to think of a way in which that process can be combined with his interest in the regulations. The firearm certificates granted in Northern Ireland can be used in Great Britain for shotguns, but I am not sure of the position with regard to bullet-firing weapons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) urged us to keep the control of firearms as tight as possible. The statistics which I have given of the decline in the number of rifle clubs show that that is taking place. We appreciate that this means a restriction in pleasure for a number of people, but we ask them to make that sacrifice in the present
  1874
  serious situation. I have explained the way in which approvals will operate for people who bring weapons into Northern Ireland from the Republic and other European countries.
  Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friend explained that a firearm certificate held by a person living in another country would have to be supplemented by a cover notice from the Northern Ireland authorities. When is that obtained? Does the person concerned apply to the Northern Ireland authorities before he enters the country, or does he wait until he gets there? If he is caught on the way from Newry to Bann Bridge, will he be committing an offence if he has not applied to Bann Bridge police station for a cover note?
  Mr. Moyle: It would be wise for the person concerned to apply to the Northern Ireland authorities before entering the country. That course is guaranteed to result in the minimum amount of inconvenience.
  My hon. Friend also asked about sentences. There is great advantage in flexibility in sentencing and charging. It is entirely a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the courts, who may possibly read our debates from time to time, in which case they may take note of what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Carson: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who referred to 400 firearm certificates which had gone astray? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more convenient and more secure if applicants who were granted firearm certificates made arrangements with the police station to collect them?
  Mr. Moyle: I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we will give consideration to the suggestion which has been made in the light of the problem, and see what can be done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION)
  12.55 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
  That the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
  This Order has three broad purposes. First, we are increasing the capital grant for certain voluntary schools from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. The majority of the voluntary schools in Northern Ireland—more than 90 per cent. of them, in fact—have public representatives on their management bodies, and provision is being made to increase the rate of capital grant for these schools in Article 13 of the draft order.
  In the case of maintained schools in Northern Ireland, the increased grants are in respect of the provision of alteration of premises. These schools are voluntary primary schools, including nursery schools, secondary and special schools managed by a committee of which one-third of the members have been appointed by the education and library board for the area concerned.
  In the case of those voluntary grammar schools which have one-third of their governors appointed by the Northern Northern Ireland Department of Education, the increased grant will be in respect of provision or alteration of premises and provision of equipment.
  This provision parallels the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Education Act 1975, which increased the rate of grant payable to similar schools in England and Wales, and arises from representations from the voluntary school authorities concerning the financial difficulties facing them—increased building costs, higher interest rates, and so on—which have affected Northern Ireland as much as England and Wales.
  It is estimated that the cost of the proposed increase will be about £200,000 in the current year. In subsequent years, the increased cost will depend on the size of the building programme which the prevailing economic circumstances will allow.
  We had a proposal that the increased rate of grant should be payable on all
  1876
  work done after the operative date, 6th November 1974, but we have decided that it will be on work begun on or after 6th November 1974, since this brings us into line with the situation in England and Wales. The main object of the Order is to ensure parity between the situations in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
  The second purpose of the Order is to give the Department of Education for Northern Ireland power to alter school leaving dates. Article 36 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 provides for two dates in the year on which pupils are treated as free to leave school. First, pupils whose 16th birthday falls between 1st September and 31st January may leave school at the end of the spring term following—that is, at Easter. Secondly, those pupils whose 16th birthday falls between 1st February and 31st August may leave at the end of the summer term. The present leaving dates in Northern Ireland are the same as those in England and Wales.
  Last July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation to bring forward the present summer term leaving date in England and Wales from the end of the summer term to the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday, and he hopes to make the change next year. It will mean that pupils whose 16th birthday falls between 1st February and 31st August in any year will be free to leave school on the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday. Since the school leaving age was raised to 16 some pupils who in earlier years could have left school on finishing the certificate examinations are no longer free to do so, although it is very difficult to seek to enforce continued attendance for a brief period thereafter. The raising of the age has meant that pupils who do not take these examinations, and who previously would have left school at 15, are now required to remain at school over the period when many of their fellow pupils are taking examinations and when normal school work is affected.
  While in Northern Ireland the problem is less serious than in England and Wales, in that the summer term ends some three weeks earlier than in England and Wales, there is general support for bringing the

  1877
  leaving date in Northern Ireland forward to the Spring Bank Holiday.
  Article 4 of the draft Order empowers the Department to make the necessary amendment to the 1972 Order. Then we are left with a situation in which there would be two school leaving dates in any one year, separated by a very few weeks. In consequence, the proposal has been made that we should have one school leaving date for the year, and that would be the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday. We are consulting all interested parties in Northern Ireland on this particular point, and a final decision has not yet been reached. But we are taking the power to have one school leaving date for the year.
  I now turn to the remaining provisions of the Order.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Could the Minister state whether the reference in Article 4 to affirmative resolution in respect to such an Order is valid at the moment, or is it another of those "might-have-beens"?
  Mr. Moyle: As far as I am advised, this is valid at the moment and is not a "might-have-been".
  The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 was a complete recasting of the education administration in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that one or two rough edges have been revealed in the last two years of operation. The rest of the Order is a way of polishing those rough edges and, I hope, making the machinery work more smoothly in the future than in the past.
  With the permission of the House, I do not intend to go into all those minor alterations—they are fairly technical in most cases—but if hon. Members have questions on them I shall do my best to answer them at the end of the debate.
  1.3 a.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Lord President of the Council has announced that housing in Northern Ireland is to be discussed in the Northern Ireland Committee. The House may also desire to debate education in Northern Ireland at length on some future convenient occasion.
  1878
  I was glad to hear that there is to be consultation on this question of the school leaving age. In my own constituency the inflexible system that we have had has caused inconvenience and even distress.
  Could I ask the Government's opinion on two controversial educational questions? First, with reference to Article 13 of the Order, that on integration of schooling, through which some seek to bridge the so-called sectarian divide—not a phrase I like very much—whatever I or any right hon. or hon. Member may think, such integration does not appear to be practical politics at this time.
  However, in the spring of 1974 Mr. Basil McIver, who was Minister of Education in the then Executive, put forward his proposal for shared education, under which children of different denominations would be educated in the same schools under joint church management. Mr. McIver wanted to start with nursery schools. What has happened to that scheme and what is the attitude of Ministers to it?
  Secondly, may I ask the Minister to confirm that whatever the Government's views have been on the 11-plus, which is often a red herring across the trail of discussion of the reorganisation of secondary education, it is still his view that the final shape of secondary education in Northern Ireland will be left to be decided by a locally elected assembly?
  1.5 a.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) touched on matters which I, too, wish to refer to briefly.
  Article 13 of the Order bolsters, solidifies or strengthens a system, two features of which deserve special consideration. One of them is selection in education and the fact that we still have in Northern Ireland a system based on selection at the age of 11. Even a brief indication of how far the Government are prepared to move on this and of how they can use the concept of parity, as they have just done in financial terms, when they have a radically different policy on education in Northern Ireland from that in the remainder of the United Kingdom would be welcome. There is at least some demand in Northern Ireland for a move away from selection. I have seen corre-

  1879
  spondence of this kind seeking a change, and the evidence from Craigavon suggests that there is a feeling amongst some parents that alternatives should be available to them as they are to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The other issue to which I refer is that of sectarian education, and the continued existence in Northern Ireland of a system which effectively ensures that the two religious communities are not educated together and that formative growing years are spent narrowly confined within the schools of a denomination or in State schools attended largely by members of the Protestant community.
  There cannot be many of us who would deny that this separation has an effect in limiting the understanding that members of one community have of the other and that less separation is desirable. This could not be achieved in a short time. Nor would it be achieved by simple alterations in the management structure of schools. What is important is whether children at some stage in their education have the opportunity to be taught in company with or perhaps by teachers who normally teach members of the other community. The importance is not in the management of schools but in the mixed opportunities of children and the extent to which they can learn something of the other community and avoid a one community view of history, which seems to be perpetuated in some schools.
  But the ending of this kind of sectarian education would not be the panacea that some people believe. Even if, by some miracle, we could accomplish a change in the pattern of education, it would not reverse the problems that we face in Northern Ireland. I am convinced, however, that the persistence of this system over a long period and the extent of the separation which exists in childhood undoubtedly exacerbates the problems that we face and makes it more difficult for members of one community to understand the problems and attitudes of the other.
  In that context, I want to quote what the Minister said in an Open University broadcast which suggests much less of a desire to change the system. The interviewer put it to the Minister that some people felt that not only should the social classes mix by a move towards compre-
  1880
  hensive education in Northern Ireland but that different religious groupings should be mixed as well. The Minister said:
  "I would react against that very much. I think that you can have two separate comprehensive systems, a Catholic one and a State one side by side, as you've got in certain areas of this country"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Strictly speaking, the Order does not deal with integration of the school population in Northern Ireland. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he is saying to the contents of the Order.
  Mr. Beith:With respect, I suggest that Article 13 increases the aid for the voluntary sector of education from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. In my view, it is a clear strengthening of the system in Northern Ireland whereby a large part of education is conducted by voluntary schools drawn from the minority religious community.
  The Minister indicated that there are financial reasons for the difficulties faced by those schools which argue for an increase, as in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that an increase from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. does not represent any lessening of the Government's determination to maintain this pattern. It is with that in mind that I quote the Minister of State's remarks. He said:
  "…in certain areas of England, Wales and Scotland you have had the Catholic authorities coming to the local education authority and saying we'll go in with you in your comprehensive scheme. If Catholic bodies in Northern Ireland genuinely volunteered to take part in that sort of exercise well I would be only too delighted to assist, but there is no intention of using comprehensive secondary education as a way of tackling the sectarian separation of Northern Ireland schools. I'd be totally opposed to that."
  In the context of increasing the support to voluntary schools and strengthening that system, it might be opportune and helpful if the Government could give some clear indication whether they would like to see some elements of integration across this sectarian divide—that may be an unhappy phrase but it has some real meaning in Northern Ireland—or whether they wish to defer any further consideration of this matter until a new system of government has been established in the Province.
  1.12 a.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: I only rise to congratulate the Minister. Under Articles 5, 6 and 7 it appears that the education boards are now permitted to give financial assistance to the children of poor parents throughout Northern Ireland. For many years children of poor parents, whatever academic qualifications they attained, were sometimes placed in the embarrassing position, on passing an examination, of transferring to a different school, and their parents were put to great hardship in trying to find the money to pay for their new uniforms. That problem affected children from both the majority and the minority communities. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), I am sure, has experience of these matters.
  Free school dinners sometimes cause grave embarrassment not only to the children who receive them, but even more so to their parents. A certain stigma is attached to such children because they come from poor families and their parents cannot afford to pay for their dinners. The education boards throughout Northern Ireland are taking a progressive step. Throughout my political life I have been aware of the severe hardships imposed on families when children are transferred after passing an examination to—for want of a better word—a superior school. There was more class consciousness.
  In Northern Ireland there are many labouring families and they do not attain the same type of wages as people in other parts of the United Kingdom. Many of those working-class families are in receipt of family income supplements, but even so they are unable to afford the necessary uniforms to enable their children to attend school.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that local tribunals were unable to give grants for uniforms. They could give grants only if the children's clothing was inadequate. This point is covered in this Order, and it is most acceptable to all sections of the community.
  Mr. Fitt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He, like me and most hon. Members, has attended local tribunals in the interests of constituents. On many occasions I have put forward a case similar to the one which he has illustrated and
  1882
  the appeals tribunal has been unable, because of the regulations, to grant any financial assistance towards the provision of a uniform for a certain child.
  This is helpful legislation, and I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Order. However, I find some confusion in the Order. The articles to which I have referred relate to grant-aided schools. I wonder whether there is a division between grant-aided and voluntary schools. If help is to be given, it should be given to the children or the families who are in need. It should not be restricted to any one type of school. I feel sure that in reply the Minister will allay my fears by saying that the education boards will consider the welfare of the children involved and will take every possible step to help them in this rather embarrassing position.
  1.17 a.m.
  Mr. McCusker: One always gets some satisfaction when rising to welcome an Order, one hopes, for the improvement of educational facilities in the Province.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about wanting parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not normally need to ask for educational parity. There are already moves afoot to eradicate selection at 11-plus in Northern Ireland. However, we want parity on such things as the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill, on devolution, and so on.
  I particularly welcome Article 13, which raises the grant from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. for the voluntary schools. However, my welcome is tinged with regret, because, until quite recently, Northern Ireland was always in advance of England and Wales in its assistance to voluntary schools. Indeed, hon. Members from Northern Ireland could take people on trips round their constituencies and show them the benefits of grants not only to voluntary schools, but to State schools.
  Our educational facilities in Northern Ireland are second to none, as I am sure the Minister will agree; but I have reservations, as he has, about the effects of what might be called sectarian education. I have personal experience of childhood friendships being wrenched apart by sectarian education. We must

  1883
  concern ourselves with the problem which has undoubtedly created that situation. I do not want to make too much of it. Sometimes such problems need to be looked at and questioned by people from outside Northern Ireland.
  I am sure that many childhood friends would have grown up into adult friends, but those friendships were destroyed between the ages of 4 and 10 because we went our separate ways and developed new friendships. Those friendships which had perhaps been formulated on the street corners were destroyed by the educational system, and that is a cause for concern.
  Like the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I have personal experience of the provision made in Article 7. I must be careful what I say now. I have a very proud working-class mother who will read with interest what I say tonight. I was granted a scholarship to a grammar school. My mother, who was a widow, could not afford to provide the uniform which would have been demanded. Of course, I was adequately and warmly clothed, but not always in the uniform demanded by the school. I am thankful for the understanding of the staff at the school and of colleagues. I never felt any sense of injustice or grievance that I did not have the complete school uniform. It may be that I had a thick skin even then. However, I am sure that there are some sensitive children and, indeed, parents who feel the effects of such a situation.
  I am slightly concerned that Article 7 is not specific. It says
  "Subject to a scheme which shall be framed by a board and approved by the Department…"
  I would have preferred the Minister to have come to the House tonight and said that he was introducing a scheme which would give assistance across the board and that individual boards administering education would not be given discretion in this mater at all. I do not know why this provision has been introduced in this fashion, but I welcome it, along with certain of the other provisions.
  In looking at the difficulty of the school leaving age, the Minister is tackling a very difficult problem. Although be may bring the school leaving age closer to the
  1884
  end of May, for some children he is still, as he says, going to be confronted with the two-date situation. Will the Minister say to those children who want least of all to remain at school after Easter that they are going to have to wait a further six weeks, as it might be, or is he going to move the date back to Easter for everyone?
  If adequate provision had been made to train teachers to deal with average and below-average 15-to-16-year-olds, and if adequate financial provision had been given to the schools to develop courses for these children, perhaps we would not be faced with the problem of 16-year-olds breaking their necks to leave school. They would have been staying on to get some benefit from it. Perhaps we should be bending our mind to that matter instead of tackling the problems created by that situation.
  If we are going to have one school leaving age, it should be at Easter, because the majority leaving on that date will, in all probability, be average and slightly below average ability. They might well be moving into the construction industry, because there is usually an up-turn in that industry with opportunities for employment before the peak of the summer leavers arrive on the scene.
  One or two things concern me. The suggestion that we make payments to the chairmen of these boards brings us to the thorny problem of undemocratic boards. These are boards appointed by the Minister, answerable to no one, and they frequently comprise people rejected by the electorate when they stood for office in local government, or at other levels. I do not know why we should consider paying chairmen. I do not know whether we have got our priorities right. If we have not been paying them up to now, why should be start? The whole question of payment for people serving on boards is under close scrutiny. I do not want any extension of it.
  Article 11 provides for the insertion in the principal Order of the following article:
  "Subject to any direction which may be given by the Department, a board may either alone or together with another board or other boards defray or contribute towards the expenses of bodies to which the Board is affiliated or of which the Board is a member."
  What are these other bodies? May we have some specific examples? If we have

  1885
  them, I may accept them without question. I do not like the blanket, open-ended way in which this is phrased.
  Paragraph 5 of the Schedule says,
  "In Article 68(b) before the word "incurred"—
  which obviously means further expense—
  "there shall be inserted the word 'reasonably'"—
  at least someone is being prudent now; it is to be "reasonably incurred expenses"—
  "and after the words 'distinguished persons' there shall be inserted the words ' residing in or'."
  I presume that is a means whereby one intends to reimburse or grant reasonable expenses to certain distinguished persons whether or not they reside in Northern Ireland. I should like clarification as to further expenses. I am concerned about another matter. When we talk about educational expenditure. I wonder if some of the expenditure being considered here should not be going in another diection, which may have equal bearing on education in the Province. I was told by the Minister this week that there are approximately 400 teachers in technical schools who do not have a contract of employment. If they do not have a contract—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter that is not in the Order. Even though we have plenty of time, he ought to keep to the actual Order that we are discussing.
  Mr. McCusker: The Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is obviously concerned with specific expenditure on education, and I am arguing that some of its provisions ought to be delayed and that the expenditure could be better used in other directions. However, I shall deal with the matter briefly.
  If 400 teachers in technical schools in Northern Ireland do not have a contract, are we not in grave danger of getting our priorities wrong? If it requires £250,000—which is what the Minister has told me is required—to settle the grievances of the technical school teachers, would not the Minister do better by using the money that he has to settle those grievances instead of considering reimbursing the chairman of
  1886
  committees and spending money in other ways, for distinguished persons and so on?
  1.30 a.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) with regard to the provision of clothing for pupils under Article 7. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that it is to be regretted that no firm proposals are put forward in the Order.
  I take it that when the Order refers to "the board" it is referring to the Education and Library Board of the particular area. Will the Minister tell us the type of scheme upon which his Department would look favourably, because Article 7(1) says,
  "a scheme which shall be framed by a board and approved by the Department."?
  Therefore, the Minister must already have certain criteria in mind. We should like some information on this matter as a guide to this provision.
  I am totally opposed to payment for the chairmen of these boards. The people of Northern Ireland do not like these boards because they are not democratically elected and the majority of their members have no standing in the community. They have submitted themselves to the electorate and been utterly rejected. Some have forfeited their deposits. Because of political pressure they are entered on these boards. What is more, the part of which I have the honour to be the leader and which came third in the total number of votes cast at the election for the Convention, the Democratic Unionist Party, has never had one member put on any board. It is completely discriminated against. That is the type of thing that is happening in Northern Ireland.
  Furthermore, these boards are taking decisions which are against the interests of local people because they do not represent them. They are closing down schools which should not be closed. I was making representations to one of these boards the other day when people from outside the particular district were trying to close a primary school against the wishes of the parents in the area. That is the sort of thing that we shall not tolerate in Northern Ireland. It is time that the

  1887
  Minister took a hard look at the democratic composition of these boards and tried to get local people on to them, people who know what the residents of the area require.
  I am totally opposed to giving any money to the many chairmen of these boards. They are not even elected members. They get into their positions by political skulduggery and by certain pressures that are put on them.
  Perhaps the House does not know that there is no Protestant school system in Northern Ireland. There is a State school system. Some hon. Members talk as though there were a religious divide, with Roman Catholic schools and Protestant schools. There are Roman Catholic schools and State schools. Some Roman Catholic children attend some of these State schools, and some Roman Catholic teachers teach in some of the State schools. Let us get that matter absolutely right.
  The sad thing, however—which I raised many years ago, when I first became a Member of this House, and which was not accepted by the then Government—is that the dead hand of the old school management committees is still controlling the State schools today. If a school had its foundation in a particular Protestant denomination, the majority of the management board still reflects that—even though the school may have moved its location and have different denominational connections. The Minister must face up to this problem.
  We all appreciate that the problems in education in Northern Ireland are difficult, and I hope the House will be informed of all the details of the situation.
  I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh when he spoke about priorities in education. In my constituency I am worried about the number of people who should be attending teacher training institutions, but have not received the grants enabling them to go. This is very serious and concerns all sections of the community. Classes in Northern Ireland schools are getting far too big and we need more teachers.
  1.32 a.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I will not attempt to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh
  1888
  (Mr. McCusker), who brings to this subject unrivalled experience and knowledge, but I know he will not take it amiss if I add to his list of priorities our greatest priority—equal representation in this House.
  I do not need to underline the discrimination being practised against my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his followers. He has certain vocal powers which enable him to speak for himself, but, if at any time he is in difficulties, I will be only too willing to lend him any assistance within my power, if he likes to come south over the border between our constituencies at Kells and Connor.
  I wish to refer to the closure of the Aghagallon Victoria primary school. When the proposals for a school replacement programme were formulated in 1970, the population pattern of the village of Aghalee, in which this school is situated, was very different from that of today and that of the near future when extensive housing developments are completed. Work on these houses is already under way, and it is clear that the village will become the largest in the south-west corner of County Antrim. It may be more economical in some circumstances to amalgamate several small schools and replace them with one modern building, but in this case so many children will have to be bussed that savings could be rapidly outweighed by escalating and continuing transport costs. The Minister of State was kind enough to write to me on 29th October pointing out that the statutory development scheme was followed in this case, but that only one formal objection was submitted—from the Rector of Aghalee, the Rev. S. J. Brennan—so it was decided that an inquiry need not be held. In the strictly legal sense, this may have been correct, but surely it was clear to the authorities that Mr. Brennan was submitting a collective objection on behalf of all the parents who were present at the meeting, to which the Director of Education was invited and which he attended. I appreciate that the Minister may be in some difficulty since the new replacement school is in the course of erection, but I urge him to take no steps which would tie his hands and prevent him from reversing this unpopular decision.
  1.35 a.m.
  Mr. Moyle: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he hoped that we would be able to debate education more fully in the Northern Ireland Committee at some stage in the not-too-distant future. I am willing to take part in a debate of that sort whenever it can be arranged, if that is the wish of the House. I have no doubt that the Lord President, who is responsible for these matters, will take note of the remarks which have been made.
  We have had a general discussion of the question of shared schools and selection in education which apparently revolved around an incerase in the grant from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. for voluntary and maintained schools, and on the proposal which was put forward by Mr. Basil McIver. When I arrived in Northern Ireland this proposal had been made. It was not for the integrated education of any schoolchildren but for a new form of management committee which would represent the religious interests on both sides of the sectarian divide and to which children of both major persuasion could readily resort when they wished.
  I encouraged consultations to proceed on that idea, but I concluded that there was insufficient support for blanket legislation along those lines and I announced this at the conference of Association of Education and Library Boards in the summer. We are not proceeding any further along that line.
  On sectarian education, it should be made clear that the situation in Northern Ireland is not all that different from the situation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If Roman Catholic or Anglican parents in England and Wales want their children to receive a religious education they are entitled to set up their particular schools, assuming that there is a need. They are entitled to receive appropriate grants and have separate education. A system which works without too much difficulty on this side of the water, however, might give rise to implications in Northern Ireland. I accept that this helps to sharpen the division in the population, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, but that division already exists and it would not be solved by the forcible mixing, if that
  1890
  could be achieved—and it could not—of children of the various religious persuasions. For that reason it is just not on the cards to combine comprehensive and secondary reorganisation with the abolition of the sectarian divide.
  This is entirely a matter for parents in Northern Ireland. Personally, I should like to see the children come together, but that is only a personal point of view, and it would be counter-productive to try to force them into secondary schools which eliminated not only the class division but the sectarian division as well.
  The abolition of the 11-plus and selection at that age was referred by my predecessors to a committee of educational experts chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of the new University of Ulster, Alan Burgess, and it came up with a report which said that selection at the age of 11 should go. That was the situation when I arrived in Northern Ireland about 18 months ago. The committee suggested various means by which this educational reform could be brought about, but did not produce a firm recommendation for the practical abolition of selection itself. Therefore, I have appointed the very respected Senior Chief Inspector, Mr. Tom Cowan, to go round the Province and work out a practical plan by means of a feasibility study for achieving the abolition of selection at this stage. He will probably report about March next year. When that takes place I shall be committed to consultations with the various educational interests, including the governors of voluntary grammar schools, as to how we should proceed.
  That is the stage that the exercise has reached in the reorganisation of secondary education. I was asked if I planned to leave it to a locally elected assembly. It was certainly my ambition that the matter could be dealt with by a locally elected assembly. That is why we had a Convention and why the Convention has reported. However, it is a matter of time, and one cannot hold up indefinitely in Northern Ireland the general advances in education which are prevalent in the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like to leave the matter there. Whether it takes place at a locally elected assembly is a matter very much for hon. Gentlemen.
  I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) for his kind words about

  1891
  the provision of clothing for children, and I thank other hon. Members who have made similar remarks. We are grateful for those thanks. Children attending all schools will be included because in practice almost all schools in Northern Ireland are grant-aided. However, we shall be examining in particular schemes for those over 18 years old.
  The hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Armagh considerably criticised the area boards. There was also a reference to the reorganisation of primary schools in the Aghagallon area. I do not have any quasi-judicial functions to exercise in that case. I visited the schools after I had received a letter from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), and, to my prejudiced eye, they looked very small. I appreciate that there can often be a great gain in human contact in such small schools, but, on the other hand, we can give children a better education in schools that are a little larger than the three affected by the particular reorganisation scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  The idea that irresponsible education boards go around closing down schools left, right and centre is a description of the situation which bears no relationship to reality.
  Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. Every time a school is closed a public procedure has to be followed which involves the parents. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, South he would have realised that the parents were given an opportunity to exercise their objections in that case.
  A number of members of area boards are appointed by district councils, which are elected, and others are appointed by me on the advice of Government machinery. The bona fides of people are thoroughly investigated before they are appointed to area boards.
  Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Mr. Moyle: In any case, area education boards were introduced into Northern Ireland with a view to being a substitution for the local government system, which, quite frankly, was not accepted
  1892
  by a large number of people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide. It is, indeed, difficult to get general acceptability of elected local government in Northern Ireland. I am trying to give extra powers to district councils which, in the sphere of sport, recreation and community provision, they will be able to undertake. However, I have to drag about half the Province along with me when I try to give them these extra powers, and there is no great enthusiasm for democratically locally elected government in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not right for the Minister to put words into my mouth. I never spoke of the closing of schools right, left and centre. The hon. Gentleman should be careful in what he says. What I said—I repeat it and I defy the Minister to contradict it—is that these people on area boards who are not in any way connected with the local districts in which the schools are closing, and they form the majority on the boards. People who have absolutely no say in a local parish come along to an area board meeting, and when representations are made by the parents and by local clergymen—I have led some of the deputations—these people vote to close those small schools. I can give examples from Canalbana. I can give a whole series. The Minister knows about it.
  I made no accusation about closing down schools right, left and centre. I said that the people who were helping to close them, nominated by the Minister or by his predecessor, are people who know nothing about local circumstances in the area. That is all. Also, I say that of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall certainly not allow a second speech to be made in the guise of an intervention.
  Mr. Moyle: It all depends on what one means by local. The fact is that all members of area education boards are selected from the area covered by the board on which they serve. The whole of Northern Ireland is not all that large. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's idea of locality is different from mine.
  The hon. Gentleman said also that there are no such things as Protestant schools in Northern Ireland, and there is a State education system. I think that that argument might be maintained, but

  1893
  it is worth while recalling that a number of schools which entered the State system were originally owned by various churches, and in pretty well all cases they were Protestant churches. The Protestant churches concerned were quite rightly at that stage given representation on the governing bodies of the schools. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that when those schools were replaced by other schools, those representatives of the Protestant churches were transferred to the new schools as well.
  Therefore, there is to that extent some justification for, perhaps, humantarians, Roman Catholics or others having some reservations about sending their children to such schools. Although it was impracticable, that was the idea behind Basil Mclver's proposals in May 1974.
  I turn now to another matter. The shorthand intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my shorthand reply to it may not have led to the meeting of minds which I thought it had achieved, so I shall read out a definitive statement of the position, lest there be some confusion. The provisions for affirmative resolutions contained in the Education and Libraries Order, while the Northern Ireland Act 1974 remains in force, mean that the statutory rule will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House at Westminster—that is, a negative resolution, and there can be a Prayer against it.
  I am glad that, generally speaking, hon. Members have been favourably disposed to the Order, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (BANN RESERVOIR COMPANY)
  Resolved,
  That the Bann Reservoir Company (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Concannon.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (INSURANCE COMPANIES)
  Resolved,
  That the Insurance Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Concannon.]

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 22nd November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Overseas Development, Mr. Michael Marshall be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Richard Luce be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 22nd November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman be discharged from the Committee and Mr. John Cope be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Message of yesterday relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committe be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider:—

  (1) every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

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

  1895

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

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

  (d)an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

  (2) every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures:

  with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  or any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.

  Ordered,
  That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-committee
  1896
  or Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
  Ordered.
  That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from time to time, and that any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any instrument.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any memorandum submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instrument.
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit.
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

  (a)statutory instruments, or drafts of statutory instruments;

  (b)schemes, or amendments of schemes, or drafts thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or

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

  and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on

  1897
  any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House; and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.
  And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Roger Moate and Mr. R. Graham Page.
  Ordered,
  That the members of the Committee nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
  Ordered,
  That the foregoing Order be a Standing Order of the House.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

  TIED COTTAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE
  1.51 a.m.
  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: The subject of this Adjournment debate is the beauty and the preservation of the beauty of our countryside. Let us remember that the countryside as we know it is not something that has just appeared as if by magic; it is the work and the partnership between the farmers and farm workers and nature itself. That has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. Future generations will not forgive us if we destroy this heritage. If we do anything to harm it, we cannot repair the damage.
  Although at this late hour of the night or early hour of the morning I shall be referring to a part of the country which I represent, an area which is in a national park, I wish it to be known that I am speaking of the whole of the British countryside.
  1898
  Let me make it quite clear that I do not intend to refer to legislation which is pending. I freely admit that I believe that productivity would be seriously affected were there to be a significant change in the tied cottage system. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Scotland the farm workers do not want a change in the tied cottage system. They realise how it would affect their jobs. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if I am wrong. I thought that the Minister was suggesting I was wrong.
  I understand that there are real fears. When the Rank Centre examined the problem of tied cottages the question of insecurity emerged, and I realise the problems of the sick and of old age. In my constituency of High Peak, the local authority is fully aware of the problems. It has told me that it has found no problem concerning the sick or the tied cottage agricultural system. In its planning it has been able to ensure that when farm workers retire they are housed not in the towns but in the villages close to where they have spent their working lives.
  I make two environmental points. First, houses are in the wrong places. Secondly, people are in the wrong places. Quite rightly, on planning grounds houses are not allowed in certain areas except for agricultural purposes. I believe it is right that houses which have been allowed for agricultural purposes should be so designated and should be maintained for agricultural purposes. They should not be sold as a part. They should be sold if the whole farm is sold. They should not be let.
  If, as a result of a change in the tied cottage system, a position arose in which that situation was against Government policy, what would happen if the farmer lost his cottage? We could not look to him to build new cottages; he would not have the money. Somebody would have to find a cottage for the necessary worker, and if that worker subsequently decided to leave and work in the city there would be a snowball effect. This happens in the Hope Valley, in my constituency. Local people are not able to afford houses because people come in from the cities and buy them. Local authorities would

  1899
  have to house the farm workers either in the villages or in cheaper houses in the towns. As an alternative, local authorities might have to buy all the farm cottages and run them entirely on an agricultural basis.
  That is an attractive idea at first sight. It was put forward by Lord Sandford in his report. But it presents many problems of administration. It presents the problem of deciding who is a full-time agricultural worker; it presents problems of rent collection and problems in respect of change of user in the case of the man living in an agricultural hereditament who decides to work somewhere else and who queue-jumps a housing list. Those are all administrative problems.
  I want to turn to the other problem—the question of the wrong people. I turn quickly to the draft Peak District National Park Structure Plan, which is a well-thought-out comprehensive draft plan. It is in draft because the Peak Park Planning Authority wants to have full consultations with all the people concerned. The authority is fully aware of the problems of the people.
  Chapter 9, paragraph 50 of the plan says that
  "existing dwellings in the Rural Zone are occupied by families actively engaged in farming, forestry or related activities. Planning permissions for new domestic accommodation or extensions or modifications to existing dwellings will, in appropriate circumstances, be determined on the basis of this policy"
  That is the first important consideration—that doing away with the tied cottage system in areas of beauty would make it extremely difficult to carry out that policy.
  The second point concerns the point that I told the Minister I would mention. In chapter 10, paragraph 84, the plan mentions two areas. It says:
  "The growth of employment in the Bake-well Area and in the Hope Valley has tended to increase the daily transfer of labour Many 'white collar' workers live in the Park but commute to work outside (mainly to Sheffield and Chesterfield). On the other hand, many ' blue collar' workers live outside the Park but commute in".
  I have never been able to find the definition of a blue collar worker. Although I have asked several people, I have received no satisfactory answer. I think it must include almost everyone who is
  1900
  not a white collar worker. This problem occurs in rural areas in which outsiders buy houses, so that the local people cannot afford to live in those areas.
  The third example is the balanced community, which we all want. Paragraph 15 in chapter 10 of the plan states that the aim is to maintain a balanced community. Nobody would wish to prevent people from living in areas of natural beauty, but we cannot continue to build in those areas and at the same time retain the sort of countryside we want. We must go back to the idea of the partnership which has been built up over hundreds of years between all people connected with the land. That must be continued so that our heritage is maintained.
  It is because I can find in the consultative document no evidence that this environmental problem has been considered that I ask the Under-Secretary of State—in whom, having known the office in which he was trained, I have confidence—to assure us that he will tell his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the damage that this system is likely to cause to the environment.
  2.2 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Our insistence since taking office as a Government that we intend to keep our promise to end the tied cottage system in agriculture, coupled with the announcement in the Queen's Speech of a Bill this Session, has predictably provoked considerable debate. I therefore particularly welcome the temperate and constructive tone underlying the remarks tonight of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant).
  I hope, however, that what I am about to say will demonstrate that we are not proceeding with the legislation without regard to its implications for both sides of the agriculture industry, local authorities and those who are interested in the proper planning of the use of the country's resources. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the preservation and enhancement of the countryside and the provision of the requisite amenities and facilities for enjoyment and relaxation by the general public. I appreciate the arguments which he has put forward and I

  1901
  pay tribute to the co-operation shown in the Peak district by the local authorities and the planning board.
  I want to deal first with an issue about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding. It concerns whether there are circumstances in which it is essential for a farm worker to live on the job. It is all too easy but not too helpful to come to a general conclusion based on extreme cases. We are examining very closely the evidence submitted in response to the consultative document and considering how best we can safeguard the genuine needs of agriculture while achieving the overriding aim of separating farm workers' rights and obligations as tenants on the one hand and as employees on the other.
  As the consultative document indicates, there are two basic facts which have to be borne in mind. First, if application of a Rent Act code were to prove the best means of affording security to farm workers, the availability of suitable alternative accommodation would be the chief ground upon which a farmer could regain possession of a cottage.
  Secondly, the industry has made a notable contribution to housing its own work force but at the same time local authorities are at present called upon to rehouse a considerable number of farm workers or ex-farm workers leaving tied cottages each year, frequently under the disturbing threat of court proceedings. The question here is to what extent and how local authorities should in future assist towards housing farm workers and ex-farm workers.
  We are grateful to those who tackled this question during the course of consultations, even if their answers did not unanimously point towards a universally-agreed answer. We ourselves are studying it with the utmost care. It would certainly be rash for me to speculate prematurely on how it might best be resolved, and I have no intention of doing so. But I should like to believe that, by posing the question in the first place, and by making it clear now that it is well in our minds, many current misunderstandings about our pledge to end the agricutural tied cottage system could be removed.
  1902
  The second matter which I want to tackle is the concern expressed by the hon. Member about the planning implications of the proposed legislation. I have been dealing up till now with an aspect of the legislation which is bound to affect farmers, farm workers and local authorities throughout England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman, however, laid considerable stress on a further aspect which is of particular interest in his constituency, namely, the planning implications. He emphasised his point by referring to the draft Peak Park Structure Plan, which if approved by the Secretary of State will provide a strategy for the development or other use of land in the park.
  Without wanting to anticipate my right hon. Friend's ultimate decision, I can understand the case for maintaining or creating a balanced community, and I see no reason why ending the tied cottage system should jeopardise that aim. There is, admittedly, one possible area of conflict between planning considerations and the legislation which we envisage, though I would hope that it is more apparent than real.
  It is indeed the case that many rural authorities in their planning capacity have long recognised the need to prevent development from marring the countryside or from taking place in unsuitable areas, while at the same time acknowledging the need for the agriculture industry to have its work force housed.
  Mr. John Stradling Thomas: When a farmer finds that a worker in a tied cottage is leaving, is there not a danger that he will be tempted to allow outsiders to occupy it because the return would be much greater? That would take it out of the tied cottage system to the detriment of any livestock system that the farmer was operating.
  Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to anticipate the forthcoming legislation, but we have the aspect he has raised very much in mind.
  To meet both those objectives, these authorities have frequently attached to a planning permission for a new dwelling the condition that it shall be occupied only by a person employed in agriculture. Some of the more modern tied cottages

  1903
  undoubtedly have attached to their occupation a condition of this kind, which could, if unaltered, conflict with the objective of the legislation we intend to introduce.
  It would not be satisfactory to accord protection to farm workers only to find that if they chose to leave agriculture their security might be vitiated by the type of planning permission attached to their home. But the precise means of resolving the potential conflict must not mean that sensible planning has to be abandoned. Where there has been a good case hitherto for halting the spread of building in the countryside, it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if dismantling the tied cottage system led to a reversal of policy.
  Although it is here again too early for me to say precisely how we shall deal with this, there are two factors which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind. First, I have already mentioned the part at present being played by local authorities in housing farm workers and former farm workers, and the way in which a future réle might be shaped. I see no reason why whatever part local authorities play in housing former farm workers should prejudice proper planning. Secondly, I am encouraged by the existence of agricultural use planning conditions, not because of their aptness in any particular case but rather because they demonstrate that local authorities in their planning capacity are already aware of and responding to the special needs of the agriculture industry.
  The hon. Member was also concerned lest the end of the tied cottage system could lead to farm cottages passing out of agriculture irrevocably because of sale to commuters or to owners of second homes. There has been over the past few months a considerable amount of loose speculation on the chances of this taking place. This presupposes in advance of our settling legislative proposals that the agriculture industry will no longer either want or be able to play any significant part in providing accommodation for farm workers and will thus be under an incentive to sell off existing stock as and when it can do so. I have every expectation that in the event fears of this kind will prove unfounded, and
  1904
  my hope at this stage is that the dangers of self-fulfilling prophecy can be avoided.
  It is hardly fair to the agriculture industry itself to jump to the conclusion that, because farm workers are to gain at long last a security so long denied to them, farm cottages will be disposed of to outsiders with almost indecent haste. In the meantime, the hon. Member can be sure that I have taken careful note of his concern. He will, I am certain, agree that it can best be met by our making every effort to work to the guidelines we have already set ourselves in the consultative document. In particular we are aiming at a scheme which can, whatever eventually occurs, command the acceptance and the confidence of both sides of the agriculture industry.
  Finally, let me turn to an anxiety which the hon. Member put forward in all sincerity—the spur which our proposed legislation might, as he fears, apply to the decline in the agricultural labour force. As far as existing farm workers are concerned, there seem to be few enough grounds for fears of a massive exodus. Vociferous opponents of our policy have stressed to me the unique working relationships which exist in agriculture and the need for these to be maintained. If our legislation can provide farm workers with a sense of security which they have hitherto lacked, surely their attachment to agriculture is likely to deepen rather than become loosened.
  It may well be, of course, that some farm workers, as at present, may choose or may by circumstances be compelled to quit agriculture either temporarily or permanently. The difference, however, will be that they will be able to change their job without the worry of losing a roof over their heads. Legislation will certainly not be drafted so as to encourage farm workers to leave the industry in greater numbers than takes place already.
  Reg Bottini, in a Press notice issued today, tells us that
  "Some 300,000 farmworkers have left the land since the War—mostly from choice—opting for better wages and conditions."
  Mr. Le Marchant: I thought that the letter written by Mr. Bottini was ably answered by the cowman in The Times on Monday. Living at 1,000 ft.—and I was in my constituency only 12 hours

  1905
  ago—may I say that in present conditions, if cottages there, at a height of 1,000 ft., were to go out of farm occupation, it would be physically impossible, as it was last weekend, and almost impossible now, to gain access from villages below.
  Mr. Armstrong: If circumstances arise in which a farm worker wishes to work elsewhere, he will not want to live in a remote place, so that there is a balance that can be achieved. Reg Bottini went on to say:
  "Bitter experience of the tied cottage has driven many of them away—never to return to agriculture."
  As for new recruits, I should have thought that the prospect of secure housing would be an enticement into agriculture rather than a disincentive. Indeed, one of the points on which we sought comments in the consultative document was the need for farm workers to spend a qualifying period linked in some way to service in agriculture before becoming eligible for full protection.
  1906
  My conclusion from the broad consensus is that recruitment is unlikely to be impaired and may even be strengthened by ending the tied cottage system.
  I conclude by thanking the hon. Gentleman yet again for raising this topic in the way that he did. A prosperous farming industry is essential to the life of the countryside. It is a vital national resource producing food for the nation. It has an important part to play in conserving natural beauty and amenities. It is because I believe that the industry's long-term interests will be best served by giving those who work on the land and those whom we hope to attract to the industry the kind of security in their homes that the rest of us take for granted that I am able to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that his concern to preserve the best in our countryside will be helped rather than hindered by the legislation that we are now urgently preparing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Horse-Racing Industry
  Horse-Racing Industry
  Police and Firemen (Pensions)
  Police and Firemen (Pensions)
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Terrorist Prevention
  Terrorist Prevention
  Terrorist Prevention
  Terrorist Prevention
  Borstals
  Borstals
  Schoolchildren's Road Crossing Patrols
  Schoolchildren's Road Crossing Patrols
  Polymeric Materials
  Polymeric Materials
  Fires
  Fires
  Pets
  Pets
  Bird Trapping
  Bird Trapping
  Imprisonment and Detention Costs
  Imprisonment and Detention Costs
  Homicides
  Homicides
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Electoral Boundaries (Kingswood)
  Electoral Boundaries (Kingswood)
  Exclusion Orders
  Exclusion Orders
  Departmental Offices (Scotland)
  Departmental Offices (Scotland)
  Trespass
  Trespass
  APPEALS TRIBUNALS
  APPEALS TRIBUNALS
  LEGAL SERVICES
  LEGAL SERVICES
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Parliamentary Papers (Printing)
  Parliamentary Papers (Printing)
  Staff Manpower
  Staff Manpower
  Public Boards
  Public Boards
DEFENCE
  Departmental Offices (Dispersal)
  Departmental Offices (Dispersal)
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
ENERGY
  Burmah Oil Company
  Burmah Oil Company
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Oilfields
  Oilfields
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic Missions
  Diplomatic Missions
  South Africa (Patent Licences)
  South Africa (Patent Licences)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  International Engineering Ltd.
  International Engineering Ltd.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Interests
  Members' Interests
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Disabled Drivers' Petrol Allowance
  Disabled Drivers' Petrol Allowance
  Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Thanet
  Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Thanet
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Disabled Housewives
  Disabled Housewives
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Road Accidents (Medical Treatment)
  Road Accidents (Medical Treatment)
WALES
  Wales Tourist Board
  Wales Tourist Board
  Chirk Castle
  Chirk Castle
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Salmon Fishing
  Salmon Fishing
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Children's Magazines
  Children's Magazines
  Telephone Kiosk (Felinheli)
  Telephone Kiosk (Felinheli)
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Housing
  Housing
ENVIRONMENT
  Home Insulation and Heating
  Home Insulation and Heating
  Birmingham (Mortgage Scheme)
  Birmingham (Mortgage Scheme)
  Hostels
  Hostels
  Public Transport
  Public Transport
  Railway Policy
  Railway Policy
  Caravans (Rating)
  Caravans (Rating)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  Local Authorities (Staffs)
  Local Authorities (Staffs)
  Pollution (European Community Regulations)
  Pollution (European Community Regulations)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Drink and Driving
  Drink and Driving
  Bus and Coach Safety
  Bus and Coach Safety
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Central Lancashire Development Corporation
  Central Lancashire Development Corporation
  Railways (Passenger Services)
  Railways (Passenger Services)
  M1 and M62 (Dishforth Link Roads)
  M1 and M62 (Dishforth Link Roads)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Docks (Cargo Handling Efficiency)
  Docks (Cargo Handling Efficiency)
  St. Peter's College, Birmingham
  St. Peter's College, Birmingham
  Development Land
  Development Land
  M1
  M1
  Wessex
  Wessex
  Rate Equalisation Subsidy
  Rate Equalisation Subsidy
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Inquiry)
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Inquiry)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Railway Freight
  Railway Freight
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Motor Cars (Braking Devices)
  Motor Cars (Braking Devices)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Public Inquiry (Shipley)
  Public Inquiry (Shipley)
  Channel Ports
  Channel Ports
  A6 Realignment (Derbyshire)
  A6 Realignment (Derbyshire)
  Brick Industry
  Brick Industry
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Council Housing (Expenditure)
  Council Housing (Expenditure)
  Water Supplies (Yorkshire)
  Water Supplies (Yorkshire)
  South Hampshire Structure Plan
  South Hampshire Structure Plan
  Rates (Self-Employed Persons)
  Rates (Self-Employed Persons)
  Polystyrene
  Polystyrene
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  European Architectural Heritage
  European Architectural Heritage
  Model Flying
  Model Flying
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Development Land
  Development Land
  M62
  M62
  District Councils (Staff Salaries)
  District Councils (Staff Salaries)
  Rural Transport (European Community Regulation)
  Rural Transport (European Community Regulation)
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  International Building Exhibition
  International Building Exhibition
  Landlords (Convictions for Harassment)
  Landlords (Convictions for Harassment)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Building Allocations
  Building Allocations
  Race Relations (Research)
  Race Relations (Research)
  Science and Engineering Graduates
  Science and Engineering Graduates
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Teachers (Retirement)
  Teachers (Retirement)
EMPLOYMENT
  Recruitment Subsidy
  Recruitment Subsidy
  Unemployed Persons (Early Retirements)
  Unemployed Persons (Early Retirements)
  Ferrybridge Power Station (Industrial Dispute)
  Ferrybridge Power Station (Industrial Dispute)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
  Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
  "Reward" Magazine
  "Reward" Magazine
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Farmers (European Community Grants)
  Farmers (European Community Grants)
  Intervention Board
  Intervention Board
  Price Guarantees, Grants and Subsidies
  Price Guarantees, Grants and Subsidies
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
INDUSTRY
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Post Office Pension Fund
  Post Office Pension Fund
  Christmas Mail
  Christmas Mail
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Waste Materials (Recycling)
  Waste Materials (Recycling)
  Training
  Training
  Post Office
  Post Office
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Fringe Benefits
  Fringe Benefits
  Mortgages and Loan Facilities
  Mortgages and Loan Facilities
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Government Employees (Pay)
  Government Employees (Pay)
  Hydrocarbon Oil Duty
  Hydrocarbon Oil Duty
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Tax Collection
  Tax Collection
  Government Economic Service
  Government Economic Service
  Protective Duties
  Protective Duties
  Betting and Gaming Duties
  Betting and Gaming Duties
  Public Sector Costs and Prices
  Public Sector Costs and Prices
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Public Sector Debt
  Public Sector Debt
  Relative Price Effect
  Relative Price Effect
  Finance for Industry
  Finance for Industry
  Public Sector Capital
  Public Sector Capital
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Domestic Hearing Oil
  Domestic Hearing Oil
  Kitchen Accidents
  Kitchen Accidents
SCOTLAND
  Strokes Treatment
  Strokes Treatment
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Spina Bifida
  Spina Bifida
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Schooling Costs
  Schooling Costs
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  North Sea Oil (Standing Conference)
  North Sea Oil (Standing Conference)
TRADE
  Policyholders Protection Board
  Policyholders Protection Board
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Bernard Russell Ltd.
  Bernard Russell Ltd.
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
  Paper
  Paper
  Car Exports
  Car Exports
  Cotton Imports
  Cotton Imports
  Company Investigations
  Company Investigations
  Pyramid Selling
  Pyramid Selling
  COMECON Countries
  COMECON Countries
  Hotels and Guest Houses
  Hotels and Guest Houses
  USSR Ship "Gorizont"
  USSR Ship "Gorizont"

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Alvingham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TIMBER IMPORTS AND ARBOREAL DISEASES
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will prohibit the import of unbarked timber as a precaution against the introduction of further arboreal diseases.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I will reply to the noble Viscount's Question. In those cases where there is a plant health hazard the importation of wood with the bark attached is in fact prohibited. Her Majesty's Government are aware of the dangers of the introduction of further tree diseases and as new information is received plant health precautions are kept under review.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that apart from the ravages of elm disease, which she will know well, we now appear, certainly in the Eastern counties, to be having a disease which affects beech and also a disease (whether it is the same disease I do not know) which affects oak trees? As the noble Baroness mentioned the hazard to plants, may I ask whether she includes trees in the word "plant"?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords, I think I
594
Do, I am aware of the dangers of oak wilt, to which the noble Viscount referred, and preventive legislation about that is already in force. The noble Viscount probably had in mind the case of living plants, and imports of these from outside the British Isles also are prohibited. Her Majesty's Government have this problem very much in the forefront of their mind and the noble Viscount can rest assured that we have it more or less under control.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that assurance.

SPAIN
2.33 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their present policy towards Spain takes account of the great services rendered by that country during the Second World War to members of S.O.E. and our pilots who were shot down and enabled by the French to escape over the Pyrenees.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, neither the Government, nor I am sure the House, have forgotten the actions during the Second World War respectively of the then Spanish Government and of certain courageous individual Spaniards. However, the Government's policy towards Spain is dictated by the needs of the present, and indeed of the future.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that, while I am no supporter of Franco, bearing in mind the many lives which were saved by the Spanish authorities during the last World War and the effect of the help which the French gave by hiding our pilots in safe houses until they could get over the Pyrenees, I appreciate that Answer? Will the noble Lord also accept from me an expression of my

595
pleasure that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal attended the funeral of General Franco?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has said. Of course, everybody appreciates and will never forget the courageous action of many individual Spaniards in helping our men during the Second World War.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, will the noble Lord further agree that the action of the late General Franco in not allowing the Germans to go through Spain during the war and so not closing the Straits to Gibraltar was an action which has not been given sufficient credence in this country? Is the Minister aware (I am sure he is) that if the Straits of Gibraltar had been closed that would obviously have sealed off the Mediterranean and prolonged the war very much?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Viscount's views are interesting. They are not, however, shared unanimously by those who recall the political circumstances of the time.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Spaniards who helped our airmen during the war were brave precisely because they had to risk persecution by the Fascist Government for their action which they had taken to help us?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend puts it far better than I myself could ever put it.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is important that this country gives as much assistance and support to Spain at the present time when the Spanish Government seem to be taking the first tentative steps towards pluralist democracy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I warmly welcome that intervention. It is most helpful and I can say at once that the answer is unreservedly, "Yes".

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOLS: GRANT APPLICATIONS
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total value of the applications which have so far been received by the Department of Education and Science for grants to defray the cost of schemes of comprehensive reorganisation of schools; to how many schemes these applications relate; and what is the total value of the allocation of funds they plan for this purpose.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, my right honourable friend has received from local education authorities in England applications for capital authorisation to a total value of £68½, million in respect of 763 projects within that part of the 1976–77 school building programme set aside specifically to assist the development of a fully comprehensive system of secondary education. As was announced in his Department's Circular 8/75, the value of projects to be allowed to start will be £23 million for England. The authorisations concerned are not grants, but sums within which loan sanction will be allowed.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that explanation, may I ask him to enlighten us as to how his Department intends to keep to the professed schedule for the completion of comprehensivisation if no additional funds are to be provided to the £23 million in the current year to which he has already alluded?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the purpose of this is to enable projects to start where reorganisation might otherwise not take place or could not be fully effective in educational terms. They are to be quick-acting projects and authorities have been told that all necessary expenditure on them must enable completion before the end of March, 1978. We are satisfied that this and the other funds that are available for educational

597
building generally will enable considerable progress to be made so far as the reorganisation programme is concerned.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me whether I am right in deducing that about one-and-a-half times as many schemes will not be embarked upon in sufficient time to be completed by 1978? May we deduce there from that the pressure to adopt schemes before they are agreed—which is evident in some parts of this country—will be relieved by the local education authorities?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I would not make any of those deductions. We are trying to assess this matter in terms of the local authorities priorities and difficulties, and local authorities themselves are making very considerable progress in reorganisation.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how the noble Lord, Lord Elton, arrives at the figure of £l½ million? Would not my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is overlooking the efficiency of local authorities in this country which are seeking to carry out the Government's policy on the comprehensive system?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I do not know whether it is normal to answer a supplementary question—
Several Noble Lords: No!
The Lord BROCKWAYhad given notice of his intention:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the meeting of the European Community heads of Government in Rome on 1st and 2nd December regarding British representation at the Paris Conference on energy and raw materials; and whether it is intended that the Conference will still meet on 16th December.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is to make a Statement tomorrow, I do not ask leave of the House to put this Question.

BURMAH OIL COMPANY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Balogh will repeat a Statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Energy.

PERSONAL BILLS
2.41 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

E. Mansfield,

L. Cross of Chelsea,

L. Henley,

L. Houghton of Sowerby,

L. Mancroft,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

HYBRID INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees and any one Lord of Appeal, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:—

E. Cork and Orrery,

B. Bacon,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Cawley,

L. Clwyd,

L. Drumalbyn,

L. Fletcher,

L. Lee of Newton,

L. Reay,

L. Stamp,

L. Stow Hill,

L. Teviot,

L. Wallace of Coslany,

L. Wise.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
2.42 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE rose to draw attention to the state of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are debating the state of the National Health Service when it is facing a crisis more dangerous—and I mean more dangerous for patients—than ever before in its history. Nevertheless, I hope that this debate will not be over-gloomy and will take account of the good as well as the bad things, for whatever the seriousness of the situation, on the face of it the National Health Service is still made up for the most part of unselfish, dedicated and highly trained people and I cannot believe that, with good will, we shall not be able to find a solution to our present difficulties. It is no good disguising the fact, however, that a good deal of gloom exists in the Service and, if we take too pessimistic a view or are too critical, this will merely add to the general depression and will do nothing to help us overcome it. I should like to try to analyse the reasons for the present difficulties and I hope to be as constructive as possible in this situation.
The first reason is the present economic state of the country. The sort of inflation we have experienced recently is particularly damaging to a Service which employs so many people. Costs have risen astronomically and vastly increased revenue expenditure has necessarily put a brake on capital development. I certainly do not blame the Government for the worldwide economic recession, but I must say that I hold them responsible for allowing inflation to get out of control on a vastly greater scale than in any other country before going back on their own words and introducing wage restraint.
The second reason for the present difficulties is that the medical profession has lost confidence in the Government. I do not want to be unfair. I simply want to be factual. I fully acknowledge that the Government can claim considerable credit for some of their actions in the health field. Not only the doctors but especially, and deservedly, the nurses have had considerable increases in salary. The Government have finally introduced
600
a free family planning service which all will applaud if it does anything to reduce the number of abortions. They have also continued with a considerable health centre building programme. But they have, to put it mildly, lost the confidence of the majority of doctors, partly as a result of their mishandling of negotiations for the new contracts and partly as a result of their pig-headed insistence on the abolition of pay beds in hospitals.
So far as the present emergency situation with regard to the doctors is concerned, I should like to make it clear at once that those of us who sit on these Benches will not support any action that contravenes the Government's pay policy. I cannot forbear from commenting that the history of the last two years would have been very different if the Labour Party had shown the same regard for the national interest at the time of the miners' strike in 1974. However, there it is. In the national interest, we support the Government in their policy for restraint in pay awards. Nor do we approve in principle of industrial action by any section of the workers in the National Health Service. However, having said that, it is impossible for us not to sympathise with the feeling of the doctors in their dispute with the Government.
First, let us take the junior hospital doctors. They agreed on a new contract with the Government in September 1974. They subsequently agreed to the postponement of the implementation of the contract from 1st July to 1st October 1975, at a time when the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and every member of the Government were all assuring the country that there would be no wages freeze and no statutory control of salaries. Now they find they are caught by the Government's "U-turn", and, understandably, they are furious. Moreover, as it was initially proposed, the new contract meant that some junior doctors would have been worse off than at present. Admittedly, this was an anomaly which could have been corrected by the Government's proposal to implement the new contract only on change of job. However, this would still have meant that a junior doctor moving into a new post might well have found that he was to receive a salary which was several hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds less than that of the previous holder of the post.
What is to be done in these circumstances? One point seems to me to he of paramount importance, in view of the fact that the junior doctors themselves accept that their settlement must be within the pay policy; that is, to establish how much in total has been paid annually to junior hospital doctors in extra duty allowance on their present contract and, therefore, how much is available within the pay policy to he redistributed on their new contract in accord with the pay policy. The Government say that this is a sum of £12 million. The Junior Hospital Doctors' Association claims to have figures to show that it is much greater. Surely it is of the first importance that this figure should be independently agreed. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government whether he will kindly tell us what is the exact position now. It is very complicated and difficult to follow—complicated not least by the fact that the junior hospital doctors themselves, as well as being represented through the BMA on the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee, also have an independent association of their own, the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association.
As I understand it, the Office of Manpower Economics is to enter into technical discussions with the BMA, and I believe also that the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association has been invited to put its evidence to the Department of Health and Social Security. If this is correct, then I should welcome both these moves. Given an independent assessment of the figures, then certainly so far as we are concerned we would accept these figures as the global sum available for redistribution in accordance with the pay restraint policy.
Quite apart from the dispute with the junior hospital doctors, the Government are also in dispute with the medical profession as a whole—consultants, general practitioners and junior doctors —over the question of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. We debated the matter of pay beds on 29th July last and I do not intend to go once again into all the pros and cons. But I simply draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that on 25th November last all the major medical bodies in this country signed a memorandum rejecting the Government's proposals to extend control of
602
the independent medical sector and to separate independent medical practice from the National Health Service. The signatures to that memorandum included those of all the Royal Colleges, the Faculties of Anaesthetists, Community Medicine and Dental Surgery, the BMA Council (including representatives of various bodies that subscribe to the Council), the British Dental Association, the Hospital Consultants' and Specialists' Association, and the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association. I shall quote only one paragraph from the memorandum which sums up the whole of the argument. This is it:
" The Consultative Document proposals are unsound and undesirable, and profoundly damaging to the community, the National Health Service and to the professions, and constitute a threat to fundamental freedoms ".
It is this threat to freedom that is uppermost in the doctors' minds. Without the right to practise privately the doctors become whole-time State employees; and it is important to remember a fact that is often forgotten in criticising doctors who are paid for private practice in National Health Service hospitals—that they give up something in the region of £2,000 a year of their National Health Service salaries for that privilege. It is not good enough to say that private practice is not being abolished but simply separated. The fact is that in many parts of the country no private facilities exist and the only private beds available to doctors are in fact in National Health Service hospitals. The Government go further still and tell us that any attempt to provide extra private facilities will be subject to licensing, not only on grounds of quality but also on grounds that the projected building would compete with the National Health Service.
No one questions the right of the Secretary of State to license private institutions on grounds of quality, hut to refuse permission for a private hospital or nursing home for any other reason—other than the normal planning reasons—is quite unacceptable and to my mind is a monstrous interference with individual freedom. At a time when the National Health Service faces great financial difficulties and a considerable crisis of confidence, why on earth choose this moment to pursue so divisive and controversial a proposal? Having agreed to set up a Royal Commission, why not leave it to

603
that Commission to make an unbiased assessment of the problem? To do this would go a very long way indeed to regain the confidence of the medical profession. I beg the Government to take an initiative. I believe that this initiative must come from the Prime Minister himself. There is still any amount of good will to be built on throughout the National Health Service, provided that these problems are faced realistically, and I am quite sure that a gesture on the part of the Prime Minister to take the steam out of this issue and allow for further discussion to take place would be welcomed wholeheartedly by the doctors.
Therefore I am very glad to know that the meeting that took place this morning involving the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the doctors was acknowledged by both sides to have been valuable and that a further meeting is to be arranged shortly. I can only hope that these talks will proceed swiftly so that there can be a quick end to the present crisis. I also hope that the talks will result in an agreement that is satisfactory to both the doctors and the Government.
I do not want to say any more about the current disputes in the National Health Service. However, I should like to draw attention to a less controversial but perhaps in the long run a more important matter; that is, the progress of reorganisation following the 1973 Act. The first point I should make is that the general financial situation has made things far more difficult than they otherwise would have been. A major reorganisation of this character is difficult enough at any time, but if it has to be carried through at a time of financial stringency it creates great difficulties. I wish to speak on only two aspects of the reorganisation that have attracted a good deal of criticism: first, the question of the number of tiers of management; and, secondly, the alleged growth in administration.
First of all, with regard to tiers, it is said that there are too many tiers; that to have a district, and an area and a region, before reaching the Department at the top of the tree, is overburdening and top heavy. I do not believe that any of us would doubt the need for the lowest
604
tier—the district. This has always been the basis of planning within the Hospital Service, founded on the district general hospital, and serving a population of about a quarter of a million people. I cannot believe that it would be sensible to work on a larger lower tier than that. Therefore we are left with the two other tiers: the Area and the Region. Personally I have a great belief in the Region. Were it not for a regional authority, the Department would necessarily have to increase its staff in order to administer 90 Area Health Authorities, and this would inevitably mean a greater degree of centralisation and an increased number of civil servants. Instead of Regional Boards we should undoubtedly have regional offices of the Department.
There is no doubt at all that there will always be hard decisions to take in respect of priorities in spending, and personally I think that it is greatly preferable that, where possible, these should be taken by Regional Boards, rather than by the Department. This seems to be in line with the present tendency towards devolution of decision-making. Moreover, the building programme has always been conducted at regional level, and there are several specialised facilities which are best provided on a regional basis. Certainly in my view the organisation before 1973 of Regions and districts functioned fairly well, and I believe that we should be foolish to consider doing away with the Regional Board.
I must confess with hindsight that I have more doubts about the Area tier. It has brought into existence a whole new tier of authority, with all its attendant panoply of officials, committees, paper work and offices. In some cases, where for example there are only two districts in the area, there is barely enough work for officials at Area level, without their unnecessarily interfering with the responsibilities of the district; and so far as I can see the ideal seems to be the one district area, and it is towards this ideal that I believe we should work.
At the same time, the justification for the Area is as good today as it was originally. It allows for the closest possible collaboration between health and social services in future planning and in current administration. The present shortage of money for the Health Service, and the future prospect that there never will

605
be enough money to meet all demands, means that it is essential to make the best possible use of resources. This inevitably leads one to the conclusion that we shall have to expand our provision for community care rather than the more expensive provision of hospital beds; if that is so, then the need for the closest collaboration between the Health Service and the social services remains a very powerful argument for the Area Health Authority.
Where I believe the system is not working as well as it should is in the delegation of authority downwards. Within agreed budgets, the Area Health Authority must delegate authority to its districts so that the minimum of decisions have to be referred back. The same goes for the Region and. indeed, for the Department in its dealings with the Regions. Of course, the Department must remain responsible for national policy, but it should not be involved in management decisions. Yet I fear that the number of civil servants employed today on the health side of the Department has greatly increased, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us how the present number compares with the number a year ago, in December 1973.
But, most of all, I hope the present system will be allowed to settle down without any immediate further change. I am quite sure that it would now be wrong to alter the system, or to make any further major changes, and certainly such research as I have been able to do in the last few days in preparing for this debate has indicated that this is a widely-held view within the Service. After all, a Royal Commission is to be set up, and I am sure it would be wisest to leave it to that body to assess the situation in the light of experience. I hope that the noble Lord will he able to assure us that there is no intention of further change in the organisation until the Royal Commission has reported.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to say a word about administration in the National Health Service. There has been much criticism, and it is said that the reorganised Service is over-administered. I believe that in saying this we use the word "administration" too lightly, and in so doing we greatly malign that member of the district management team who is called the district administrator, and his
606
colleagues, both in individual hospitals and at Area and Region. At a time when morale is so important, this is far from helpful. In fact, I believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to the administrators in the National Health Service. Despite the very rushed time-table of reorganisation, despite the fact that they were caught by the statutory pay policy while their colleagues in local government had escaped and despite all the difficulties of a reshuffle of jobs the work of hospitals, health centres, clinics and offices went on throughout the reorganisation period as if nothing had happened. This, indeed, was a great feat, and it was not accomplished without a very great deal of hard work. We must not forget that at the same time the National Health Service was taking on a considerable extra burden in assimilating the local health departments of the local authorities.
When we talk loosely of administrative delay, much of it arises from increased provision for consultation. It was one of the key points insisted upon by doctors, nurses, trade unions, politicians and others that there should be proper consultation throughout the reorganised Service, and appropriate bodies have been established at all levels. No wonder, then, that a decision sometimes takes a long time to be made. Even a fairly simple decision by the district administrator may require that he should consult with his colleagues on the district management team, probably with other district officers who are not on the team, with the professional advisory committees, with the staff commitees that represent the trade unions and with, perhaps, the community health council representing the general public. Moreover, should the decision be one which requires authority from the Area Health Authority, then in addition he has to consult the Area team of officers, the Area Health Authority and, may be, even the joint consultative committee with the local authority. If we want consultation, it necessarily involves delay; it is no good doctors complaining that they are being involved in too much committee work if they really wish to be consulted on the management of the Service.
There is another form of administration also loosely included in the general concept; that is, administration within a profession. This has undoubtedly grown

607
and, I think, needs careful monitoring. The formation of an Area tier has given rise to a number of new appointments at that level, as well as at the district and regional levels, in professions such as catering, engineering, building and domestic services, as well as the health professions. Often this comes about as a result of pressure from the staff concerned for a career structure, but it is a development that needs careful control if the Service is not to be over-administered. Moreover, the adminstrator also now has the unenviable new task of coping with extremists who seek to disrupt the Service for political ends. This perhaps is more especially true in London, where the National Health Service has undoubtedly been infiltrated by extreme Left-Wing elements. There really are Reds under hospital beds in London, and this again makes an administrator's life more difficult. Coupled with the difficulty of trying to cope with what are now thought of as more orthodox forms of industrial action which unfortunately have crept into the hospitals, I think we should acknowledge that we owe a great deal to the administrators in the National Health Service.
Despite all the difficulties, the National Health Service has at least maintained its level of service, even if the benefits of reorganisation have not had time to emerge. Some aspects of it have shown signs of promise; for example, the district management team, which is proving effective in co-ordinated decision-making, the integration of general practitioners, teaching hospitals and social services in joint planning, and the merging of community and hospital nursing services. But one of the most imaginative ideas for the new National Health Service, the health care planning team, has not yet been brought into being, and there is a need for guidelines from the Department in order to enable these teams to be set up. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us why there is this delay and whether we could not go ahead with the formation of health care planning teams, which have so much to offer in joint planning. But above all, my Lords, what the National Health Service needs most today is a period of stability to allow it to function without interference from outside and to develop its services with one single aim—the good health of the
608
whole community. I beg to move for Papers.
3.9 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, informed your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services this morning met leaders of the medical profession, that both sides feel that the discussions have served some useful purpose and that they will be meeting again, I want to be rather circumspect about what I say this afternoon. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I are going to give an encore later in the proceedings, as we both will be speaking again, and that there arc 30 other speakers, I want to use this opportunity to deal with one or two matters rather than to survey the whole of the field. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that I personally am grateful to him for what has been a very restrained speech on his part. We know, and he knows, that there are certain basic philosophical differences between us which are not going to be healed by any amount of debate or any amount of talking. But so long as we know what our philosophical differences are about and try to understand them and, where possible, to see the other person's point of view, it should not be impossible to make some kind of progress.
I must confess that I have taken grave exception to the insinuation—not by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare; I exonerate him of that; but in what I have heard sometimes in this House and in what I have read—that the present troubles in the National Health Service have occurred since March 1974. Let us get one thing perfectly clear. I believe that noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber attach considerable importance to The Times newspaper. If that is so, let me remind them that on the 21st October last it contained an article headed: "Clear thinking in the National Health Service" which stated:
"The Government is not really to blame for the long-term problems that have so greatly undermined morale"
in the National Health Service.
In March 1974, when my right honourable friend took over at the Department of Health and Social

609
Security, there were three things seriously undermining morale. The first thing that everybody said to her and to my honourable friend the Minister of State when they walked into Alexander Fleming House was that morale had never been lower in the National Health Service. That may be true; it may not be true. They were given three reasons for this by the deputations lining up to see them: deputations from the BMA, from the nursing profession, from the radiographers and from the ancillary workers, as well as many others interested in the welfare of the National Health Service. The first reason that all these people gave for the collapse in morale under the previous Government was that the rewards for everyone working in the National Health Service had fallen seriously out of line as a result of our predecessors' statutory pay policy.
The second reason was the reorganisation (which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, touched on) of the National Health Service by the then Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, who was responsible for some expenditure cuts which caused a certain amount of disruption and uncertainty, to say nothing of the expense. I want to remind your Lordships that we are talking at the moment of the financing of the National Health Service and we must not forget that the transition to this elaborate new structure brought in by Sir Keith Joseph cost the National Health Service a once-and-for-all payment of £9.5 million in 1974–75, and is now adding something like £4.5 million a year to the Service's administrative bill. Some of that money goes on trying belatedly to democratise the Service through the addition of the community health councils. Some of it goes on its professed aim of improving management. I only know that in the innumerable talks that the Secretary of State has had with representatives of the medical profession one of the things they have repeatedly raised is that under this new four-tier structure a few doctors are up to their eyes in committee work while the rest feel more remote from management than ever before.
I am only quoting what the doctors themselves say and this is confirmed by the University of Hull's illuminating study of the reorganisation on the Humberside. I would seriously say to every supporter in this House of reorganisation:
610
please look at the University of Hull's study of reorganisation on the Humberside! Of course, all changes cause disruption—and this was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made—but it is remarkable how ineptly the previous Administration handled this; and to some extent we are paying the price today.
The third cause of the low morale which was inherited was lack of money. By March 1974, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, now a Member of your Lordships' House, had just cut the health and personal social services by no less than £110 million, involving an almost complete moratorium on major schemes; and I think it is fair to say, for we have to face these facts, that the Conservative Government were obviously planning further swingeing cuts. It is interesting to note, in view of the recent cries about the under-financing of the National Health Service, that the medical profession took very calmly these cuts by a Conservative Administration; even though they would have reduced the spending on the National Health Service in 1974–75 to £3,756 million—in real terms at the 1974 survey prices—compared with the £3,860 million approved by this Government. It is always a source of wonder to us that the medical profession can accept certain things when there is a Conservative Government but cannot accept similar things when there is a Labour Government. We have actually spent another £750 million to cover pay and price increases during the period we have been in Office.
Finally, there was widespread dissatisfaction among both consultants and junior doctors with their contracts. We were confronted with demands that they should be renegotiated and we were prepared to try to do that by agreement even though—and I must say this—the previous Administration had refused to look at their discontents and anxieties. But we immediately said that we would do so—and look where it has landed us!
My Lords, faced with this complex situation, we had to try to work out a balanced strategy. First, it was essential to correct the gross inequities in pay caused by our predecessors' statutory pay policy. The sense of grievance that this had caused had inflamed all who worked

611
in the Service, from consultants down to the kitchen staff, but we had to do it in an orderly way so that the disengagement from the statutory pay policy did not become a stampede. That is why we felt it necessary to resist the demands, backed by industrial action, to make an interim payment to nurses and radio- graphers—and we did not get a great deal of support from the people who should have supported the Government, because they knew the situation. At this point, I want to say that we owe a great and continuing debt to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and his Committee for the way in which they have served the people of this country; because the National Health Service is a very important part of the daily lives of every one of us.
At that time my right honourable friend gave resistance to an interim policy, which cave time for the Halsbury Committee successfully to complete its reviews and nurses, radiographers and the rest received their biggest ever increase in pay in the first independent and searching review of their pay ever undertaken in the history of the National Health Service. Later the ancillary workers caught up, and in April of this year consultants, general practitioners, junior doctors and the corresponding groups of dentists were given a substantial award—from 30 per cent. to 38 per cent.—by their Review Body. True to the Government's promise, the Government accepted the award subject only to the cut-off which had operated in respect of top salaries. Last year the percentage of gross national product devoted to the National Health Service rose to 5.4 per cent., the highest figure in the history of the National Health Service.
Now I want to come to the junior doctors. It is in moments like these, when the National Health Service is threatened with a serious and a widespread industrial dispute, that we can test the honesty, courage and consistency of people. If the Government were to try to reach a settlement of this dispute by allocating additional money above the pay policy limit, that policy would be in ruins in a matter of weeks. Everybody in your Lordships' House knows this to be true. Newspaper after newspaper has admitted this. Even the Daily Mail, in a leading article the other
612
day, castigated the industrial action by some of the junior hospital doctors by saying it was:
" both unjustifiable and irresponsible".
It went on to say:
"Under the £6 pay limit there can be no special cases."
I wonder whether we realise that we are living at a time when history is being made, and that when that history comes to be written it will record that never before have millions of people agreed voluntarily to a pay policy—to a pay pause. It is one of the most significant things which have happened in our time. It was the Labour Government which in 1970 first introduced the principle of extra duty allowance—it was not recognised before then—for the juniors who did such long hours, and a Labour Government which in 1974 implemented the reduction in the hours at which those allowances became payable above 80 hours a week. Of course the position is still unsatisfactory. Of course junior hospital doctors are working far too long. But whose fault is it? Have the British Medical Association ever made a sincere and determined effort to do something about it? How has this grown up? This has always been the situation. This House today has in it something like five, six or seven top members of the medical profession. Have the consultants ever come together to decide how long their junior hospital doctors should work? Some of the junior doctors do not work for so long because they have good consultants who take more than a fair share of their responsibility —and I am not getting at anybody here—but there are many consultants who do not, and who place a far heavier burden upon the junior hospital doctors. There is nobody more sympathetic than we are on this side of the House to people who work all the hours that God Almighty gave them. We have been against it in the trade union movement for decades, and we have a great deal of sympathy with them.
Last May, the juniors found in my Ministerial colleagues a ready listener when they asked for a new type of personal contract which would clearly set out a junior's commitment in each case and include, in place of the extra duty allowance, payment for all units of medical time contracted for above their standard hours. The principles of that

613
new contract, which have now been negotiated, mark a vital breakthrough for the juniors in their conditions of work. But it has all along been agreed with the juniors' negotiators that the pricing of the new contract would be done by the Review Body, which is their own independent body and is nothing to do with the Government, and that each side would be free to give all the evidence about the costing of it that they thought fit.
By the time that a new contract came before the Review Body in July, the Government had announced their new pay policy and inevitably, therefore, had in their evidence to maintain that any settlement involving new money on top of the 30 per cent. increase which the junior doctors had last April would have to be constrained. All this was known to the junior doctors' representatives when they met to consider this new deal on 2nd October. In full possession of the facts, the juniors' representatives voted, I admit reluctantly, by a massive vote of 41 votes to nine in favour of the deal. Your Lordships know that they later repudiated their agreement. This is well known.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, would my noble friend permit me to interrupt? I wonder whether he has in his possession the joint communiqué issued after this morning's meeting between the Prime Minister, other members of the Government and the doctors. It says—I think I have the exact words in my mind—that the meeting was jointly thought to be valuable and that the Government will approach the doctors. If the noble Lord has that document in his possession I wonder what is the point of going back over old history when the Government have undertaken to approach the doctors.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, f should like to say to my noble friend that I shall conduct myself at this Dispatch Box as I want to. I am always prepared to take advice and I took advice before I came here. I should now like to deal with the pay bed matter. We are anxious to introduce this policy, as your Lordships know, in a planned and reasonable way which will help the patient to have access to private treatment outside the National Health Service if that is what he or she prefers, and in a way
614
which will recognise consultants' anxieties. That is why we proposed a system of licensing, not as a sinister first step to the abolition of private practice but because we want to have the means to encourage the fairest possible distribution of private practice throughout the country to give the maximum freedom of choice. Moreover, we are already aware of a number of proposals for large-scale developments in the private field which could do enormous damage to the National Health Service and so to the overwhelming majority of the medical profession itself. I mention just one example: the proposal for a 500-bed centre of excellence, as it is called, in the Bristol area. It would draw its patients from a wide catchment area, being placed at a strategic point on the motorway, but it would obviously recruit most of its nursing and ancillary staff locally, with consequences for the local National Health Service hospitals which must surely cause all of us anxiety.
These are the sort of problems that we want to discuss with the medical profession, without preconditions of any kind. We want to try to reach agreement on the best way, from everybody's point of view, of dealing with the situation which we know must arise when the pay beds are phased out. If the profession can convince us that the way we propose is wrong and damaging, we shall be pleased to consider other ways. However, I must repeat, as my Ministerial colleagues have done many times, that our policy is not to abolish private practice. As we have told the British Medical Association, we intend tore-embody the existing right of private practice in the legislation which we propose to introduce. I do not think I can say very much more on that.
Some noble Lords may say, "Why is this not being referred to the proposed Royal Commission?" I think it is generally recognised both by the quality Press and a large number of other people that you cannot expect a Royal Commission to take what is, after all, fundamentally a political decision. Political decisions must be taken by Parliament and not by a Royal Commission. I had intended to answer certain questions which were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, but I have spoken longer than I intended at this stage and I hope that perhaps he will allow me to reply to him when I

615
attempt to deal with various other questions which no doubt will be put to me during the rest of this debate.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could answer one question on this matter of policy. He says, quite rightly, that the matter of private practice must be in the long run a matter for Parliament and not for a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission has been set up to investigate, among other things, the finances of the Health Service; included in this are prescription charges. Am I to understand that the passage in the Labour Party's Manifesto saying that it stands for the abolition of prescription charges no longer holds good?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the Royal Commission is to be invited to express an opinion on all financial matters, including that of prescription charges, without altering anything in the Manifesto of the Labour Party, the Labour Party will give consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
3.33 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to take part in this debate and say just a few brief words. The first thing I should like to say is that the National Health Service was established for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, to take effective care of sick people. It has worked reasonably well for over 20 years, although it has never been very well financed. Then several worries began to come along, which are partly tied up with the finances.
One thing which has worried many of us for quite a long time has been the question of what is to be the fate of the "little" hospitals. One is told that they will be merged with bigger ones or destroyed, or something of that sort. I should like to put forward a very strong plea that as many of them as possible should be retained for the care of patients who are not well enough to be cared for at home yet not really sick enough to go into a big general hospital. They should also be retained for the care of the elderly and for general practitioner work. One is told that some of these little hospitals are not really economic to run.
616
I am afraid I must agree, but I think it should be said that the care of the sick should not be governed entirely by economics. Obviously, one has to be careful, but economics should not be the whole basis. The same thing, in my view, applies to the use of agency nurses. For them I hold no particular brief, but if by cutting down the amount of money which is paid for them it means that you have to close down beds which are at present occupied, then I would say that the agency nurses should be retained for as long as possible. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us what effect the reduction in pay for agency nurses has had on the number of beds.
There have been several further disturbances of the Service which have had some effect on the feeling of the members of my profession. The first one was the Salmon Report on nurses, which rather changed their main work—that is, the care of the sick—so that they could, if they wished, be promoted and take up an administrative post. At the same time, they rather wished to be trained to be what I might almost call "little doctors" instead of being nurses taking care of the sick. That was called "making a career structure for nurses". Then in 1968, the Seebohm Committee reported on social workers, both medical and others, and put them all into a separate department. This meant that a group of people who were taking care of the sick was again fragmented. That was called "making, a career structure for the social workers". I went to a meeting—though I cannot quite remember now what it was—shortly after that, and I asked: "What about a career structure of the patients?" That perhaps rather frivolous remark was greeted with complete silence.
I think we all agree, or at least many of us do, that the administration following the 1971 reorganisation—which after all was very largely a managerial one—led to a very top heavy and somewhat expensive administration. I do not think that the expense has perhaps been as great as some people thought it might be, but it certainly has been expensive. I read the other day that although ten years ago doctors comfortably outnumbered the administrative and clerical staff, by last year that position was reversed. One wonders whether these four tiers are really needed. I should have

617
thought that the case for the abolition of the Area Boards was quite strong, so long as there is a powerful Department of Health at the top. It is indeed true that the doctors have to spend a great deal more of their time on committee work. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pointed out, this may be a natural result of wanting to have more communication with the administrative side, but I should have thought that whatever could be done to cut down the amount of administration which doctors have to do should be done.
The present trouble with the consultants—and I do not want to go into this matter at great length—is the pay bed dispute and the reference in the gracious Speech to legislation intended to separate private practice from National Health Service practice. I have no particular views about pay beds, but if they are to be phased out I wonder whether this is the right time to do it. The pay beds bring in a certain amount of money to the Health Service. I have seen one figure of £40 million a year, and another figure of £20 million a year. I do not know which is right. I only know that over the course of four years my own hospital brought in nearly £2 million to the Health Service from pay beds, which did not include consultants' fees.
As I have said earlier to your Lordships, I have never made a great deal of use of the pay beds in my own hospital. This was not for ideological reasons, but purely for practical and geographical ones. But, as I have said before, I once had a senior member of the Party opposite who was admitted at the urgent request of Transport House. Of course, that was in the days before the NUPE was being so active; otherwise, I am sure that they would have been down on me like a ton of bricks.
I remember talking to the Minister, Nye Bevan, for whom I had great respect and considerable affection, too, about pay beds in the Health Service hospitals. We both agreed that one good thing they had done was to get rid of a large number of expensive and not very good nursing homes. We discussed the subject at a dinner party one evening, and decided that it was a great advantage to have got rid of those nursing homes. So when I now see it suggested that new hospitals should be built for private patients, even under licence, I feel that
618
that would be a somewhat retrograde step which we should try to resist.
One of the advantages of private beds being in the same building as the general wards is that the doctors in charge of both private patients and National Health Service patients have far more time to deal with their patients of both types. They do not have to travel from X to Y by car in crowded streets, and so on. They can merely walk across from the private ward into the general ward, and that is surely something which should he encouraged. I quite agree that if it is found that pay beds are not fully occupied they should be used in the normal way for National Health Service patients. There should be no question of keeping them sacred, as it were, for private patients.
Then, I have heard it said, too, that if the private beds are shut down and used for National Health Service patients it would be the equivalent of building four or five new hospitals. But it would be nothing of the sort, because the bulk of the people who go into private beds are British. The number of sheikhs who come with their gold dangling all over the place is not very large, and therefore I can never see the strength of that argument. Furthermore, I think that a sheikh who is kindly and properly treated in a private ward may do something of value to the Health Service. The sheikhs have plenty of money and, when they have had successful treatment here, there is no reason why they might not be encouraged to give kidney machines or something of that kind.
I should like to make one further small point about pay beds. If the London ones were abolished, there might be a very serious effect on the staff of the London teaching hospitals, which are probably the best in the country, in Europe, or even in the world, because if any of the attractions of London are to be taken away there will not be the same good service. When my profession has discussed pay beds, it is curious that there has been little mention of the value of amenity beds. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there are in the country approximately 4,000 of these beds which give the privacy which one requires. One has to pay a certain

619
amount for them—I cannot even remember how much, but they are relatively cheap—but the great difference between them and the pay beds is that the doctor in charge is not paid anything. Therefore, I wonder why there is not more use made of the argument that if you take away the pay beds you will leave the same number of amenity beds, or possibly even increase them, which will solve the problems of people who want to be by themselves and to be quiet.
The pay beds dispute has been excluded from the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, and I believe the reason given for that is that pay beds arc in the Manifesto of the Party opposite and the subject covers financial matters which are complicated. I can see no reason for that argument. Some things which are put in a Party Manifesto are like the Tables of the Law which Moses brought down from Mount Sinai; they cannot be altered. I cannot believe that that is true, and it seems that the Government are pre-empting the findings of the Royal Commission. But what one has to be absolutely firm about is that, finally, it is Parliament which has to decide—
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, with all respect, I feel that the Peer who has been speaking to us for a considerable period has greatly overstepped his time and we should proceed to the Statement.
Lord AMULREE: I am sorry, my Lords; I shall be as brief as I can. But if I may say a word about the junior doctors, I know that they work long hours and that their work has become much more complicated. But that is one of the reasons why people take up medicine. We went into medicine because we did not want to work in an office from nine till four. We took up medicine knowing that there would be quite long and irregular hours, that we might have to work in the theatre, that we might have to give up a dinner party, and so on. But the young doctors have now been either out-manoeuvred or badly led into a position where they have a fixed day with overtime. Clocking in is something which we have always resisted up till now and overtime will lead to a large amount of jealousy among the doctors. Also, I should much prefer it if, instead of talking about industrial
620
action, people talked about a strike and had done with it, because that is what it is, and one fundamental principle of all our teaching is that doctors do not strike.
The decision to treat only emergencies is, I am afraid, not much more than humbug, because one cannot really tell what is an emergency or know when what does not seem to be an emergency suddenly becomes one. Therefore, I have no sympathy at all with that argument. I had hoped that the senior members of the profession might use a restraining hand upon some of their juniors, but they now seem to be following the same disastrous course—unless, as the noble Lord said, something new is to emerge. Finally, there was a letter in The Times on 1st November signed by about 50 doctors working in academic medicine, condemning the present action of the doctors and saying:
"We deplore the division of the profession into various factions and plead for a return to sanity on the part of the Government and the profession."

BURMAH OIL COMPANY
3.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, with your permission, may I repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
" About a year ago, Burmah Oil Company approached the Government and the Bank of England about its difficulties in meeting the technical requirements of certain loan agreements, notably those covering its large borrowings in dollars from a group of North American Banks. As the House will know, it was agreed that the Bank should guarantee the North American borrowings for a period of 12 months and should also provide a further measure of support by way of a standby facility. However, Burmah has not been able to proceed as rapidly as expected with the sale of its United States assets.
" The Government have therefore reviewed the situation with the Company, including its cash needs, in consultation with the Bank of England and Peat, Marwick and Mitchell. It has been decided that the dollar borrowing

621
guarantee should be renewed for a further nine months so as to give further time for the Company to realise its United States assets at a satisfactory price. In addition, the Government have offered to purchase the whole or a substantial part of Burmah's North Sea Oil assets at a fair price to he negotiated on an arm's length basis. The Board of Burmah are ready to enter into immediate discussions with the Government to explore all possibilities, subject to it being satisfied that the interests of the Company are fully safeguarded. These discussions will necessarily take some time and both parties are hopeful that they will be successfully concluded. Both parties are determined that the negotiations shall not hinder the continuing development of the North Sea."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. Is the noble Lord aware that the way in which support for Burmah was arranged a year ago has caused so far thousands of small investors to be deprived of over half the value of their savings? Will the noble Lord confirm that the loss to the stockholders in value as a whole is to date about £260 million since the arbitrary purchase price of 230p was selected, related to a price last January? Will this be a priority consideration in the Government's mind during the discussions which are now to take place?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I have two questions arising out of this Statement which I thank the noble Lord for repeating. Considering the forecasts which have been made of a strong recovery in the United States' economy in 1976 and the likelihood that the value of the Burmah Company's assets in the United States will rise accordingly, will the Government be prepared to consider any further extension of the guarantee beyond the period of nine months if at the end of that time it appears likely that an even higher price can be achieved with benefit to both the shareholders of the company and our balance of payments? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord what exactly is meant by "an arm's length basis" for the
622
purchase of Burmah's North Sea oil assets?—bearing in mind that the shareholders did not get a particularly good bargain, as the noble Lord has just said, when they were forced to dispose of their holding in BP. May I ask the noble Lord to consider whether or not it would be appropriate in the circumstances to have an independent valuation made of Burmah's North Sea assets on which the purchase price could be determined.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, "an arm's length basis" means a sale from a willing seller to a willing buyer. We are in negotiation with the Burmah Company and, as is said in the Statement which I have repeated, a fair price is to be negotiated on an arm's length basis. So far as the guarantee is concerned, the company is satisfied with this guarantee and I will leave it at that. So far as BP shares are concerned, we cannot accept that the purchase of BP shares took place at that time at other than market or above market prices. This is a matter on which Ministers have made Statements a number of times and I would refer the noble Lord to them.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord go a little further and explain to us just what "arm's length" means in this connection? Can he assure us that the fair price to be negotiated at arm's length will not be affected in any way by the prospect or spectre of participation?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, that is a completely different question. As I have said, this is an offer to acquire at a fair price.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. If the sale is at arms' length, if there is to be negotiation between a willing buyer and a willing seller and if it is the case that participation is not wholly popular in the industry and has been accepted by Burmah only with various reservations, surely that is a compromising factor which compromises the arm's length position.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, it should not compromise the arm's length position.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the circumstances can Burmah be anything else but a willing seller?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, certainly it could be. We have guaranteed it and there is a—
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is the point.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, if that is the point, then Burmah is a willing seller.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the extension of the guarantee will be generally welcomed? At the end of the day it allows British assets to obtain their best price and not to be in a forced sale situation as regards any potential purchaser. May I ask the noble Lord whether the undertaking to sell the North Sea assets, either on an arm's length or any other basis, was suggested by Burmah oil, or whether it was a condition attached by the Government? If it was a condition in order to do a sensible thing, it would make many of us very worried,
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the Burmah Company is under no pressure.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I have an interest to declare, because I am a shareholder in Burmah Oil. May I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many of us feel that the country's interests are paramount?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm a point which was raised by my noble friend? The Statement mentions an offer by the Government to purchase Burmah's assets. What will happen if the Government and the company are unable to agree the terms of this purchase? If I correctly understood the noble Lord, he said that this is an arm's length negotiation which presupposes that there is an option not to accept.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, certainly there is an option not to accept.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, in his answer to me the noble Lord said that there would be no pressure from the Government, but he did not answer my question about whether the offer to sell the North Sea assets was a voluntary offer by Burmah Oil or whether the suggestion was put to them by the Government.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, we have offered to negotiate with Burmah for the sale of some or all of their North Sea assets.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Answer!

THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Archbishop of YORK: My Lords, I have to crave the indulgence of the House for a maiden speech which I hope will be of a non-controversial kind on what is, I am fully aware, an exceedingly controversial issue. I myself would not presume to comment on the present dispute between the Government' and the doctors because there are many others with information and experience at their command which I cannot command. I would simply allude to two matters which I believe have contributed to what is generally recognised as a collapse of morale in the National Health Service. One I think we can do little about, and that is simply the pressure which is applied to those serving within the Service.
I recall still with some regret the occasion when a general practitioner friend of mine withdrew altogether from the National Health Service, not because he was seeking better rewards elsewhere but because, as he said, "I could no longer face walking through the waiting room with a queue there, knowing that I should not be able to minister to them as my profession requires me to do". That is to say, the pressure is so extreme that little more can be done. Another doctor friend of mine told me that all he could say was, "Keep on taking the pills and come back in a month's time". I know that if we have a National Health Service carrying the appellation "national"then clearly we create very large expectations from the general public and I see no possibility of reducing their expectations and therefore reducing the pressure upon the medical services of this country. But I would hope that every attempt would be made by those in charge of administration at least to help doctors to live with that pressure.

625
The second matter I think permits of some adjustment. It is the whole question of the application of managerial techniques to a profession. This is a danger which was perfectly well seen with the first Green Paper in 1968, which was then criticised fairly widely as an attempt to apply managerial techniques to something which was not really susceptible to them. This was quoted again from the Opposition Benches when it was remarked that the managerial aspect of the reorganisation of the National Health Service was an exceedingly undesirable element in it. It is true that Sir Keith Joseph said that in the selection of people for the Regional Boards managerial expertise would be regarded as the criterion. I just wonder therefore whether one really can apply managerial techniques to a service of this kind and I believe it is the sense of being trapped in such a system that causes a great deal of unrest among the medical profession—a feeling that they are no longer in control of the medical services.
It is a dangerous thing for any profession to be trapped in that situation, where in a sense they have to take the responsibility for the medical health of this country and at the same time, whatever degree of representation they may have, feel that they are not involved sufficiently in the ultimate decisions about it. I hope therefore that any Royal Commission on this subject really would take a serious look at the attempt to apply managerial techniques—perfectly adequate in commerce and industry—to something which, after all, remains a profession.
When this particular crisis is over I hope we shall not forget that there is a much larger crisis of confidence in the National Health Service which has something to do with this particular issue. My own feeling is that it is as impossible to apply wholehearted managerial techniques to the medical profession as, I am happy to say, it is impossible to apply managerial techniques to the archbishops, bishops and clergy of the Church of England.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I have great pleasure in being the first to congratulate the most reverend Primate on his maiden speech. I would dearly love to take up some of the issues which
626
he raised, but I do not think this is the occasion to do so and it would not be at all popular because I do not agree with him about some of the things he has said.
Despite the strife that exists today in the National Health Service, and despite the fact that the perfect comprehensive National Health Service has not yet been realised, Nye Bevan's Act of 1948 will be remembered as the historic Act of this century. From the beginning, in 1948, it was only possible to get the medical profession to accept this legislation on their own terms, and we have to go back to the beginning—to "original sin" perhaps I may say—which meant that the consultants scooped the pool. They were given the "most favoured son" treatment: they were given the benefits of part-time service in the public sector, and were also allowed private practice. In addition, they were allowed a scheme of secret merit awards that was difficult to justify and which remains something that in this industrial relations climate must be a constant source of resentment and injustice vis-à-vis any other worker. whether he be lawyer, plumber. teacher or anyone. What can they think of a secret scheme to give doctors awards that are not generally publicised?
The general practitioners had a raw deal. After the war there was unemployment among the general practitioners because the number of patients they were allowed was set too high in relation to the number of doctors. It has taken nearly 20 years for them to obtain justice, but now we have another unjust state of affairs in regard to the junior hospital doctors. Under private medicine they suffered many lean years before they achieved promotion. They had then a great fidelity to their training, their work and their responsibility. Is it not ironic that when they had to wait years to get a really good living they displayed all these attributes? But times have changed and these people are no longer silent and they take advantage of a Labour Government. When in 1973 there were massive cuts in the Health Service they made no move. They have also been unfortunate in being caught by inflation and the economic "squeeze".
I have enormous sympathy with the junior hospital doctors, but I think the

627
action of the consultants is quite reprehensible. Their fears about the abolition of private medicine are exaggerated—almost paranoid. Until now, this branch of the medical profession has had preferential treatment. If they are so frightened about some checks on private practice, how do they imagine the worker feels who is made redundant and who loses his job at a time like this? What are such workers supposed to do—go on the rampage? They cannot go on strike because they have lost their jobs.
Though I must admit that pay beds in National Health Service hospitals are something of an anomaly, I still feel that the consultants are paranoid in thinking that private practice is to be abolished. I do not believe this to be true, but I feel that the Government are also somewhat perverse about this because I do not think that a small percentage of private beds would pose a threat to the National Health Service. In my view that also has been exaggerated. The resentment and fears and the behaviour of NALGO and NUPE—especially the latter, who refuse to help a few private patients in a private ward—are both petty and spiteful.
My Lords, medicine today is changing. Diagnosis is changing and is becoming much more technical. In years to come, it may become completely computerised and it will be interesting to see whether the dedication that the medical men have shown up to now will keep pace with the increase in technology. It would have been a good thing, if the right honourable lady, Mrs. Barbara Castle, had insisted on referring the pay bed dispute to the Royal Commission. Here, I must say that I disagree with my noble friend the Minister, who simply says, "This is a political decision and we must adhere to the Manifesto". I often feel I should like to respond as some of my Roman Catholic friends respond when they say, "I am a Catholic, but not a very good one". There are times when I should like to say, "I am a Labour Party Member, but I am not a very good one", because I disagree with some things that are done in the name of the Manifesto.
The Royal Commission must look into every aspect of the medical profession. I hope it will look into the question of pay beds and I hope it will look into prescription charges. After all, in the past, as the
628
noble Lord will remember, there were great battles about prescription charges when my husband was alive. What happened after he died and the Labour Party came in?—prescription charges were put on by the very people who had fought him so hard, so there is an irony about things that happen in this way.
The Royal Commission has far more serious things to deal with than just the question of a few pay beds—say, 1 per cent. of pay beds. We have great inequalities in the regions, and between regions. In the South, sometimes we have better services than in the North, and so on. We may have had value for money up to now, but I am told that the health of the nation has not improved. We have spent a great deal of money, but the improvement in health does not quite match up to the money we spend; it does not reflect 100 per cent. the money we have spent so far. That may not be the fault of the National Health Service—I am not saying that; it may be a fault in the way our society is going. But there is a great deal of work to do and I hope it will not he long before it is started.
My Lords, I should like finally to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because I have to leave before the end of this debate. I have a small official engagement. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for leaving early, because that is something I do not like doing.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount KEMSLEY: My Lords, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for some years and have not hitherto addressed your Lordships, a matter for which I feel some explanation is necessary. First, for much of my life I have been in the fortunate position of being able to express my political views through the medium of an anonymous Lobby Correspondent, a Parliamentary sketch writer or, indeed, a leader writer, and the habit dies hard. Secondly, and more particularly, I have the reputation of being a good listener. I am sure those of your Lordships who speak frequently in this House will be the first to agree that the speeches are well worth listening to. Today, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for introducing this debate. I promptly declare my interest, although it is not a financial one. I am chairman of the committee of management of a large independent

629
hospital, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Independent Hospitals. I should like to say something about the role of the independent hospital today, but before coming to that, may I be allowed one moment of nostalgia in which to relate a curious coincidence.
My Lords, my thoughts today, quite naturally, go back to the occasion on which, many years ago, I made my maiden speech in another place, although in fact it was not literally in another place, as it was in this Chamber, not 10 feet from where I am standing now. It was during that period when your Lordships very generously allowed the Commons to use your Chamber after theirs had been destroyed in the blitz. The debate was on an Amendment to the loyal Address in reply to the gracious Speech. The Minister who replied for the Government was the then Solicitor-General, later known to your Lordships as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir. Sitting beside me and giving me much needed moral support as I spoke was the then honourable Member for Daventry, recognisable today to your Lordships as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. When I sat down, the next honourable Member to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker was my fellow Back Bencher, the then honourable Member for Oxford, known now to your Lordships as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. What more auspicious send-off could one have, being so closely associated with three future Lord Chancellors in the same afternoon! But to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I assure your Lordships that I have no aspiration myself in that direction.
My Lords, at that time there was no National Health Service. It is often forgotten by some, and unknown by many, that hospital treatment was, and had been for many years, free for all and sundry—and that included full attention from the best specialists and surgeons. The hospitals were run by voluntary committees responsible for the collection of funds and the management of the hospitals, at no cost to the Exchequer. Indeed, when the National Health Service was introduced, many regretted the disbandment of all those voluntary workers. It is true that some hospitals, such as the one in which I am interested, remained outside the
630
National Health Service, and are still run today by unpaid committees.
It soon became apparent that the National Health Service alone could not cover all the amenities of hospitals and various voluntary organisations such as the Friends of the Hospitals, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, takes such an active interest. The two hospital services continued over the years to work amicably together, and in many ways were complementary. They shared many services. It is not generally realised that most of the independent hospitals today retain a fair proportion of their beds—no less than 3,500 in the country as a whole—for National Health Service patients, an arrangement much appreciated by local health authorities. But now, uncertainty about the future is causing us great concern, and to my mind this is not only dangerous, but is quite unnecessary.
The political argument in favour of phasing out pay beds at National Health Service hospitals I can understand, even if I disagree with it. But for the life of me I cannot see the logic in restricting the independent hospitals. The Consultative Document makes it painfully clear that licence to operate existing hospitals, and any new ones, will be granted only by the Secretary of State, after complying with many complicated conditions, and that in any case the total number of beds for short-stay patients shall not substantially exceed the number of National Health Service pay beds and beds in private nursing homes and hospitals in March 1974. I know of several projects for building new hospitals today, but work is held up because no one can be sure that a licence to operate will be granted. The money is available to build, equip and run them at no expense to the taxpayer. I would emphasise that these are small units—20-bed or 30-bed hospitals. They are not large commercial institutions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, just now. Surely, at a time when the waiting list for the National Health Service beds grows longer and longer and cash is in such short supply, every encouragement should be given to the independent hospitals. One cannot get away from the fact that every bed occupied in an independent hospital means one less bed required in an NHS hospital.

631
After the Chequers conference the other day, the Prime Minister announced the policy of full partnership between the Government, the CBI and the TUC, which he considered essential to ensure the survival of our country. Is it too much to hope, after the talks today at Downing Street and those which are still to come, that he can state that a full partnership between the Government the BMA and the voluntary organisations is equally vital to the nation's welfare? My Lords, I appreciate that a maiden speech should not be controversial. If I have offended, I apologise, but what I have said I feel very deeply. I am, and have always been, of the opinion that the health of the country should be above Party politics.
4.21 p.m.
Lord PORRITT: My Lords, it falls to my happy lot to congratulate on your behalf the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley, on his maiden speech. In some ways I am sure your Lordships will agree that this seems rather an anachronism, if I may put it that way; one can see by the extremely fine and brief and succinct speech he has made to us that he is not new to the game. I was going to sympathise with him on that horrible "new boy" feeling that even at a very mature age I myself felt when I made my maiden speech, but my sympathy with the noble Viscount is not very great. However, I can assure him on behalf of the House that we listened to that brief little gem of a speech, putting forward an aspect that is probably unlikely to be touched in the rest of this most intriguing debate, with the greatest of interest, and we are deeply grateful to him. Even if the noble Viscount says that he has over the years proved to be a good listener, we in this House hope that he will also be a good speaker, because if we could have another series of jewels in that little necklace he started for us we should be indeed grateful to him. I am sure when I congratulate him I do so on behalf of every Member of this noble House.
My Lords, I am sure it is not necessary for me to declare an interest in this particular debate, but I would say that that interest does go back to the days before the beginning of the NHS and to
632
the first 18 years of its life when I had what I still like to call the privilege of working in it, until I went overseas and had to leave it. When I came back, in view of what had been happening in the intervening years. I can assure you that my interest had not dimmed in any way and in fact it has been rather actively rekindled. I have noticed with the greatest of pleasure this afternoon that this obviously difficult debate, so introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, at such a timely moment, has been conducted in the usual atmosphere that one expects now in this noble House, because it is very easy to fall into the difficulties of contentious exchanges and even acrimonious remarks.
So far, I am delighted to see that they have been conspicuous by their absence; because—I say this very definitely—I think it is right that we should all remember that the National Health Service is, and always has been, a unique socio-economic experiment carried out on the grand scale, and of primary and vital importance to the well-being of this country. It is easy enough to say, but many of us forget, that without health not one of us can realise his individual potential, either in living a life or in enjoying it. Taking a completely unbiased and apolitical view, a view which I would suggest is held by far the majority of the profession, I would say that the National Health Service during its somewhat chequered career has achieved a very considerable degree of success and quite a degree of importance, and this despite both the largely unforeseen financial limitations and a radical alteration in the pattern of social life in this country. So, my Lords, I do not think the National Health Service is dying, again I think a view that would be shared by pretty well the whole profession. But we would indeed be hiding our heads in the sand if we did not face up to the fact that it is seriously ill.
The underlying causes of that illness are what this debate should be about. If we can rationally pinpoint these, we are well on the way to an accurate diagnosis, and once we have made an accurate diagnosis, then the treatment is consequential. To understand the causes, I think it is necessary to go back a little way into history. The concept of the National Health Service came from the fertile brain

633
of Lord Beveridge. The implementation of the concept was the work of that practical visionary, Aneurin Bevan, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has already referred. With the knowledge of hindsight, we see, rather sadly I think, that the primary assumption of Beveridge has proved to be untrue; namely, that the introduction of a comprehensive National Health Service would lead in due course to a reduction of the need for health care.
There are several reasons why this original premise has over the years proved to be false. First, the practice of medicine has advanced so rapidly, and now demands, if standards are to be maintained, complex and sophisticated machines, instruments and facilities that require a trained team of medical and paramedical experts to use them efficiently. Both the equipment and the staff are very expensive luxuries. But the preservation of standards is an all-important matter, how important I think you will realise from the fact that for the first time in the history of the Service the Royal Colleges and Faculties felt they should intervene in discussion, because they feel that their prerogatives are something that they must guard. Secondly, there is the factor of an informed and educated public which has become increasingly more discriminating, more demanding. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is very much human nature for what can be demanded by right to become over-used, even abused and unappreciated.
There is one factor I would mention, because I do not think it is nearly sufficiently appreciated, and that is that the National Health Service was the first major attempt, at any rate in a Western country, to nationalise a profession. Perhaps it is significant that no attempt has been made to follow this up in respect of the law, the Church, as we have heard, architects, accountants and so on. At first, the medical profession reacted well to the ideal if not quite so happily to the idea, of a national service and went on their simple, uncomplaining, overworked and marginally paid way; but after ten years, in the late fifties and early sixties, what one might call the yellow lights began to flash. Relativities were beginning to raise their ugly heads, and by this I mean that in the beginning of the Health Service the profession, like Gaul, was divided originally into three
634
parts, the Hospital Service, the general practitioner service and the Public Health Service.
It was becoming obvious how easy it was politically to play one of these against the others. It was proving difficult, as it always will, to quantify professional work, which the most reverend Primate remarked on a moment ago, particularly if that work was increasing very rapidly in its scope. Operational research into cost-effectiveness, words that are now bandied about, was hard to define and to organise compared to the same exercise in industry. Doctors in the main were showing an inability to accept, if not a growing antagonism to, a managerial concept of their work, a concept for which they had not been trained. At the same time they were becoming increasingly aware of the frustrations of bureaucratic control and the delays that are associated therewith.
To deal with the remuneration problem, at this stage an independent review body was set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, and at first achieved results which were agreeable both to Government and to the profession. But before long a series of extraneous circumstances began to intrude and, rightly or wrongly, its independence became suspect, and from that date it has not been the beneficent, mediating influence it was originally.
At this stage the profession itself, and on its own initiative, decided to take positive action to stem these trends and to avert the dangers which were now obviously threatening the basic ideal of the National Health Service. The Medical Services Review Committee was set up, representative of all branches of the profession at the highest level, to try and cope with a deteriorating situation, and, in the light of the ten years' experience of the Service working, to find practical means of improving it and safeguarding that initial objective. After four years of work a unanimous and constructive report was produced. To the considerable disappointment of the Committee, of its Chairman (myself), and of the profession in general, that report was quietly shelved by the then Government—I am not looking either way. I think it is fair to say, in the light of subsequent events, that if that report had been even partially implemented at

635
that stage, many of today's difficulties would have been avoided. It was the first occasion on which a gesture of good will on the part of the profession was repudiated by Government. And so over the years the symptoms of the illness of the Service became more obvious, until the yellow lights turned to red.
But to be quite fair, no one Government are to blame for the present state of affairs, nor is the profession entirely blameless. Each Administration has indulged in sporadic tinkering with the mechanism of the ponderous organisational machine, until now we have a bureaucratic monolith in which—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, brought out this fact, and I should like my figure to be confirmed at sonic time —30 per cent. more people are working in administration than in the clinical work. There are 30 per cent. more administrators than there are doctors. And yet the reorganisation gives even less responsibility and less accountability, either clinical or financial, to the periphery, the consumer, the community, where medicine rightly belongs, being a humanitarian concern.
At the same time one has to admit, rather sadly as it emphasise one' svintage, that a new type of doctor seems to be evolving, created probably by the exigencies of the Service itself, in whom the vocational element of practice is perforce bowing to the materialistic. To find such terms in the medical vocabularly as "overtime ", "forty hour week", "negotiations", "industrial action", "strike" is shaking, if not shocking, to one of an older generation. Presumably it is the insidious result of being just part of the work force of the country's biggest employing agency of being at the receiving end of directive circulars which are sent out, at the rate of 208 in the first six months of this year (and some of them are very nearly clinical directives) of the frustration and delays that stem from under-financing and over-organisation; of not being permitted, because of the lack of resources, to carry out treatments which their training and experience have made doctors ready for, and of the soul destroying appreciation of the fact that in the provision of both facilities and services it would seem today that the aim is equality in preference to quality.
636
Now, on top of all this, has recently come even more sinister thought and threat of monopoly. I feel that it is not possible to shut this away. If one reads the Consultative Document and what has been said since, despite the fact that some of it has been partially retracted, the threat in due course of a complete abolition of private practice is contained in that document to anybody who reads it as I think it was meant to be read. This threatens the independence of both doctor and patient. The essential freedoms of both are thereby put at risk and, it would seem, quite unnecessarily. Surely we all, profession and public alike, want the National Health Service not only to be maintained but to be developed. It never will be so long as it remains a political football, and particularly a Party political football, to be kicked around to satisfy the doctrinaire and dogmatic dictates of warring political factions. Is it too much to hope that in such an aim as the proper care of the nation's health we can all—politicians, profession and public—sink our petty differences?
Thank heavens! it has been decided to set up a Royal Commission. But I am not at all sure that this Royal Commission, if it has a restrictive proviso in it, will do the good that it ought to do. It has much to do. It has much that it can do, but if it is restricted in its terms of reference it will be a tragedy. The National Health Service is in dire need of radical re-thinking from the top to the bottom and back again to the top. The re-organisation which we have seen—I know it is in its early days—I think has only accentuated the problems of the Service. I suggest that it needs honest dismantling and reconstructing—first taking due heed of the lessons so painfully learnt over the last 30 years and, secondly, being willing to study and to learn from other systems which are practised elsewhere in the world.
We are deluding ourselves, my Lords, if we think any more that we have a National Health Service that is the "envy of the world". If it is, why has not anybody else copied it? As we were early in the field many other countries in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and even some developing countries, have seen our mistakes, have been willing to learn from them, and have set up less ambitious schemes producing nationally

637
a much more viable and more valuable end product. Let us inject a little realism into the situation. I should like to try and be constructive in this difficult situation. The Government cannot afford the system they have set up. To me that seems a basic fact, despite, as the Minister has so rightly said, that 5.4 per cent. of our GNP—the greatest percentage ever yet given to health services—is now being provided.
If this is the case, it seems to me that there are three options open to us. We can either find new money, or we can economise on expenditure, or we can frankly admit the limitations enforced by lack of finance, and therefore, one would hope, in a meeting between Government and profession decide on a series of priorities for which the Government will be responsible, and for that list of priorities only. If such a reasonable decision should be made, then of course it is equally essential that that list must be quite honestly made available to both the insatiable profession and the insatiable public.
If today's Service is under-financed, is it not just plain common sense to welcome and encourage other methods of providing health care, even including private practice and insured practice? These could, and in fact have, run in parallel with the National Health Service, and have been stimulating it and enhancing its value. Have we ever really given full consideration to the possibility of a State corporation, Government sponsored but not Government controlled? Is it so ridiculous to contemplate a graduated board and lodging charge in hospitals as a small return for welfare largesse? Are we sure that the capitation fee system is not more expensive, more complicated, and more detrimental to the doctor-patient relationship than would be a fee for service system? Have we ever thought of working this out again? And, to economise, should we not radically rethink—this has been mentioned already, I forget by which noble Lord —the present emphasis placed on the hospital service, absorbing, as it does, some 70 per cent. of the expenditure of the Service and benefiting probably not more than 10 per cent. of the population?
Perhaps the time has really come, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when we should promote the
638
less expensive needs of community medicine—health centres, cottage hospitals and, very much so, of preventive medicine—which would, for the first time, make the Health Service justify its name; in other words, primary care. Such a policy could lead to fewer admissions to major hospitals and hence to less demand for expensive buildings, equipment and facilities, to say nothing of reduced staffs and quicker patient turn-over.
Should we not consider cuts in routine hospital in-patient investigations and the question of the masive wholesale drug prescriptions, which has also been mentioned? Could not out-patient facilities be developed and perhaps day-stay units? Could there not be more geriatric home care? And must the National Health Service itself be wholly responsible—I emphasise "wholly"—for the free provision of such frill benefits, if I may call them that, as pregnancy tests, family planning, screening clinics, holiday inoculations and sterilisation? Admittedly it is first-class that it should, but it cannot afford it, and there are voluntary bodies which are willing to help. Is the ambulance service over-used, even misused? As I have said, there is much that can be done, and with such savings, of which I have given only a selection, one could hope to bring the essential hospital services up to the standards comparable with those that are already statutory for factories, offices and shops, but not for hospitals.
All of this excludes the major possibities of economy in the administrative field. Much as I hate to differ from my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I believe that the removal of one complete tier would be a very good thing; one complete tier from this enormous organisational set-up which we have produced. The savings on new buildings and staff alone would give a great lift to the failing funds of the Health Service. Anything to lessen the inertia of the Departmental machine would, I assure noble Lords, be greatly welcomed by the profession. Such programmes—they could doubtless be multiplied a hundredfold—would, at least, put the Service on the right road to financial stability, which is what it wants more than anything else. Do noble Lords realise that the system of financing the Service today is exactly the same as it was in 1948? I am no business man, but this seems an incredible

639
fact in this day and age. Can one really just hope for the requisite full, frank and honest admission by Government that it can, in present day conditions, be responsible for only certain limited services financed from public funds, that priorities would have to be laid down, and that full explanation of the situation would have to be made to the public?
The other vital necessity in bringing about a renaissance in the National Health Service is a re-establishment of trust and faith as between Government and profession. It is the insidious seeping away of this over the years that has led to the present low morale, of which we hear so much, in the profession. Unkept promises—not deliberately—dilatory dealing difficulties, a cheese-paring approach to development and the necessity to swallow increasing amounts of political dogma have all produced a serious state of depression in a profession whose only aim is to treat patients to the best of its ability. I said originally that I wanted to avoid contentious matters; but, in the ambit of low morale, could anything be more foolishly devisive, more guaranteed to sap confidence, than the dangerous dispute over pay beds? At least 90 per cent, of the profession want to retain them, and most of these—nearly all of them, including full-time staff—want to retain them in National Health Service hospitals.
What has happened to that wish? Where has it got us today? I am sure that the majority of noble Lords believe in their heart of hearts that all men are unequal; it is a simple and well-known genetic fact. But the last straw which has broken the profession's back is the recent threat, sadly perpetuated in the statement in the Queen's Speech, to restrict and, it is very widely believed, ultimately to abolish entirely private practice as a whole. I know this will be denied, but it must be more than denied; it must be shown to be untrue.
This has been the last straw. This is recognised by doctors as a direct attack on their professional freedom and that of their patients, which is just as important. How sad it is that medical good will and the urgently needed refurbishing of the original ideal of the National Health Service should be so unnecessarily put at
640
risk just when it is most needed. If, as I believe to be the case, all of us—politicians, profession and public alike—want a National Health Service, then surely we can still hope for a little light to be thrown on this somewhat murky scene and that inflexible dogma and confrontation will give way to friendly and reasonable compromise and a meaningful and genuine friendship. It will mean a lot of common sense, a lot of mutual trust and cooperation and a lot of very hard work, but I believe it can be done, and the time is now. A Health Service is not for politics; it is for patients.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, first I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Gaitskell for kindly taking my place in the list of speakers, so enabling me to attend a very important meeting. The names of 31 speakers are down for this important debate and, having listened to many speeches similar to those which have already been made, I have observed that there is already a danger of tedious repetition. I hope, therefore, to be brief so that other noble Lords may have an opportunity to take part in this debate.
I listened to everything the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said, but he made one major error. He stated that Lord Beveridge was the author of the National Health Service, but that was an amazing error on his part. Lord Beveridge had nothing to do with it. The noble Lord must surely know about the meetings of that little group of the Socialist Medical Association which took place in the early 'thirties at 13 Devonshire Street, the home of Summerville Hastings, who was the ear, nose and throat surgeon at the Middlesex Hospital. I had the honour of being one of that group. A group of doctors, exhausted after their day's work, went along to that little room, which was the dining room of Summerville and his wife—we had some of the finest coffee the world has ever produced—and we planned the National Health Service. It was then submitted to the Labour Party, the policy committee of which considered and accepted it as the policy of the Labour Party. At our first opportunity, in the 1945 Attlee Government, it was included in the programme. I am sorry to have to correct the noble Lord, who I know is a repository of information of this kind, but that was a major error on his part.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I just put a gloss on what the noble Baroness has said? I think it can be said that Lord Beveridge was the first person to introduce the assumption of the National Health Service in his Report.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: That is an entirely different matter, my Lords.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, would the noble Baroness remind us of the date of Lord Dawson's Report in which the whole thing was adumbrated? It went far beyond the little coffee meetings which she attended.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the thing about those coffee meetings was that they were composed of dedicated people who were determined to get it on to the Statute Book. I was very pleased—I regret that he is not in his place—to listen to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said that he was very impressed by the way in which this debate was conducted and that no harsh words were being used. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is a very mild man, and he said exactly what he thought about these "infamous young men" who are now on strike; "doctors calling themselves professional men." I am glad to see the noble Lord in the Chamber now. Perhaps I should explain to him that I was saying how right he was in believing that this refusal of doctors to look after the sick of the country because they want more money and because, by neglecting them, they can bring pressure to bear on the Government is quite outrageous and that their withdrawal of labour is nothing less than a strike. I use the example of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, because people may think that I myself am more fierce and may be expected to say such things. To me, it is very pleasant to have someone like the noble Lord, with all his experience of medicine, recognising what is happening.
I believe that it is not an overstatement to say that we see today the most shameful and unprecented behaviour in this strike of doctors. These are doctors who have lost their consciences and, by putting the health of the country at risk, discarded their professional obligations. They have violated the Hippocratic Oath and, indeed, I wonder whether some doc-
642
tors have ever heard of it. Certainly, the Hippocratic Oath is not always taken verbally today, but it is always taken in spirit. Doctors may like to know, if any of them read Hansard, that the Hippocratic Oath is dedicated to the belief that the health of the patient must be the first consideration. The doctor says, "My first consideration in life is the health of my patient."
British doctors have never behaved as clock watchers. How can they say that they must work only from nine to five when sitting outside in the outpatients' department, perhaps waiting near an operating theatre, is a sick, possibly near dying person, desperately in need of help? How can they look at the clock and say, "It's five, I'm off"? This is a deplorable state of affairs.
This violation of our customary standards will, in my opinion, have a damaging effect throughout the world on Britain's high professional reputation. I was fortunate enough to be one of the first people to go on a Party delegation to China. I went there in 1946 with Mr. Attlee, as he then was. I was invited to a dinner party of doctors in the centre of China and I told my interpreter that I felt most upset and embarrassed to think that we could not communicate with each other, that they could not speak English and that I could not speak Chinese. These courteous men—and the Chinese are such a courteous people that one always wonders just how it is that they are always so polite—were sitting round and heard me say this to the interpreter, and suddenly the chairman said in perfect English, "Don't worry yourself. We all understand. We were all qualified in Britain, he in Liverpool, I in London, he in Edinburgh and so on." This wonderful group of Chinese doctors then talked about medicine and what they hoped to attain in China, and they spoke with the highest respect of Britain's standards of professional behaviour. Later, the Chinese Minister of Health visited my home and I took her to Great Ormond Street. I must admit that I showed her one of our show places. She also spoke of her admiration of Britain's high standards, but I very much doubt whether our reputation will survive the attack which is being made on it today. Every country in the world will know how the medical profession of Britain has behaved.

643
The representatives of these disgruntled men have decreed that only those suffering from some emergency diagnosed by their own GP shall receive treatment. What is an emergency? I have been in this House and the other place since 1938 and during that time I have had—I will not say the pleasure—but I have appreciated being called to attend many of our Members, and I believe that I have probably attended most illnesses except a confinement in these two places. I have examined these people and it is quite impossible in many cases to say precisely what is wrong and whether a second opinion is needed. Many of these patients have gone in ambulances to our hospitals round about and had that second opinion which is necessary when there is any doubt as to the diagnosis. What is an emergency? The Secretary of the BMA ruled out long-standing conditions, but who can say that a grumbling appendix may not rupture, that a hernia will not become strangulated, that a duodenal ulcer will not perforate? Most coroners can find in their records histories of patients whose condition was not regarded as serious until it swiftly deteriorated and a delay in obtaining treatment was a determining factor in a fatal result. So to tell the country that all is well because only the long-standing patients are experiencing delay in receiving treatment is sheer nonsense.
Time is going on and I want to speak on only one other subject. I cannot forbear to mention it. Noble Lords who have listened to me before will agree that every time I mention it I receive little support but today at last wisdom and common sense have prevailed, I am glad to say. Everybody knows what I am coming to. I refer to the shortage of British doctors which stimulated the introduction of foreign doctors, many of whom had a poor knowledge of English and lacked professional competence. They came from all over the world. Our doors were open to them. Provided that they had a medical qualification of some kind and—and I say this in a low voice—provided they were male they could come and treat the people of Britain.
I argued that this state of affairs could not have come to pass if the brilliant girls in our sixth forms who were vainly seek-
644
ing a medical education had not suffered discrimination. Indeed, the extent of the discrimination, which almost amounts to a conspiracy, was only revealed to us on the Select Committee on Sex Discrimination. I was astonished—and I thought I knew all about this—to receive a letter from a professor in Leeds asking whether I knew about the means by which medical schools were keeping girls out, however brilliant they were. It appears that, for years, the medical schools, besides preserving the unjust quota system of having only a small percentage of women (for instance, St. Thomas' tried to keep to 10 per cent. a year and my hospital was wonderful and at one stage introduced a level of 25 per cent.) which meant that a nice but very bright boy could get in before a brilliant girl, were—it appears from this letter from Leeds—demanding for entrance a higher standard of A levels from girls than from boys. The girls were expected to have so many A levels that it was easy to turn them down. A boy need have only a few. After all, he had the male reproductive organs and that was the essential to get him into a medical school.
One cannot assess the deplorable waste of talent which has stemmed from this policy over the years. It reflects the prejudices of those men who were in charge of the medical schools, and it has resulted in the country being swamped with foreign doctors, irrespective of whether they could speak English or knew medicine. This is what discrimination led to. I am pleased to say that I suppose we have advanced since Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. We must remember that she was pelted with rotten vegetables and the doors of the examination room were barricaded against her by the men. The methods used now arc certainly more subtle, but prejudice and a determination to discriminate against women are still powerful among the male doctors who dominate the medical world in Britain today.
I am glad that International Women's Year has been marked by a new liberal attitude—and "liberal" in this respect is relative—in the medical schools, particularly in the Provinces, as foreign doctors now (and this is only a recent decision) are being subjected to a professional and language test, and the failure rate is high. No doubt this will

645
convince those in authority that a qualified British woman, speaking her own language perfectly, will provide an adequate substitute for a foreign male who cannot speak English, or who does not know his job.
My Lords, while we have striven this year, in this place and in the other place, to get the Sex Discrimination Act on the Statute Book, it will prove successful only if men doctors change their attitude towards their would-be women colleagues and help provide every opportunity for their advancement in their chosen profession.
5.2 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, the first week of December 1975 is likely to be looked upon by social historians as one of the most sombre and unhappy chapters in the long story of British medicine. My unfortunate profession has now found itself in an unaccustomed and unenviable situation—in the middle of a battlefield of Party politics. Our long-suffering patients will remember this week for many years; it may be the beginning of a long and difficult time for some of them. I suspect that I may be the only fully-practising doctor who will speak in this debate. My work and my patients will be affected by what Her Majesty's Government, the consultants, and the junior hospital doctors are doing; and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I take a broad view of some of the problems involved in the relationship of our National Health Service to private medicine. I shall leave to others detailed discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of pay beds, as I spoke about those in a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House 16 months ago.
One aspect of the pay bed problem, however, I should like to mention is the ill-feeling which has been engendered by them. This is out of all proportion to their number—only about 1 per cent. of the total hospital beds in this country. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, Dr. David Owen, described them (so we are told) at the last conference dinner of the Socialist Medical Association as
" a boil on the face of the Health Service."
Those were hard words, my Lords, for the thousands of generous folk who sub- scribed towards the building of private
646
wings of nearly all our famous teaching hospitals. A great number of people of moderate means have been treated in them well for years by dedicated doctors, many of whom have been working there "geographically full-time", as it is so well called. In these hospitals National Health Service patients and junior hospital staff have often been greatly helped by having consultants nearby and readily available.
However, one must not exaggerate the ill-feeling and concern about pay beds, as has been done in some quarters. In the majority of hospitals, especially in country districts, there has been little trouble; difficulties have been ironed out by all parties with good will. There are many trade union leaders who are wise, responsible and reasonable people who have co-operated constructively in these matters. However, we have known that in other hospitals a few junior doctors, and some National Health Service nurses, have for a time been averse to caring for patients in pay beds. More recently this feeling has spread to cleaners, porters, cooks and other domestics, to laundry staff and laboratory technicians, some of whom at times, backed by their unions, have refused to work for private patients, although they were paid to do this as part of their contracts. While appreciating that everyone should have some say in how the National Health Service is run, it is as absurd for porters and cooks to tell surgeons when and where they may operate, as it would be for doormen and cleaners at the Foreign Office to try to dictate our foreign policy.
From what Her Majesty the Queen said in Her gracious Speech on 19th November, it seems clear that members of Her Government are now poised to do their best to eliminate pay beds soon from National Health Service hospitals, despite the carefully-considered advice of almost the whole of the medical, nursing, and dental professions, hospital administrators, and of patients (of all shades of political persuasion) as reflected in opinion polls; and after refusing, so far, to include consideration of pay beds in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, or waiting for that Commission's Report.
To my mind this is just one more unfortunate symptom of the present general ill-will. As my noble friend Lord Aberdare

647
said, doctors have lost some confidence in the Government, who seem to be inflexible and relentless apparently for doctrinaire and political reasons, and insensitive to the feelings and wishes of a great and learned profession. There are about 11,000 consultants in Britain. About one half of them see some private patients, although the majority work most of their time in National Health Service hospitals. I have wholeheartedly supported their bid to keep their pay beds. I still hope that they will do so, if possible with the blessing of the Royal Commission. If that Commission is now given the chance by Her Majesty's Government of finding some way of retaining pay beds in NHS hospitals with good will all round, or if it can suggest an alternative solution to this problem which is acceptable to most people, it will do British medicine a great and lasting service.
Those consultants who oppose the orderly phasing out of pay beds from National Health Service hospitals might not be so worried or so antagonistic to this move if they knew that there were enough other private beds to replace those they will lose. But for almost half of these consultants, covering about three-quarters of our country—those away from large towns—there are at present no alternative private beds within reasonable distance. Consultants would be less worried, too, if they did not suspect that some members of the Labour Government and some trade unions hope to make the phasing out of pay beds the first step towards the destruction altogether of private medical practice in Britain.
Several resolutions passed at the Labour Party Conference about the abolition of all private practice and private insurance schemes, and the recent Consultative Document from the Secretary of State for Social Services did nothing to allay this fear—especially her suggestions about licensing and controlling the number and size of private hospitals and nursing homes, regardless of demand, so that they cannot in future embarrass the resources of the National Health Service. On the other hand, the Prime Minister said recently (on 20th October) in another place that he intends to encourage private
648
practice to carry on alongside the National Heatlh Service. His words were:
" I have made it clear…that the Government are committed to the continuation of private practice."—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/75; col. 39.]
He referred to
"the important and continuing contribution which we expect and want private practice to make…"—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/75; col. 37.]
He also said:
" We expect to see it continue…we want to see it continue, and we shall guarantee it in our legislation."—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/75; col. 39.]
While talking about pay beds, the Secretary of State for Social Services said in another place:
"…the phasing out proposals must be reasonable and we must do everything in our power to ensure that those who wish to practise privately can continue to do so". —[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/75, col. 356.]
Therefore, in those country districts where the small number of private beds in National Health Service hospitals would not justify the building and staffing of a private hospital, where there are no convenient alternative private beds nearby and where consultants would have to travel 30 miles or more to operate, the pay beds should be kept as they are until another solution has been found. Surely that would be just.
Also, it would be logical for this Government and succeeding Governments to indicate that they would set their faces against trade union militant actions, or obstruction by local authorities or by others, which might interfere in any way with the building or running of independent private hospitals, with the work of private medical insurance organisations or with the healthy future development of the private sector. Such moves by Her Majesty's Government now would be sensible and diplomatic—an enlightened approach and a gesture of good will in the present crisis which would go far towards allaying the fears of all doctors (and, indeed, of members of other learned professions, too) about their future freedom. My Lords, if ever there was a time for diplomacy and compromise, surely it is now.
The licensing of quality and standards in private practice is a good idea. To

649
some extent it has been in force for years, and I agree that it should be brought up to date. We do not want to return to having a multiplicity of small nursing homes, as we had in London and elsewhere before the last World War. Excellent work was done in some of them, but under conditions far from perfect. Some had operating theatres in converted bedrooms, others were without lifts and with narrow staircases up and down which it was difficult to carry unconscious patients.
On the other hand, a complex licensing system aimed at controlling the size of the private sector and blocking the growth and development of its hospitals and clinics, as suggested in the Consultative Document, is quite another matter. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Kemsley said on this matter in his excellent maiden speech. That sort of licensing would give the Government, the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Department of Health and Social Security, Regional and Area Health Authorities (Health Boards in Scotland), local health authorities and others a stranglehold on the private sector. Moves to introduce such licensing would be a very real threat to the essential, fundamental freedom of the medical profession. Most doctors look upon such a suggestion as a real danger to their independence, a possible infringement of their professional and individual liberty and a threat to their and their patients' freedom of choice and of action which would have to be firmly resisted in every possible way.
The better the National Health Service the less need will there be for a large private sector; but the Prime Minister knows, the Secretary of State for Social Services knows (as she mentioned on television on 31st October), many of your Lordships know and I know, that private medical practice in Britain will never disappear altogether. There are many good reasons for this. About 1 in 22 people in this country who have found the National Health Service insufficient for their needs, many of them old and not at all well-off, are covered by BUPA, PPP, the Western Provident Association and other insurance organisations for private treatment in case of illness or accident. Some have paid premiums for nearly 30 years; others,
650
who previously supported local provident associations, for nearly 50 years. Not only would it be extremely unkind, unfair, unpopular and unwise to abolish this private medical insurance altogether, but it would also be a breach of faith. Another 1 in 20 of our people seek private care without being insured. This means that roughly 1 person in 10 in this country at present relies on private medical help at times.
Some religious orders have their own hospitals outside the National Health Service, such as the St. John and St. Elizabeth Hospital. There are other private hospitals, such as the Freemasons' Hospital, the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers and the Italian Hospital. I know of several excellent private institutions which are largely reserved for trade union members—the Manor House Hospital, run on a subscription basis; a NATSOPA Rehabilitation Centre at Rotting dean near Brighton; the Benenden Chest Hospital, and several convalescent homes. Industrial firms sometimes provide certain medical, dental and other advice and treatment for their workers outside the National Health Service, which has proved popular, especially among women—an investment in the care of their personnel which greatly helps towards good human relationships between employees and management.
Many overseas visitors on holiday or business are insured in their own countries for private treatment anywhere in the world. They want to receive it when they come here. Increasing numbers of patients from the Middle East and other countries come to Britain for treatment which is not available at home. They expect to pay for it. Their visits, often with their families or entourage, constitute a considerable source of income for our country and enhance the reputation of British medicine. I do not believe that it would be practicable for the National Health Service to treat all our ill foreign visitors either as out-patients or as in-patients (in pay beds from which our own citizens may he excluded) even if a satisfactory method were found for them to pay for this. Even in Russia, according to a recent report from there, private practice continues for some of those who are dissatisfied with their medical service, many of whose hospitals,

651
like ours, are over-full and their doctors overworked. It is interesting that part of this private practice in Russia is carried on in Government-sponsored private hospitals and clinics.
Just as no public transport in any country can ever be efficient enough or wealthy enough to take all people from door to door by car whenever they ask for it, so no State medical service can ever be so good as to give everyone all the medical care and attention they need, at once, whenever they call for it. Private transport and private medicine are there to fill the gaps. I have always said that the last private patient will disappear in Britain only after the last private car has left our roads, because most people consider their health to be more important than their method of transport, and almost everyone who runs a car can afford some private treatment at times if he wishes.
Those who call for the end of all private medical practice in our country do not understand the intricacies of this problem quite as well as do the Government. One enlightened speaker at the recent Labour Party Conference in Blackpool summed up the situation well when he described it as, "a senseless vendetta against the private sector". At that same Conference the Secretary of State for Social Services is reported to have said, on 1st October:
"I am not proposing to abolish private medicine; I am proposing to make it stand on its own feet".
That will do little good, my Lords, if her next intention is to cut those feet down to size by harsh restrictive licensing or knock them away from under the private doctors whenever she wishes. It is likely to be called "phasing out."
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that for doctors to strike in any way—go slow, work to rule, refuse to do overtime duty, treat only emergencies or threaten to resign from their jobs in large numbers—is quite out of character with the traditions of our old, honoured and respected profession. Most medical men and women dislike intensely doing anything which will hurt their patients. But they value their independence, their freedom of action and their personal liberty very dearly. If their arms are
652
twisted too much over any of the really important issues I have mentioned, in spite of the recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services about maintaining a healthy private sector, the doctors will feel compelled to react (as, indeed, some have already begun to do during the past few days) by taking counter-measures which no one will like, least of all the doctors themselves. They will harm the National Health Service, cause much unhappiness, difficulty and even danger to patients and they will erode that mutual confidence which has been for so long such an important feature in the relationships between doctors and patients in our country. It will be quite wrong then to say that this lamentable confrontation is all the doctors' fault; those who drive them to it will have to take their full share of the blame.
However, I am sure that we can all agree on one thing: we want the best possible National Health Service for our country. This cannot be achieved while there is so much ill-feeling in the air. The sooner politicians, trade unions, doctors and everyone else concerned with my great profession learn to work together once more in harmony, with mutual understanding and sympathy, and with a new spirit of co-operation and tolerance, the sooner will our patients be better treated—and I speak largely on their behalf—and the sooner will British medicine recover from the disgruntled, disorganised and disrupted state in which it is today.
5.22 p.m.
Lord STAMP: My Lords, there can be no one in the medical profession who is not deeply saddened, indeed utterly appalled, at the situation it is in today compared with that when the National Health Service was introduced some 27 years ago. What has gone wrong with this great profession, of which I have the honour to be a member, that it has come to this sorry pass, with junior doctors in conflict over pay and overtime and consultants banding together by the thousand to leave the Health Service? It seems a world apart from the American, "Horse and Buggy Doctor" and our, "Doctor Finlay's Casebook." Has this generation of a dedicated profession fallen from the high ideals of Hippocrates which have been upheld by doctors throughout the

653
centuries; and if so, what is the reason for this? If it has done so, it would not be entirely surprising in this age of every man for himself, epitomised by the phrase, "I'm all right, Jack!", with all the squabbles going on in intra- and inter-union disputes, and those involving the unions versus the rest, as to who should have how much and for what, with the law of the jungle taking over.
My Lords, it is also a time when personal freedoms are being threatened as never before in peace time, with a minority seeking to impose its will on the majority—an aim which is only made possible owing to the undemocratic working of our electoral system. This is the measure of the divisiveness that is racking our nation and tearing it apart.
I have drawn this picture of the background to the doctors' dispute as I feel this to be essential before judgment is passed on them, even if in so doing I may be accused of being contentious. The fact is that never have they been under greater strain to uphold the high standards of ethics and practice and dedication that distinguish them from practically the whole of the rest of the community—religious bodies and others dedicated to voluntary service excepted—and never have their basic freedoms been in greater danger.
My Lords, for everyone, however dedicated, there comes a breaking point; and in the case of the consultants, it is this threat to their freedom to practise, as they see it, in the best interest not only of their patients but also of the whole community. It is a breaking point that involves blatant bad faith. If anyone doubts the intensity of their feelings he would have only to have been present at the meeting of the consultants—about a thousand of them—just over the road from your Lordships' House a few days ago, as I was, as an ex-consultant of Hammersmith Hospital, and heard the famous Churchillian war-time rhetoric adapted to the present struggle of doctors to maintain their rights and freedoms—with hardly a dissentient voice. In this, my experience has been somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley.
My Lords, if anyone doubts also that there has been a breach of faith, he has only to recall the understanding that was
654
given to doctors about the terms relating to private practice that finally persuaded them, many unwillingly, to join the Health Service and thus make it possible. I have read the relevant volumes of Hansard recording debates on the National Health Service Bill in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons and have found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the pay-bed system was not to be regarded as a permanent and basic feature, even though it might have to be modified in some respects from time to time. The most relevant passage occurs in the House of Lords Hansard (Vol. 143, col. 355) recording a debate in Committee stage on Clause 5, headed "Accommodation for private patients" In that debate some Amendments were discussed, the first of which was moved by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, dealing with the question as to those doctors who should be eligible to use private accommodation. My Lords, it is inconceivable that such a debate could have taken place if the present proposal had been considered remotely possible; and if it had been, as I have said, the Health Service would never have got off the ground. It would have been moribund from the start.
But, my Lords, returning to the present time, it is said that phasing out pay beds is in the Labour Party Manifesto and therefore represents the will of the people. I dealt with the basic fallacies inherent in this argument when I spoke in the debate on the abolition of direct grant grammar schools in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago and I shall not enlarge on the subject further, except to say this. Even if one were to accept the Manifesto argument, it was still a flagrant act of bad faith to the doctors that the policy of phasing out pay beds should have been put in without consulting them and getting their agreement. So, my Lords, bad faith has generated in many cases a bitterness amounting to hate and to such an extent that I cannot see the attitude of the medical profession to Governmental control of medicine ever being the same again. whatever happens over the present dispute; although I sincerely hope that I shall be proved wrong in this.
One thing I shall never be able to understand is how those who support the pay bed proposal can ever have the effrontery to go to those who feel so

655
bitterly about it for advice for themselves and their families—and that goes particularly for the one responsible for handling negotiations herself. This demanded qualities of tact, reasonableness, a true understanding of the feelings of the doctors and of what had gone on before, that have been completely lacking. In my view, only one thing can defuse this explosive situation and save the National Health Service from further deterioration with all the needless discomfort and inconvenience, if not actual suffering, that this must mean for so many. That is, as has been urged from many quarters, that the pay-bed issue should be included in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. One can only hope that this will result from the meeting this morning that we have just heard about. By the time the Commission has reported, one can only pray that the Minister responsible for the present negotiations will have been moved to another post where her talents can be used to better advantage and her shortcomings may be not so evident.
Until now I have concentrated on the pay-bed issue. It is the one which particularly affects hospitals such as Hammersmith Hospital with their large intake of paying patients from overseas, as I pointed out in the debate on the subject in your Lordships' House on 29th July last year. I then stressed the effect that this must have on the standing of British medicine throughout the world and on the funds available for research derived from consultants' fees. With regard to the separate issue of the grievances of junior hospital doctors, these are so well known as to need no emphasis. Incidentally, it is a somewhat misleading description of them in view of the long service that many of them have, some of them in their forties. Many of them have been, and still are, frankly, exploited, working under conditions of hours of work and also of pay that would not be tolerated for a moment, particularly having regard to their responsibilities, by any other section of the community, least of all those who are the most vociferous in their criticism of them. It is a measure of the lack of foresight and proper priorities and mismanagement of successive Governments,
656
particularly the present one, that their grievance, at least so far as pay is concerned, was not fully rectified before the inevitable restriction on pay increases was introduced to beat inflation.
They should be the last to suffer injustice for this reason, which in their case has been the breaking point to which I referred. However inexcusable their actions may seem to many—and I cannot endorse them—I feel that the extent of their provocation should, in fairness, be put on record. The responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs must be fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government, and it is their responsibility to do something about it. As has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, one approach must be to reconsider the figures on which total allowable over, time pay is based, referred to in the letter to The Times on 1st December from the Chairman of the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association. It is a letter, incidentally, that I hope will be read widely as it is very revealing. I hope that this suggestion will also result from the meeting this morning.
Time will not permit me to dwell on another major grievance, which is the appalling increase in bureaucracy in the Health Service, so well described in an article in the Sunday Times on 15th November, and which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. I should like to conclude by remarking on the singular aptness of the location of the headquarters of the National Health Service—symbolising as its does so much of what is wrong with it—a lumbering, elephantine bureaucracy, and also the person responsible to Parliament for not only seeing that it is working efficiently but also for maintaining its morale. What address could be more appropriate than, "Elephant and Castle"?
5.32 p.m.
Lady RUTHVEN of FREELAND: My Lords, may I be allowed to offer my thanks and congratulations to the most reverend Primate and to the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley, for their brilliant maiden speeches. The speech of the noble Viscount appealed to me because it covered so many things that I would have said, but he said them so much better that I will not do so. I want to speak on a different line. We

657
hear a great deal these days about what is wrong with the National Health Service, and if we believed everything we read or heard we could easily believe that the Service is in imminent danger of total collapse. I have been closely connected with the Service ever since its inception over 27 years ago, and I do not believe that it is about to collapse. But that does not mean that I think there is nothing wrong with it. There are many things wrong with it, and three things in particular.
The first is this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the National Health Service reorganisation (and I hope to show in a minute that there were things that were right about the reorganisation as well as some things that were wrong), there seems to be no doubt at all that the whole reorganisation was carried through in much too great a hurry. From Royal Assent to implementation in only just over six months was far too ambitious, and we are paying the penalty for this now and we will continue to pay this penalty for at least another three or five years, for it will take all that time before we can expect things to settle down. We can hope that there is something which will grow from that during these next few years. But we will not get rid of the other two major faults so easily.
One of these is the chronic under-financing which the Health Service suffers from. This has always been with us, and its effects are now more acutely felt than ever as a result of inflation and economic crisis. I do not want to spend any time on this today because your Lordships are only too well aware that these problems of finance exist, and I hope very much that the Royal Commission will be able to help us here. I do not pretend that there are any easy solutions to these problems, but at least for the first time since the Health Service came into being we are going to have a Royal Commission examining its working. I hope very much that, as a result, we shall have some suggestions which Governments can implement so that we shall not have to suffer the evils of under-financing for another 25 years.
Finally in my short list of what I think is wrong with the Health Service is the present industrial unrest. This is something which is comparatively new to the
658
medical service, and it is a sad reflection of the times we live in. Again, there is no easy solution. People in all walks and levels of life are apt to react when they think that their livelihood is threatened, and in the Health Service this means the consultant as well as the porter. It will take a long time to restore confidence and to repair the damage that has been done, and a little less abrasiveness and a lot more consultation at the top would help in this direction. And may I, as someone who has worked voluntarily for the Health Service ever since it came into being, add one plea addressed to those who are acting or planning to act to protect their own interests: you may be right in whatever you are doing or you may be wrong, but never forget that the Health Service does not belong to politicians or to doctors or nurses or to any other professional or ancillary workers; it belongs to the patients. Any action by politician or worker which does not put the patient at the centre of the picture is bound to be wrong.
In saying what I think is wrong with the Health Service I do not want to suggest for one moment that all is gloom. In spite of the speed with which the reorganisation was carried out, in spite of the shortage of money and in spite of the industrial unrest, there are already signs that the reorganisation is paying some dividends, notably in developments in integrating community and hospital care—particularly in the fields of nursing, home visiting and so forth. There is also some evidence that the experience of working in units larger than most of the old hospital management committees is allowing better use to be made of existing resources, and that the improved opportunities for discussion and action between the authorities of the health and the social services are beginning to show results. There are signs that we are beginning at last to have a Health Service and not just a sickness service.
One of the most important innovations in last year's reorganisation—if not the most important—is the introduction of the health care planning teams in which people of different disciplines and interests, and from different statutory authorities, could discuss and plan the total health care of the different categories of people—the young, the old, the mentally the handicapped, and so on.

659
I think that in many ways it was a pity that these teams were the last of the new bodies being set up, but at least they will, in most parts of the country, have started work and this will continue.
We are told that the new Health Service is a bureaucracy. But this is nothing peculiar to the Health Service. Whether we like it or not, as a country we have been becoming more and more of a bureaucracy for some years, and the Health Service is affected in this way as are most of our other institutions. Bureaucracy is not necessarily a dirty word and there need be nothing wrong with it provided it can be made to work well in the interests of its users.
How can we make the Health Service bureaucracy work better? It is very often said that there are too many tiers in the reorganised Service and that if we could only remove one of them everything would work much better immediately. I do not for one moment believe this should happen. There are three reasons: the first is that although many people say that one tier ought to go, there is no agreement as to which one. I have spoken to consultants, nurses, doctors, social workers and everyone I can think of in the medical world, and they all agree that somebody else's tier should move but not theirs. They all believe that their own tier is the most important and that somebody else's tier must be the one to go. There would have to be another exhaustive inquiry, followed by more organisational upheaval. I suggest that is precisely what the Health Service does not want. It is already suffering from a surfeit of inquiries and reorganisations. We have gone through Seebohm, Salmon, Cogwheel, the National Health Service Reorganisation Act, and so on. What is badly needed now is a Period of stability in which it can digest all that it has had to absorb. In any case, one of the main benefits of the reorganisation was that it brought health and local authorities closer together. What is the sense of unilaterally changing the structure of the Health Service before we know more about what the structure of local government is going to look like in England in a few years' time?
I believe that we should let things alone for the time being and concentrate
660
our energies on making what we already I have work better. I would suggest there is one thing which, if we could only, bring ourselves to do it, would help tremendously in getting things to work better. We must learn to delegate. Each level of the Health Service must learn to do its own job and monitor the level below, but not to interfere with the level below. This applies at all levels. I believe it is notorious that Whitehall, and particularly that part of Whitehall which lives in the Treasury, finds it very difficult and unattractive to release its grip and to allow there to be a proper delegation of responsibility. But Whitehall—Ministers and officials alike—must learn to delegate, and so must Regions and Areas. They must set the policies, give the necessary decisions and monitor the results, but they must leave it to the people in the level below to get on with the job.
I now want to refer to a matter which has not so far been mentioned. I do not want to make too long a speech, but I should like to mention this. It concerns my worry about dentistry. I should like to ask the Department of Health to consider this as a very important medical subject. It has been sadly neglected and, as I say, nobody in this debate so far has even mentioned it. I was hoping that other, well-qualified people would have done so. I know that a dentist or dental consultant is to be called in when the subject of dentistry is being considered at whatever level may be appropriate. But that is not enough. The teeth of our people, and especially of the young, are deplorable. This is something to be considered from an early age, but without dentists how can it be done? Should not a dental consultant be included in the district or the Area as a matter of course? I feel strongly about this because for many years I was Chairman of the School at the Royal Dental Hospital in London and I have heard this discussion of the lack of attention to teeth from childhood onwards. Therefore I should like to ask the Department to consider this matter.
I end by saying that I do not believe the Health Service is in danger of collapse and I do not believe that it needs any more drastic surgery, which I think is likely to do it more harm than good. I have great faith in the Health Service and in the people who work in it. They

661
are all going through a very difficult time at the moment, but I do not despair. I think that if they can be left alone, free from political and what I would call managerial interference, we could trust their natural good sense to see that what we have already is made to work efficiently and effectively.
5.46 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, if I seek briefly to address your Lordships on this subject—one on which I have not spoken in either House for 25 years—it is because I think that some of the happenings of 30 years ago, prior to the inception of the Service, have relevance to the lamentable and potentially dangerous situation in which we are today. I would make three points to your Lordships. The first is a negative one: so far as I can recall there was no reference whatever throughout those tempestuous years—when there was often more heat than light and some intemperate remarks were made—to junior hospital doctors. I suppose this was because, both pre-War and in 1945. the position and attitudes of junior medical officers were entirely different. There were fewer of them and there were fewer layers; certainly there were fewer senior layers. But in those days—I go back to my own qualification nearly 50 years ago—we competed for house jobs, we fought for hospital jobs. We regarded them as essential to the completion of our education. We did not resent being on call: indeed, we did not want others to intervene in the treatment of our patients. That was the old world, and indeed the world has greatly changed since then. There was no mention of overtime in those days. I suppose what has happened is that the junior medical officers have been looking around and seeing what has been achieved elsewhere by militancy and muscle, and have decided to follow the lead of others, something which my generation inevitably deplores.
The second point is this: in those years of disputation which were lively, vigorous and, with Nye Bevan as Minister, often exhausting, the basic issue was the fear of the profession that it would be converted into a whole-time salaried Service. Although there were many variants of that theme, that was the basic fear. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has said, that was Labour Party policy, which she helped to make. It was Labour
662
Party policy, and they feared that Mr. Aneurin Bevan would apply that Labour Party policy in devising the Scheme. In the event, Mr. Bevan was far wiser than to take items of policy pronounced before an Election and seek to apply them to his Scheme. Even when the Bill was first published and it was evident that it was not a whole-time salaried service that was being proposed, still the fear continued.
Doctors fought in those days for the free choice of doctor and patient, for clinical independence and against any kind of scheme in which the doctor's responsibility would be to the State and not to the patient. I am not now arguing that case or reviving old controversies; I am stating that that was the theme behind all the many and varied forms of opposition. It was not satisfied even when an amending Bill was introduced, which ensured that there could not be a whole-time salaried service by regulation under the National Health Service Act. That weakened the opposition of doctors although there was still a majority against entry, but not of sufficient size to justify the BMA's advising doctors not to enter. That was the fear, founded or unfounded, real or imaginary, which led to that violent, prolonged and disorderly conflict.
The third relevant item is this. At the outset of the controversy—I must choose my words carefully—the consultants were not, for the most part, particularly interested. They had not been accustomed to discussing bread and butter issues with Governments. That was lowly work for the BMA. There were even some consultants who thought that, because of its preoccupation with political work, the BMA was just a trifle common. But the main factors arousing the enthusiasm of many consultants for the Service were twofold.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan did not do what had been urged upon him by many of his own Party; that is, to place the voluntary hospitals under local authorities. Mr. Herbert Morrison, a good local authority man if ever there was one, believed that the way to unite local authority and voluntary hospitals was to put voluntary hospitals under the State. Nye Bevan had the courage and the imagination to produce a new hospital service in which voluntary and local authority hospitals were married into one new service. That profoundly relieved many consultants and specialists.

663
The second thing he did was to decide that private consultant and specialist practice would be permitted inside the National Health Service hospitals. This was not a subject for argument or negotiation. Mr. Bevan produced this as a decision and gave his reason. Above all, he wanted to avoid a rash of nursing homes. He wanted the whole of the consultant's work, public and private, to be done within the same hospital. It was those two elements in the hospital scheme which led to the acceptance in general, by consultant and specialist, of that new hospital service. I shall not argue that that was an undertaking which he gave in perpetuity; he was not in a position to give an undertaking in perpetuity. But the reason he gave then is relevant to the issue today, that there should not be developed outside the Service a rash of nursing homes.
I gather, from what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, that the view of the Government is not against a continuance of private practice, but against a continuance of private practice within the boundaries of National Health Service hospitals. I am glad that that has been said. It is not the view of every policy-maker in the Labour Party. It ought to be said that there is a powerful case from the angle of the citizen, the potential patient, in favour of a continuance of private practice. Put simply, there are people who want privacy who are willing to pay for privacy, who would rather spend their money on BUPA than on bingo. They are willing to do so—indeed, they are anxious—and 2.3 million people have expressed the desire to be insured against the need for consultant and specialist treatment, and insured so that they can have it privately.
Let us face it, my Lords. There are busy men in responsible positions—not excluding Ministers—whose lives, whose responsibilities, whose need to keep in touch with the outside world demands a kind of privacy and separation. I know Ministers who go into amenity beds or into pay beds, the sole difference being that in amenity beds they have to pay only for the board and lodging; they do not have to pay for the consultant and specialist service. There is a strong case. But what the Consultative Document says
664
is that private practice shall not take place in, and shall be phased out of, National Health Service hospitals.
I believe that to be wrong for a number of reasons. I believe it to be wrong for Nye Bevan's original reason; that is, that it will encourage a rash of nursing homes, despite the licensing provisions on which I shall say a word in a moment. I believe it to be wrong, because it departs from the present position in which the consultant, in the one place where he spends the bulk of his time, can treat all the patients, public and private, alike. This proposal means a great deal more time spent in travelling.
I believe it is a proposal which will lead to the person who wishes for privacy and is willing to pay for it—the person who, in the Minister's view, is entitled to have it—having a service which is often inferior to the one that can be obtained in the National Health Service hospital. Such is the cost of modern services, such is the cost today of all the apparatus of modern medicine, that it will be highly expensive to repeat those services in private establishments; I doubt whether, apart from a few establishments, it will ever be done. I believe that this substantial section of the community is being relegated, in some cases, to a lesser service.
But there are three embellishments on this. The first is perhaps a rather minor but remarkable one. If you are a foreigner, an incomer, you can go into a private bed and pay the professional fees. Mind you, my Lords, no member of the profession will get the fees; they will go into the national kitty. In other words, if you are an Arab sheikh or an oil millionaire, that is fine. But if you are a modest fellow of medium income, who is insured with BUPA or PPP, you cannot go in. What a remarkable thing for a Labour Government to produce! If you are foreign and moneyed, that is fine; if you are poor but insured, No. That is contained in the Consultative Document. I do not attach a great deal of importance to it, but it is worth mentioning.
Secondly, there is the licensing scheme of which I am extremely suspicious. Licensing for quality, Yes. Another look at the licensing provisions for nursing homes generally, Yes. But, in this case, power is taken to freeze the level of acute

665
beds, beds for acute sickness—they are called "short stay beds" in the Document—to the level which obtained in March 1974; I should add, the number of pay beds in hospitals, plus external beds in nursing homes. When we see the Bill I suspect that it may provide power for the Minister to change that limit either up or down, but I believe this to be wrong. How can Parliament now decide, by mystic guidance, that the level of March 1974 is right for those private patients who, denied National Health Service hospitals, have to go into private accommodation? I think that the temptation is far too great for a Minister to use that licensing power and a very complicated procedure is laid down in order to make the National Health Service incomparable by destroying its competition. This is an extreme statement, but I believe that this could be in the minds of certain people.
Thirdly, private practice is to disappear from the outpatient departments, with certain exceptions. Radiotherapy is mentioned and during the discussions no doubt there will be others. I find this a little odd. If private hospitals have to seek to provide services similar to those available in outpatient departments today, an expenditure far beyond their means will be incurred. Again, this will worsen the service that is available to the private patient and deny outpatient services to him which it will be difficult to provide in other places, It is a curious situation. If you go as a National Health Service patient and pay nothing you can have it all, but if you go as a private patient—well, you cannot go as a private patient; you have to go as a National Health Service patient unless you go to what may well be a less adequate service elsewhere. Therefore, the conclusion I reach is that this could be a first step towards the destruction of private medicine.
There is a passage in the Consultative Document which has been mentioned but not quoted. It is ambiguous but it ought to be heard:
"It is the clear and openly stated policy of the present Government that it does not believe that private medicine is something which deserves the support of the State. The Government does not, however, believe it is desirable to express such a policy in the form of legislation designed to ban private medicine. The Government is, therefore, not proposing to abolish private medicine but is committed
666
instead by its Manifesto of February 1974 to phase out private practice from the hospital service."
I frankly admit that this passage is rich in ambiguity, but I suggest that behind it is the ill-concealed intention that instead of going straight at it by legislation and arousing widespread opposition in the country you should go at it bit by bit, first by the destruction of private beds within National Health Service hospitals.
Finally, what bothers me is that this is where I came in 30 years ago. It was the very fear of what was believed to be a move towards a whole-time salaried service, with the loss of professional independence and the absorption of private practice, that led to what I was about to say was a frightful experience but which nevertheless was a difficult, prolonged and unsatisfactory phase that did very little good. Why are the Government doing this now? Have not they enough problems on their plate? Is not the country confronted by enough problems without inviting this confrontation that will do no good either to the Service or to the Government?
As for the answer that it cannot be referred to the Royal Commission because it is a matter of political policy, I have never heard such bunkum in my life. Of course, political issues are reported on by Royal Commissions. What about the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Wealth? If ever there was a potentially explosive issue that was it. This is nonsense. It means that such are the political pressures on the Government that they are afraid to do the sensible thing and refer this, with the other questions, to the Royal Commission. Are the Government afraid that a Royal Commission of independently-minded persons may advise them that this is a bad thing to do? If it does, they are not bound by the Royal Commission. Although, with the Minister, I hope that today's muted communiqué means hope, it might lead to a disastrous situation if the discussions are not successful.
The whole position can be defused if the Government are sensible, do not depart from their policy and remember how Nye Bevan interpreted Party policy in the early days. He would have used the same kind of ranging intelligence and imagination today and would have

667
referred this, with the other matters, to the Royal Commission to report on all the problems. Is that too much for the Government to do? It would bring to an end one aspect of this problem that disturbs me most because it is based on fear and emotion. One can be so illogical in both discussion and action. If the Government cannot find a different and a better formula, I appeal to them to take the simple step not of retreating from the policy but of deciding that this problem is so bound up with the other problems that the sensible thing to do is to refer it to the Royal Commission.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him whether he is quite sure that when the Labour Party introduced the National Health Service Act it was against private practice? I have never heard that said.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords. I must apologise to the noble Baroness if I gave that impression. What I sought to say, and it must be my own fault if I have not made myself clear, was that when the Act appeared it was clear that it did not involve a whole-time salaried service. Despite that, the controversy continued because emotions and fears had so unreasonably been aroused. That was my point.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, I listened with very great interest to the maiden speeches of the most reverend Primate and the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley, and I hope that we shall have many opportunities of hearing them in the future. In the pay bed dispute I support the view of my Party that the aim of the National Health Service must be to provide the best possible treatment for all members of the community, irrespective of their occupation and income level, and I do not think that the present system of private pay beds is compatible with that aim. The advantage to a private patient in a private pay bed is not only that it provides privacy but, far more important, it enables the patient to obtain treatment at the time it is required. In many cases that are dealt with by hospital doctors, early diagnosis and immediate treatment are essential for full
668
recovery. Unfortunately, owing to long hospital waiting lists many people suffer much pain and discomfort while waiting for hospital beds. In addition, the treatment that they ultimately receive may not be as effective as it might have been had it been given at an earlier stage.
We have to face the fact that despite the ever-increasing skills of the medical profession it is still not possible to assess, in advance of hospital tests, the exact degree of priority, in medical terms, that a patient should be given. Since medical treatment is not a luxury like a holiday abroad, there can be no justification for a pay bed system which enables some patients to jump the queue. But I hope most sincerely that during the next few years there will be a significant increase in the number of single and small wards for patients who need and want privacy. As your Lordships will know, in some of the new large hospitals there are many small wards, varying in size from one to six beds, so that patients can have the degree of privacy that suits their illness and their temperament. Other hospitals have amenity beds available at a small cost. We still have a long way to go, but in a period of economic crisis quite clearly we must accept that such funds as are available must be devoted to the patients' essential needs, and I think they do not normally include a private ward.
We must all welcome the setting up of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, and as its aim is to consider the interests both of the patients and/or those who work in the National Health Service I hope its members will include not only representatives of the professional bodies and the voluntary services but also the general public, who include a high proportion of manual and clerical workers. I should like to suggest also that the Royal Commission should contrast the system of management and communication in the Health Service with that of other public bodies, and perhaps, particularly, education. Education seems to manage very efficiently on what I would call a two-tier system, and I think perhaps the Health Service might learn a lot from a comparison of their ways of working.
In conclusion, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we should look at the good as well

669
as the bad in the Service, and also that I personally continue to believe, in spite of the present crisis—which I hope is nearly over—that our Service is one of the best in the world.
6.12 p.m.
Lord COLWYN: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Aberdare for introducing this debate today, and also to offer my congratulations to the excellent maiden speakers. As a practising dental surgeon, working partially within the National Health Service, I have a strong personal interest in the present state and the future of the Service. I still believe, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, that we have a Health Service which comes close to being the envy of the world: certainly from its patients' point of view, if not immediately in the view of the Government or its health workers. It has an impressive record of giving the community value for money. To the people who work in this Service it gives a remarkable degree of freedom to do what is best for patients without having to worry about whether or not they can afford to pay. All recent Governments have recognised that the Health Service is a national asset of immeasurable value. There is only one thing that has ever really been wrong, and that is we have never given it enough money.
Times are hard, and we cannot improve the Health Service until the economy is back on its feet again. But if we cannot give the Service the one thing it needs—more real, as opposed to inflated, money—then let us not pretend that anything else will do it any good. The recent much-publicised pay increase, which the noble Lord opposite referred to, barely covered my increase in practice expenses. Too often Governments—and I include my noble friends on this side of the House—seem to be trying to persuade us that the real problem is not under-financing at all. The solution to the problem last year was reorganisation. The original tripartite structure seemed managerially untidy, and although it worked well enough no one could understand how. So the Service was overhauled, at enormous expense, in the interests of more rational decision-making and the more efficient use of resources. But does anyone now believe that a three-tiered structure is much better than a
670
tripartite one, or that the upheaval amounted to much more than an administrator's bonanza, much the same as the local government reorganisation?
The management dogma of reorganisation was, I am afraid, largely irrelevant to the real needs of the Service; so—and to a much greater extent—is this year's dogma, the separation of private practice from National Health Service hospitals. Unable, for the time being, to improve the State-run health services the Government choose to restrict the development of any other sort of Health Service. The Consultative Document issued in August makes no attempt to justify the phasing out of pay beds or the quantitative restrictions on the licensing of private hospitals. And indeed, they cannot be justified in terms of resultant improvements in the National Health Service—only in terms of Party doctrine.
The amount the Exchequer will lose when pay beds are phased out has been estimated at £26 million worth of annual income. There will be no noticeable reduction of hospital waiting lists, which are largely the result of staff shortages and under-financing. Pay beds constitute but 1 per cent. of all National Health beds: if they were no longer used as such, then some at least of the patients who now occupy them privately would in the future require to use them as National Health Service patients. Moreover, the National Health Service at present hires from independent hospitals almost as many beds as the number of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. Separation will certainly diminish the availability of this source of "reserve" beds and, on balance, there will be no gain in the total number of available National Health Service beds.
Some consultants, including some of the best, will be lost to the Health Service altogether. Others will waste time travelling between National Health Service and private hospitals, and there will be an increased risk of particular consultants being unavailable in emergencies. The private sector, separated from Health Service hospitals, will be forced to duplicate treatment facilities unnecessarily.
But the proposals do more than simply create inefficiency. However much the Government may now deny it, they are a first large step towards a complete

671
State monopoly of health care, involving, I suspect, the total elimination of the independent sector of medicine. Will NUPE and COHSE be satisfied with mere separation? How soon will it be before there are picket lines around private hospitals? How soon before separation is extended to general practice?
This worry is not without sound foundation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has pointed out, in a DHSS paper of September 1974 it is claimed that the controversy over private medicine has seemingly been heightened as a result of the inadequacies of the National Health Service. The simplest way, they say, of resolving these tensions and controversy is to abolish private medicine entirely. We are given to understand that the Government strongly disapprove of independent medicine and have declared their support for a monopoly State service. I will not continue with the quotation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has already done so, but can it be doubted that this or a later Government will seek to put an end to independent medicine at the earliest moment that they think it politically expedient so to do?
Undoubtedly the proposals are the first shots in a major attack on the citizen's freedom of choice in health matters, and on the freedom of the medical and dental profession to do what is best for patients without State interference. To a degree which is quite unprecedented the bodies which speak for doctors or dentists are united in opposing the Government's plans. And let us be quite clear about it: they are motivated by professional rather than financial considerations. Many doctors and dentists work entirely within the Health Service. Most others have only a small amount of private practice. Three-quarters of my colleagues in the dental profession work in general practice, in premises and with equipment which they themselves own. They are paid by the National Health Service on a fee basis rather than by salary and are completely free to refuse to treat patients under the National Health Ser. vice. But in fact the average dentist earns more than 90 per cent. of his income from the Health Service and he works the equivalent of full-time hours for the Ser. vice, treating patients privately in what
672
is in effect his spare time. So it is a principle, not a financial interest, which is at stake. The right to practise privately, even if not used, is the one thing which guarantees the professions their independence. The existence of a private sector is a stimulus, not a threat, to the Health Service.
Again speaking of my own profession, in most cases dental practitioners have complete discretion to decide what sort of treatment a patient needs, and the Health Service pays them known and nationally agreed fees for providing this treatment. But for a small number of uncommon, highly complex or new treatments, fees are at the discretion of a pricing bureau, the Dental Estimates Board. For some of the more expensive treatments, dentists must have the approval of the Board before starting treatment. Most of my colleagues, I think, would say that the Dental Estimates Board generally does a difficult job very efficiently, but there certainly have been times—and the early 1960s was one example—when the DEB has used its powers in a very restrictive way, by refusing to pay for certain treatments, or paying for them inadequately.
It is in circumstances of this kind that the provision of treatments privately shows the public what it is missing, and puts pressure on the Health Service to improve. This happened when chrome cobalt took over from stainless steel for making metal dentures; when porcelain took over from plastic for crowns, and when composite filling materials were introduced. It was quite uneconomic for these new materials to be used in Health Service practice when they first became available. They are now used extensively, and it is certain that it was the stimulus of private practice which brought this about in such a relatively short time.
My Lords, may I take up the point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland. The same situation exists today in the case of preventive dentistry. Are your Lordships aware that the basic preventive measures of using topical fluorides or fissure sealants to prevent children's teeth decaying are not available under the National Health Service? They have to be provided privately. It is time-consuming and consequently expensive. Even the provision of a dental

673
prescription for fluoride tablets is not available under the National Health Service. Eventually, the Health Service will have to relent. Of course, most rational people would agree that there is a better, cheaper and more effective way of preventing dental decay. For something like £5 million a year, we could fluoridate the water supply of the whole country, and cut the incidence of decay by half. Why do we not do it? Why do we not take this ridiculously cheap and elementary step towards making the community healthier? It might possibly have something to do with the fact that, as of right, dentists are not represented at any of the key decision-making points in the reorganised National Health Service. The requests of the dental profession for improved representation have been repeatedly turned down by both the present and previous Governments.
The Secretary of State announced on 11th July that the Government had decided to proceed with the proposal that there should be additional members on each Health Authority, two to be drawn from the nominations of local authorities, and two to be drawn from those working in the Health Service, other than those already represented. Despite continued requests from the British Dental Association, a representative from my profession is not yet included. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord opposite will give me an explanation for that.
My Lords, I have spoken long enough, but my point is a simple one. If we cannot give the Health Service the additional resources it needs, let us leave it well alone; and, in particular, let the Government reconsider their misguided plans for the separation of private and Health Service practice.
6.24 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, the debate already has gone on for a long time. Your Lordships already have heard from six medical speakers, and there are two more to come. Therefore, I have torn up the notes of most of what I was going to say—in any case, others have said most of it already. I should like to congratulate our two maiden speakers, both of whose speeches I enjoyed very much indeed. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, on having brought money into the subject. I think that is what the
674
Health Service needs, perhaps more than anything else. For the rest, I would make one or two comments on what has already been said, and then say something about pay beds from perhaps a different point of view than has been dealt with up to the present.
Some of my noble colleagues give the impression that all was right with the Health Service until quite recently. Of course, this is not true. They give the impression that this strike mentality, which is so grievous and so horrible to me as a medical man, is also something new. But do they forget that once every few years the British Medical Association has collected signatures for a mass resignation from the Health Service? Do they forget the days, about which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, reminded us in a notable speech, when the BMA was, until the last minute, advising the profession to keep right out of the Health Service altogether? Then, the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, seemed to think that after a few years in which it worked well things began to go wrong, and that was why the Review Committee was set up. But does he forget the leaders in the British Medical Journal during those ten years, and the vicious attacks which were made on the Health Service—which I remember 20 years ago or more—saying that it "was grinding to a halt"?
However, those are just comments on history which are not really very relevant to the present situation; except for one more, which I had forgotten. Other noble Lords have spoken about the junior doctors, who surely did not start striking until after that degrading fiasco of the consultants' work-to-rule. If people begin to wonder why junior doctors are behaving in this peculiar way, it is possibly because their seniors are behaving in a very similar manner. The noble Lords, Lord Stamp, in what I thought was perhaps a rather too personal attack on the Secretary of State, spoke about the necessary standards of tact and understanding. Does he think that the BMA in all their transactions with the Government have shown the necessary tact and understanding? If so, then he and I will have to differ on that.
As to pay beds, my only excuse for bringing this matter in once again, because it has been spoken about a great deal, is that I have had the experience

675
—and I may be perhaps the only one in this House who has had that experience —of being in consulting practice as a physician, making my living entirely from private fees, because in those days we were not paid for our hospital work; and I have later spent many years as a Professor of Medicine receiving no fees whatever, although I was paid a salary. So I see it from both sides. The point which I think deserves mention, and which has not been mentioned—or certainly has not been emphasised—is that private practice is an extraordinarily good education for a doctor; it really is. You are on your own. You have not got a staff of people to whom to delegate jobs. You cannot tell them to go and talk to the parents of a sick child; you have to do it. All these things you have to do yourself. You stand on your own, and you feel a sense of personal responsibility to a greater extent, I would say, than you ever feel in a hospital where there are so many other people who can act with and for you.
I personally feel that most of the men and women in medicine whom I have admired in my time have been those who have spent most of their working life in hospital but who have nevertheless also been engaged in private practice. They are the people who I think carry an enormous reputation for British medicine, both at home and abroad. I think that it would be a disaster if they now started to do their private work elsewhere than in the hospitals, if that is where they are doing it now. I really think it would be a disaster. I think gradually it would build up two kinds of consultants, those who are after the money in plush private hospitals, and those who have not the patience to do that kind of work and will devote themselves entirely to the hospital, to the great detriment of both to my mind. The ones who remained entirely in hospitals would be of two kinds, those devoted to research or those who are doing laboratory services and so on, who are normally whole-time hospital people, and those who are perhaps a little second-rate and not able to build up a lucrative private practice. I think it would bring back all the worst features of medicine before the Health Service.
As for queue jumping, I do not see how this is going to he prevented by this
676
means. There are other ways; there are ways, monitoring waiting lists and so on, in which this can and should be tackled. With regard to amenity beds, I always thought they were a fine idea. They never worked because no hospital that I knew ever had enough amenity beds. But if you say, "All right, I will come in when you send for me, but I want an amenity bed", then do you wait longer or do you wait a shorter time? Somebody is bound to jump some queue somewhere. Or if we all go on a common waiting list, and if, as sometimes happens, you wait for a year to have a hernia operation and then suddenly get a telegram to say there is a bed for you—probably on Good Friday and nobody will look at you until the following Wednesday, but bed occupancy has to be kept up—and you say, "I am attending a Foreign Ministers' conference at Helsinki on that day and I cannot come", do you go to the bottom of the waiting list? In other words, I think admission to hospital according to medical need and for no other reason is a fine phrase, but I do not think it will ever work, whatever system is put into operation.
What I think the Health Service needs most, apart from money, is a period of real co-operation between the profession and the Government because a lot of the faults are due to the profession itself and a lot of them are due to the Government. I think it needs a real, willing co-operation betwen the two, what the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, called at the end of his speech "a re-establishment of trust and friendship between Government and the profession". My only amendment would be to leave out the "re", because I do not think it has happened before.
6.34 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I do not go so far back as my noble friend Lord Porritt, but for more than a quarter of a century I have been deeply interested and involved in the Health Service, its well-being and its development. I have no financial interest that I should declare to your Lordships; I have never had such an interest. But as a layman, as Chairman of a Regional Hospital Board responsible for administering 150 hospitals, and also of Hammersmith Hospital, which draws doctors in large numbers from all over the world for

677
specialist training at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School and at the British Post-graduate Medical Federation, which administers the teaching institutes of the specialist post-graduate hospitals, in these and in other capacities, I have been immensely proud to be given the opportunity to play some small part in the development of what was until recently quite certainly the finest Hospital Service of any country in the world. I say "was" because, as we must all admit, that Service, built up since 1948 by the enthusiasm and determination of the great host of devoted men and women working in it—doctors and nurses and administrators, porters and domestics and drivers, and the great army of workers with the common purpose of service to the community—is now very sick indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, gave us a diagnosis of that sickness, and diagnosis is not really very difficult. The treatment that will restore the Service to health is not so easy. Some of your Lordships may recollect, in the Cautionary Tales, the doctors attending young Henry King:
" They answered as they took their fees,
There is no cure for this disease
Henry will very soon be dead."
It is not quite as bad as that, but urgent and drastic steps must be taken if the Health Service is to be restored to health. It will be a long struggle, requiring first the restoration of morale, a spirit of unity and common purpose.
My Lords, the reorganisation of the Service that took place last year was the culmination of a long period of planning and discussion under successive Ministers of Health of both the main Parties. There were, of course, differences over detail; but it was broadly a bipartisan operation, initiated by Mr. Kenneth Robinson when he was Minister of Health—I am proud to call him my friend—later continued by, among others, Mr. Richard Crossman, and finally brought to birth by Sir Keith Joseph. For some considerable time before the reorganisation took place morale in the Service, which had been notably high during its expansion and development in the previous 20 years—remarkable development fed by the fruit of much wonderful research and the fine teaching in the schools of medicine and nursing—had latterly been undermined by the doubts
678
and uncertainties about the future which resulted from this long period of discussion before the plans for the reorganisation finally crystallised.
The Service was then, even before the reorganisation took place at the end of March last year, in a condition of lowered morale that rendered it susceptible to the malaise of industrial unrest that was becoming widespread in this country. That infection began to manifest itself in the hospital service, even before the reorganisation, by small but significant signs. For example, theatre porters, when asked by the theatre sister to bring up the next patient for operation, said "Perhaps we will when the rain stops", or "When we have finished our game of cards". Those are actual incidents. Then, of course, the reorganisation itself was, as is now evident, in some ways ill-advised, throwing overboard overnight the great body of voluntary workers with much experience and much good will, and burdening the Service with a bureacratic, cumbersome and very expensive administrative organisation. It was, as it has turned out, most unfortunately timed, for the economic crisis with violent inflation had the effect almost immediately of eating up the resources that should have been available for the physical modernisation and rebuilding of hospitals and their re-equipment all over the country, which is most urgently needed. This of course further depressed morale and fostered industrial unrest.
But that was not the worst. The injection of political Party dogma in the most hamhanded way, particularly over the issues of pay beds and private practice, has reduced the whole Service, not only the doctors but everyone devoted to it, to a condition of frustrated exasperation, a condition of despair that is without any precedent. So far as the doctors are concerned, I personally regard their action in restricting their services as utterly unjustifiable, but it is possible to understand its origins—nothing less than a condition of extreme frustration and exasperated despair could have brought a body of men and women who, for the most part, are selflessly devoted to a noble profession, to unite in such an action.
What then should be done? There are two things that I think could and should be done as matters of extreme urgency which would create almost overnight a

679
great upsurge of morale. The first is the inclusion of the pay bed issue in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. It is, after all, not a matter of any extreme urgency. Although it is widely said and believed that they enable the long purses to jump the queue, the fact is that the number of pay beds is so small a part of the whole that their abolition would have virtually no effect whatever on waiting lists. And meanwhile their abolition entails throwing away a substantial sum, estimated variously between, we have heard, £26 million and £40 million a year, that would in the present financial constriction be of immense value in enabling at least some modernisation and rebuilding to go forward.
What could be greater lunacy—I can use no other word—than to appoint a Royal Commission and to prejudge, to exclude from its impartial survey, the most controversial and damaging question of the day? No doubt it may be said that such a reference would be a victory for the doctors. It would not. It would be a victory for no one. It would be a victory only for common sense. The other step that could and should be taken, a step that would produce an immediate restoration of morale in the Service would be, let us face it, a change of Secretary of State. Whatever her merits of energy and drive—and they are great—there can be no doubt that the deplorable fact is that those who work in the Service feel desperately frustrated, in the main because the Service has now become what it never should have become—a political pawn. There can be no doubt that their despair arises from the injection of politics into the Service, which they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be due to her. A change there would change the whole complexion of the Service overnight.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? This is a very strong statement. He knows Parliament well, and he must know that the Secretary of State reflects the decision of the Cabinet. Changing her will not make any difference. We shall get somebody else who will reflect the same decisions.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I have chosen my words carefully. I feel bound to say what I think, as do other noble
680
Lords when they speak. An upsurge of morale produced in this way would not of course solve the basic problems of lack of resources; the constant drawing away of the best professional brains, medical and nursing, from the immediate creative task of looking after the sick into the sterile field of administration; the egalitarian doctrine that would starve the Service where it is at its best in order to spread the butter more widely but more thinly—to reduce, in fact, everything everywhere towards the lowest common denominator; the denigration of higher education, postgraduate teaching, and the research in which this country leads the world. How tragic it is that research, of which the fruits provide the essential life blood of development in medicine, should have become in some quarters almost a dirty word.
The Royal Commission will no doubt have a good deal to say about these and many other matters, and there are, I think, many detailed aspects of the Service that might fruitfully be referred to King Edwards Hospital Fund or to the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust for urgent examination and advice. The Hospital Service, we must hope, will steadily, though I fear at best slowly, recover from its present grievous sickness. But the essential prelude to that recovery must be a change from the present condition of despair to one of hope, a restoration of morale, which can in my belief only be restored by the measures of which I have spoken.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing this subject for our debate this afternoon, and at the same time apologise to him because I shall be unable to stay until the end of the debate. Unfortunately I have a National Health Service commitment at half-past seven. I regret very much that I shall not be able to remain.
Much has been said on both sides of the House, originally by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and afterwards by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about re-organisation, and the reasons for the lowering of morale in the Health Service as a result of reorganisation. I think that what both noble Lords said was true, but

681
I believe an additional fact which has not been mentioned this afternoon but which was responsible for the lowering of morale in the Service was the fear in the minds of people working in the National Health Service that, as a result of the change of Government, the new Government were once again going to reorganise the Service and change the present three or four tier system. I should therefore like to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the statement she made in the other place at the end of October when she clearly stated that it is not the Government's intention to change the actual structure of the present reorganised Health Service.
I believe from my personal experience at the regional level that this particular statement will have, and has already had, a marked effect on the morale of the people working within the Service. It was certainly to a great extent that feeling of uncertainty, and the fear that they may have to go through the traumatic experience of applying for their own jobs yet once again, that was responsible for a large part of the lowering of morale which had taken place since reorganisation.
I appreciated very much the comments of the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, about the National Health Service because she was one of the first to concentrate on what is still good about the Service, and for those of us who are involved it is necessary to concentrate on what is good about it. I believe that the first signs of the results of reorganisation for the good of the Service are just beginning to come through; there are great signs that the working together of the community and the hospital nursing services is producing benefits for the patient and for the Service as a whole. All these things are heartening and we should remember them when we complain about the present state of the Service.
Something which I am anxious should be proceeded with and which, in my own way, I have attempted to impress on the Department is the need to delegate authority down the line. It is not possible for the Regional Authority to delegate authority until some authority is delegated to the Region from the Department. I feel that in the matter of the
682
delegation of authority, the Department has been dragging its feet in no uncertain terms. I regret that I shall not be in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about the number of employees in the Health Department of the Department of Health and Social Security because I suspect that it has increased beyond all reasonable bounds. It seems to me quite unnecessary that in the regional division of the Department of Health there should exist an opposite number for every regional officer in the Regions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not want to stop the flow of the noble Baroness's remarks and I intervene only because as she said, she will not be here to hear my reply to the debate. My understanding is that it is difficult to give figures for the precise dates mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. However, I can tell the House that over the 20 months since April 1974 the number of staff in the Department's Health Headquarters has increased from 4,664 to about 5,000, which was mainly junior staff and many of them were filling vacancies which had been in existence for a considerable time: there had been difficulty getting staff. We have no reason to believe that in the fore. seeable future the figure will increase beyond that. I hope that that information will be of assistance to the noble Baroness.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information and I am glad to have received it before leaving the House. Nevertheless, if we are to make a success of the reorganised Service—and I believe that we can make a success of it—it is necessary to delegate authority to the greatest possible extent to the local level, and this cannot be done except by starting at the Department itself. I am, therefore, anxiously looking forward to the debates on the Working Party's Report on devolution, which I understand is now available for discussion. I hope that as a result of consultation about that Report, delegation and devolution can really begin, because in my view that was the whole point of the reorganisation of the National Health Service.

683
Many noble Lords have spoken about the present impasse among doctors, consultants and the Government and the Government's statement that they cannot withdraw from their Manifesto commitment to phase out private practice from the Hospital Service. In a circular issued by the Department of Health in September 1974—the first occasion, I think, when a reference was made to the Labour Party Manifesto; it was a consultative document for a joint working party—the Government stated:
" The Government's policy over private practice has not been changed by the action taken by NUPE at Charing Cross in July of last year. This action confirmed, as did similar action over the previous few weeks by COHSE, that some of the NHS staff were so dissatisfied with the present situation over private medicine that they were prepared to use it as an issue to further their pay dispute."
To me, that was the saddest day that ever happened in the National Health Service because it created a most dangerous precedent; it happened, I believe for the first time, that political ideology interfered with the normal working of the pay negotiating machinery. I cannot help but feel that the present dispute between the Government and the consultants over private practice stems in some way from the introduction of political ideology at that time.
The Government have throughout claimed that they are determined to proceed with their policy commitment to phase out private beds while at the same time carrying on the fullest discussions with all parties concerned. The consultative document that has recently been issued on private practice and which is now circulating for consultation with all interests cannot in my view create the right kind of confidence which is necessary for true consultation because it is backed by an already taken political decision which the Government say is irreversible. I do not call that consultation.
I think it was Sir George Godber who said that because progress in the Health Service depended so much on the acceptance of chance by the health professions, it must be achieved by persuasion and support rather than by the direction and imposition of elaborate central plans. This is what the Government should do. They should be big enough to admit that private practice, private pay beds
684
in National Health Service hospitals, is such a burning issue that it must be referred to the Royal Commission. I also believe that only the Royal Commission can look at this problem dispassionately, can assess it and recommend before this country takes a political decision which it may regret for a long time to come.
6.57 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, many speakers have their names down for tonight's debate and I think the best contribution I can make—one that will be welcome by many noble Lords—is to be as brief as possible. I shall also be as constructive as possible. We are in a situation where there arc a great many problems and recriminations, but I wish to concentrate on the one issue of morale. It has been spoken of many times in this debate but I feel that there are a number of lessons to be learned from the present situation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will not take my remarks as representing an attack; I am merely trying to build on some of the events that have occurred.
Morale is the sort of subject one hears about in after dinner speeches. One hears either that morale has never been so high or has never been so low. At the moment, morale is undeniably low and there are a whole lot of reasons for that. It is not just the pay of junior doctors, and many of the reasons—as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will accept because he is a fair-minded person—go back long before 1974. There are lots of little niggles. The problems of morale are cumulative; they build up. For example, in the past there was perhaps a greater team spirit in the National Health Service, but this has been rather depersonalised.
In giving a few small examples I hope that noble Lords will not consider that I am wasting the time of the House. Junior doctors' dining rooms are being abolished; but these dining rooms meant a lot to them because they could discuss patients in an area where doctors were alone. Now they are to be in big dining rooms, with lots of lay people present. They have lost that amenity. Another simple example is the pay-as-you-eat scheme that has evolved over the years. Tea and coffee on the wards meant that everyone could

685
have a chat, but that amenity has disappeared. Tea and coffee on the wards is now frowned upon. It meant that people could talk, and the Health Service is about people and about team, work.
There are countless other irritating factors which have built up over the years, but I will not weary your Lordships by describing them tonight. It has been said that, in the past, junior doctors in private medicine waited years for promotion but they did not complain, whereas now, under a Labour Government, they are complaining. Perhaps the reason was that, in those days, they had a great deal to look forward to on becoming a consultant. Now, a senior registrar can take a cut in salary when he becomes a consultant. Therefore, the incentives are going. Doctors are human and, like everybody else, they must have incentives. Theirs is a vocation. They will work all hours, as we know, but they must be rewarded at some point along the line.
The junior doctors have been thoroughly castigated from various sides of the House for striking. I do not know whether all noble Lords are aware of the efforts which the junior doctors are making to see that their patients do not suffer. I do not believe that any situation is as black and white as it is painted in such a debate as this, and I believe that they are making considerable efforts and that those efforts should be understood and appreciated.
The pay structure has become extremely complicated over the years. I know that the extra duty allowance was brought in to try to help. Hours were reduced, but it has become an extremely complicated scheme. I waded through the explanation as to how the extra duty allowance works, but I wonder how many of your Lordships know what is being talked about when it comes down to a "notional half day off". I feel that the system is not satisfactory. It was probably a necessity as a way round a problem, but it has in turn created a great number of problems, and I believe that a system which relates not to free time but to hours worked would be far more acceptable to the doctors.
There has arisen quite a vocabulary on this matter; one has units of medical
686
time and extra duty allowances, and, if we could simplify the system, I believe that it would be more acceptable. I agree that it is easy enough to criticise and much harder to work out a really positive system, but I believe that now is the moment when we should be planning. I am sure that the present problems will be overcome, but we should now be planning how the structure is to be changed. The junior doctors have felt let down because the negotiations were so complicated because of the complication of the structure. The name of the game changed as it went along. For instance, the contract started as closed and is now open, the "no detriment" clause was deleted, and it goes on and on. I believe that the root cause of the trouble is the complication of the structure.
With great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I should like to query one figure which he gave. He said that the doctors, especially the juniors, had had considerable rises, and he quoted a figure of 30 per cent. I stand to be corrected, but as I understand the Review Body document, the 30 per cent. was for all doctors. If the noble Lord will look at page 37 of the document he will see that house officers had a minimum 17.6 per cent. rise and a maximum 19 per cent. rise. So I feel that, in quoting that figure, the noble Lord was being a little unfair to the junior doctors in terms of the rise that they had. I do not say that GPs are overpaid but, at the same time, they do better because they are on Schedule D. This is a point which goes back to 1947 when, under a High Court ruling, hospital doctors were disallowed for Schedule D.
I come now to a point which is made with the benefit of hindsight, and in making it from these Benches I may perhaps come slightly under fire. I believe that the cause of unhappiness in the National Health Service is its growing bureaucracy It is growing with the speed of Parkinson's Law. These bureaucratic layers grow rather like expensive layers of icing on a cake, but they are as hard to cut through as calloused skin. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Aberdare that change should be delayed. I believe that changes should be made now. I believe that the "area" level is unnecessary and ought to be done away with. It would result in very considerable savings

687
and I believe that it would also make the system very much more efficient.
Again, I know that it is easy enough to say that a level should be cut out and that it would require a lot of planning to do that, but I believe that we should be planning for it now. In an army, it is never very efficient when the support services outnumber the combatant troops, and I believe—though I stand to be corrected again—that there are 11 administrators to every 9 consultants. It seems that the system is becoming a little top heavy. Again, this is affecting nursing. I felt that the old "matron system" worked extremely well, and the ward sister really was the ward sister. Now, everything is very much more bureaucratic and we do not have matrons but senior nursing officers and so on and for a nurse to get ahead in the profession she has to get behind a desk. I believe that to be a pity.
Looking to the future, I feel that rebuilding the organisation, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, would be extremely valuable. One area in which we could try to make the system more economical is that of hospitals which have enormously expensive and sophisticated back-up systems. The money supporting each bed and the services involved are very considerable indeed. As a patient starts to recover, he does not need those services and, if we devoted some money from savings to convalescent homes with, out so many specialised services, they would be cheaper to operate and we could have many more beds available for the really important surgical cases, and waiting lists could be cut. The cost of such convalescent homes would, I believe, be relatively low. I know that it is all money and that there is no money now, but it is something which we could look at for the future. However, the Health Service is for patients. It is not merely to be measured in terms of bed occupancy or of bed turnover. As I said earlier, the Health Service is people, not just figures.
7.9 p.m.
Lord HAYTER: My Lords, I believe nearly every one of your Lordships will remember that, when Sherlock Holmes was solving the mystery of the Silver Blaze, he was asked whether there was any point to which he would wish to draw attention. He said he wanted to draw
688
attention to the curious incident of the dog in the night time. "But the dog did nothing in the night time", said his questioner. "That was the curious incident", said Sherlock Holmes. I used that as an illustration because it brings me to the community health councils and why they have not made any major comment on the Health Service as it stands today. I felt that, if I reviewed very briefly the changes that have taken place in the community health councils in the last year and a bit, it would at least be a change from the recriminations which have been exchanged in this House during the past three or four hours.
The great thing about the community health councils which I believe was recognised by both sides was that they gave the layman a chance to have his say in relation to the Health Service. "Participation" is the "in" word these days and it was therefore a matter of principle on both sides of the House that stress should be laid on their education and their functions. To the extent that it was possible, the King Edward's Hospital Fund has been trying to do this in the past year or so. It is a very complex and sophisticated world in which these volunteer laymen are beginning to find themselves. I do not say that in any impertinent sense at all because any of us who remember our own feelings when we first joined a management committee or the board of a hospital will remember that it was some considerable time before we felt able to comment sensibly on what we saw going on.
I will not weary your Lordships, but doubtless you will remember that there are 229 community health councils in England and Wales, involving roughly 5,500 people, which is approximately the same number of people who were involved in management committees and governing boards in the old National Health Service. The selection of these people was determined by the Houses of Parliament, and council membership ranges from 18 to 32 in the various regions and areas. Half are elected by local authorities, one third by voluntary organisations, and one sixth by the Regional Health Authorities. Their power is that of questioning and consultation. No hospital can be closed without their approval, They can give evidence to official committees. They can enlist MPs' support and

689
they can use the Press to express themselves. That brings me back to where I started, for at this moment they have not been very vocal.
Community health councils vary enormously in the way they organise themselves. Some do it geographically in their part of the world; some do it by functions, public relations and research; some do it by the consumer angle, the children and the elderly; and some do it by the type of health care, the mentally handicapped and the geriatric. Some decline to split themselves up at all, and they work as a body. It is interesting that this article on the way in which the community health councils arc organised appeared in the Community Health Council News; I say interesting because that is the publication which the King's Fund brings out every two months. It is intended to go to every member of the community health councils. In that news bulletin there are articles on primary medical care, on the Abortion Bill and on Health Service statistics. There was an article on Dr. David Owen's very valuable contribution when he talked recently to a conference of 200 people who belong to community health councils. The newsletter gave publicity on this talk to all the 5,500 members of community health councils. Dr. Owen said in his speech:
"Community health councils give the National Health Service a public lobby and a public voice."
They have got the public lobby; the public voice has yet to make itself heard.
In this newsletter there are also guides on selective reading, and there is a very open correspondence column, in which some things which are said are by no means complimentary. One secretary of a community health council stated:
"It was not at all appropriate for a newsletter to be devised at this stage as it preempted the proper decisions of the National Council and the Steering Committee."
That reference to the Steering Committee brings me to one more point. A Steering Committee has been set up which has been asked to advise as to whether there should be a national council for the community health councils. To cut a long story short—I think it was quite a long story in the deliberations of that Steering Committee—it has now been recommended that there should be
690
formed an association of community health councils, probably at the beginning of 1977 after the next election of members of the community health councils.
How can one judge the usefulness of community health councils to date? It is perhaps too early to do so, partly because they have not had much money with which to devote themselves to some of their worthwhile objectives; they have so many things to learn. The average community health council individual, if visiting his wife in hospital, would find himself—just as you and I did, my Lords, when we first got mixed up with hospital visiting—commenting on the food, the nursing and the building. But if that individual asked himself whether his wife had the right treatment, he might find himself in a very difficult position before being able to answer that correctly. My experience of hospital visiting taught me a long time ago that deficiencies of hospital buildings are not necessarily significant; it is the people who work in the buildings, and the skill and the care which they can devote to their patients, that count far more than that.
For anyone who becomes involved in this way in hospital matters there is the whole gamut of questions dealing with the organisation. We got to discussing what I always call the "dirty grey book" when we were considering the reorganisation of the National Health Service. It was then puzzling for most of us as to how the organisation would work. The advice which we try to instil through this Community Health Council News is that hospital bed counts do not matter much. Medical fashions, such as transplants, do not matter much. It is the communication with the patients in the hospital that matters. In quite a different context we decided recently to give a grant to a surgeon at one of the London teaching hospitals. He is doing what would popularly be known now as a "consumer-based study" to improve the treatment of patients. He says that he is determined to give more attention to the patient than those who think that they know what the patient wants.
Therefore, I sum up the issue of visiting in hospitals by saying that it is not important to watch out for leaking roofs what is important is to try to discover

691
the attitudes of mind of both the people who work in, and are patients in, those hospitals. The touchstone for community health councils in the future is the extent to which they conic to terms with primary care: the extent to which they come to terms with social service, because we have now established that is part of the health problems of this county; the extent to which they come to terms with the problems of local authorities, a very dangerous point, but a most important one; and the nature of the community health councils themselves, because one is beginning to worry as to whether they are truly representative of the community.
Perhaps I should end by making one remark: so far as I am concerned the King Edward Hospital Fund works always within the parameter of the Government of the day and therefore of the National Health Service of the day. To us all the patients are the same; they are indeed the same all over the world. Their sufferings and their needs are the same, and this is all quite irrespective of Party politics. But the difficulty arises when decisions have to be made on how to satisfy those needs. It seems to be common ground between the two Parties that community health councils are one of the key elements in the present situation. We have been very pleased to do what we can in this past year with our money and our personnel, and we shall continue to do so provided we have the confidence and the backing of the Department, which I think we have. What will emerge, if it has not already done so, is an institution which will never satisfy the demands for instant solutions to our health problems, but on the other hand, provides the means of bringing about change by consent. It is an institution worth preserving by, I hope, any Government when they come into power.
7.19 p.m.
Lord COBBOLD: My Lords, almost everything that can be said has been said—much of it several times. However, I should still like to detain the House for a moment or two to make a few observations from my own personal experience. I have the privilege of being chairman of the board of governors of the Middlesex Hospital for 10 years or so and of taking some part in the discussions during the early 1970s about the reorganisation of the National Health Service. There
692
is no advantage in dwelling too much on the past, but the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Wells-Pestell, both referred to the reorganisation, and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said something about the effect of the reorganisations on morale. Therefore I should like to recall one or two of the points which were made on behalf of the teaching hospitals in debates in this House at the time.
The main burden of our argument was the unwisdom of doing away with something which worked fairly well without being fairly certain that you had something better to put in its place. Boards of governors and hospital management committees, or so we argued, both facilitated quick decision and ensured the involvement of lay members with medical, nursing, administrative and auxiliary staff. Instead, it was decided to set up a complicated and costly structure of District, Area and Regional authorities which seemed to us likely to confuse responsibilities and, even more important, to make it impossible for lay members of those bodies to have any intimate involvement with individual hospitals and with their staffs.
My Lords, the only things which really matter, and for which the prime responsibility must rest with the Government of the day, are surely standards of medicine and care of patients. It has seemed to me that in discussion in the media and elsewhere these fundamentals tend to be lost sight of and to be bedevilled by political dogma, arguments about pay and sectional interests generally. Over many years I have seen at first hand the very heavy load falling on hospital doctors and the burden of hours worked, which most of us would regard as highly unsocial. I have admired their dedication and that of nursing and administrative staffs, and like the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, I have been equally impressed by the loyalty and devotion of so many who work behind the scenes, often in old-fashioned and unsatisfactory conditions; kitchen and domestic staffs, engineers, carpenters, porters—the list is endless. My Lords, everybody who has had this experience must bitterly regret the present situation. The message from this debate must surely be a hope that everybody concerned, not least Her Majesty's Government, will take a fresh look with determination to get away from

693
the present drift towards confrontation. The appointment of a Royal Commission seemed a step in the right direction, and we have had hopeful news of a meeting this morning.
Much has been said about pay beds, and I add my voice to the many who have urged the reference of this subject to the Royal Commission only because I may have seen it from an angle which is slightly different from that of some earlier speakers. Ten years as chairman of a large teaching hospital certainly persuaded me, on purely practical grounds, that the balance of advantage lay in maintaining the original compromise. Quite apart from the financial contribution, it seemed to me a definite benefit to the National Health Service, and therefore to National Health Service patients, that the best doctors should be able to do some of their private work in the hospitals. It has undoubtedly kept consultants more involved in, and more easily available to, the hospital as a whole. Nor was I conscious, my Lords, in fairly frequent visiting round the wards, of any hostility by National Health Service patients to the existence of private beds. One thing is certain: further deterioration of morale or more acute confrontation would go far towards destroying something of which this country has been rightly proud, the prime concern of which, I repeat, must lie in medical standards and the care of patients.
7.24 p.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I have noticed this afternoon that undertones have been expressed, particularly by those people who are concerned with the medical profession, about the Minister, the status of the Minister—I should like to refer particularly to what Lord Cottesloe said—and the desirability of getting rid of the Minister. I can only say that everyone must of course wish to maintain the Government's anti-inflation policy, and the principal charge against the Minister is that, with the Minister for Employment, she has maintained that policy. If anybody says that they want a different atmosphere, the way to get it will not be to lead assaults upon the Minister herself. She is close to the Prime Minister she moves in concert with the Cabinet and her view has been a Cabinet view.
694
I have known every Minister of Health since Nye Bevan, and I do not think that anyone has more devoted herself or himself to the affairs of a Department than has the present Minister. As a matter of fact, her achievements are very considerable indeed. Somebody suggested that she is abrasive. Nobody less than an abrasive Minister would have got a percentage of the GNP to the extent that she has. Let us make this perfectly clear. She came to office at a time when, as Lord Porritt said, morale was at an all-time low, left byte Party opposite. I sat in the House of Commons during that period. How else can the policy of the Government, in their fight against inflation, in their attempt to hold the line on the question of the pay issue, be achieved unless the Minister stands firm?
There seems to be a campaign to discredit the Minister. This can be noticed in the rather vulgar speech which Mr. Norman Fowler made at the Conservative Party Conference. He is the "shadow" spokesman for the other Party. There were references to "Calamity Castle", there were references to abortions, and all that sort of thing—the sort of language that the gentlemanly Party can use to a Minister on our side but which would never be tolerated by that side towards Mrs. Thatcher. One has only to see this throughout the media. When people speak about getting rid of Mrs. Castle, they might just as well speak about getting rid of Dr. Derek Stevenson, because his image on television is pretty awful.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I do protest for one moment that the noble Lord should refer to two people who cannot express themselves in this House. It is not normally the practice to refer to officials of bodies, nor Members of another place.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, that sounds all right coming from a noble Lord who has sat there, I do not know for how long, but who could not have listened to some of the speeches that I have been condemned to listen to this afternoon.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, once again I protest. I have sat here throughout the afternoon, from twenty minutes to three. There is no word that I have missed.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, there are some people who sit still in this place without listening, and I can only tell your Lordships that I have listened to two speeches this afternoon which were, in their terms, insulting without there being any protest. I do not want to breach the conventions of this place, but when, in effect, a colleague is attacked—a member of the same Government in which I have myself served as a Minister—I think that it is an elementary duty, at least, to protect that Minister; and I might tell your Lordships that the sort of delicacy by which one refrains from doing that does not appeal to me at all. No convention of this place will hold me back in that way.
Does anybody think that if the Prime Minister intervenes he will "ditch" this Minister? There is Lord Hill, who has served in a Cabinet. He knows that the best way to protect a Minister is to attack her. I can remember an occasion when it was "tipped off" in the newspaper that two Conservative Ministers were to go. I met another colleague, a Conservative Cabinet Minister, and I said, "What idiot ever put that there?", and he said, "They are safe now, Charlie, for another six months"; and they were, because, quite frankly, the Cabinet, the House of Commons, Governments, public men, by their very nature will not stand this sort of attack. So, consequently, the Prime Minister is the custodian of the policy of the Government. And it might be remembered that it is Mr. Foot's policy, too. These two are so linked together on this issue that you could not attack one without unseating the other. In the present state of the Government majority, I can only tell noble Lords opposite that that is not on. Access to the Prime Minister, or his intervention, will not solve the problem. The profession must make peace with the Minister.
I understand we have the separate issue, the private bed issue, which is of immense significance to the consultants. A porter or a domestic can take his or her service elsewhere. I understand that the surgeons, the anaesthetists or the radiologists cannot—it needs a team and equipment. Outside London, without the Health Service, there would be almost no private facilities at all. That is what has brought them here. But do not let us deceive ourselves that there has not been a measure
696
of abuse in this system, of people being put back. Anyone who has moved at a political conference and has heard cases put up knows that it is so.
To come to the point of the Royal Commission, policy has emerged gradually over the years and it has appeared in two Election Manifestoes. That is what has made it a political instead of a technical issue. The Government therefore, seeing their forces behind them, the feelings of the National Union of Public Employees and so on, could hardly refer this issue to a Royal Commission. It was never on. Another thing about Royal Commissions is that they usually take about three years to deliberate. On average—and I once took out these figures—over the last century it has usually taken 19 years to implement whatever they have recommended. There is nothing more frustrating than to sit on a Royal Commission and see this emerge. How much came out of the Donovan Commission on trade unions? Only the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which flew in the face of everything the Royal Commission observed. Let us assume that this came up in two or three years' time. The same arguments would be regurgitated. I would not die in the last ditch over pay beds. I agree for once with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that there are plenty more important things on the horizon than this.
On the other hand, it is not an issue to bring down the Government. It applies both ways. Is it so important one way or the other? I understand this is a vital issue. I have been enough of a craftsman in my time defending trade union interests to know that there is a great deal in this of a demarcation dispute. The NHS has been taken for granted by a good many consultants; and this is probably something of a backlash. The consultants have a duty to the National Health Service which has not always been daylight clear to some of us.
It must be remembered that the National Health Service is the largest employer in the country. I heard it said yesterday that it is the largest employer in the world. Under this Minister, the percentage devoted to it has risen in her first year from 4.9 per cent. to 5.4 per cent. Only a very determined Minister could have done that. Anybody who has been in Cabinet knows what that means

697
at a time of stringency. This Minister upheld the Service, defended the Service and extended the Service. She must be judged against that rather than against the prejudices of a few Peers in this House. She has secured something like social justice for the nurses—this was her first job—by increases of 60 per cent. of average earnings. This is a considerable achievement. One sees this, as I have said, as something of an internal struggle in the Service itself.
The noble Lord who spoke first from the Benches opposite was, I thought, a trifle less than fair. He hardly mentioned the question of the junior doctors' salaries; but under this Minister, if we take the figures between 1974 and 1975 (and I have taken the maximum figures for the grade) for health officers, salaries have gone up to £3,294 from £2,538; for senior house officers, to £4,152 from £3,198; for registrars, to £5,109 from £3,879; for senior registrars, the figure has risen from £4,743 to £6,279. Those are the figures: and they got those only last March. The pay policy insists that you cannot get another increase under 12 months.
This is a blatant attempt to breach the Government's pay policy. Members of this House should not underrate what that pay policy is. The Yorkshire coal fields came near my constituency and the prime mover there is Mr. Arthur Scargill. He advanced an idea to breach the pay policy before the NUM. He was defeated. But only this week he has been trying to get the Yorkshire miners to breach it. Let this be breached by the doctors and you will not stop the miners; and you know what they did to a Conservative Government. The line must be held the whole way. My own trade union is presided over by Mr. Scanlon, no friend of the Government pay policy; but we hold the line on this. Millions of workers do so by an act of faith.
With regard to the doctors, we ought to be able to expect some sort of discipline from them. I took out some figures. Generally speaking, the total recurrent cost of educating a medical student over a five year course is about £25,000. That can be a phoney argument, I appreciate; for it can be applied to anyone who gets higher education. But anyone on whom £25,000 is spent by the generality of the
698
public is thus far advantaged in the prestige of his profession. There is no doubt that doctors are in the most prestigious profession in the country. Whoever seeks any advice about what profession to put in a British-born coloured boy who has certain things to overcome, will be told: "Put him in the medical profession; he will not suffer there."
A body that has had this money spent on them and who claim, proudly and rightly, that they are a privileged body have extra responsibility to the public. Not for them the downing of their tools at the snap of a finger by a silly shop steward over a dispute. They are certainly responsible to the public itself. They are the custodians of the public. As one who has had the good fortune during 40 years of his life to be a personal friend of his doctor, I know what this means in the reassurance of family life.
This is an odious sort of business and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, was right when he said that the contagion of unrest that has affected all other professions has affected the junior doctors as well. As was said in another place, there are extremists in that profession also. I noticed that the "uncle" of us all, namely the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was at No. 10 Downing Street. Knowing what he has done (or not done) to the Trades Union Bill, commonly known as the Press Bill, I still have hopes that he will be able to bring his magic to bear upon the warring parties. He has the utmost confidence of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State. One thing he will not have advised is getting rid of the Government, the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State. He will try to bring people together and there will be that wonderful emollient that we have seen displayed in this House. He will weave a spell over them and I hope that they can come to their senses.
In my adult life I have been a trade unionist and I have heard trade unionists spoken of (even this afternoon) in rather derogatory terms. But the trade union will is, of course, often the will of people organised in an industry. The will of a Government is the reflection of the most mature democracy in the world. In effect, they fight an Election and get returned on a policy, and that is what we are responding to now.

699
This afternoon I tended to think that the British medical profession were now where American medical profession was when I was in the United States—and somebody has to live among them to know what that medical profession can come to. In America a noble profession has become a filthy trade. I do not look on our medical profession as a filthy trade; I am conscious of too much service; I am conscious of people who have dedicated themselves to the profession. If we take the pay bed issue, I hope it can be settled. I would not die in the last ditch over that. I do not think that it is important enough to bring down a Government; I do not think it is important enough for the consultants to withhold their services. After all, these are the commissioned officers, the crack troops of the medical profession. If they behave badly, they can hardly expect the junior doctors to behave any better. The question of example is important here.
Regarding the doctors themselves, I believe that the Secretary of State having dealt with the nurses, will attempt to deal honestly with the doctors. But they will have to run their period out now to about next April, which may not be too long to last out if one considers the inflationary pressures on all of us at the present time. I want this profession to remain a noble profession. Nobody will solve their problem if they think that they can take on a Minister who is a brave person, a person of great courage and drive, and who has done rather more for the medical profession than anyone has ever achieved before.
7.42 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I may, I should like to bring your Lordships hack into the field of dentistry, although I accent and appreciate that my noble friend Lord Colwyn gave an expert resume of the position in which members of that profession now find themselves. However, there are one or two points I should like to endorse. Only about one in six of the population use the National Health Service in terms of dentistry. The purists would like to see about one in three, because although the remainder may not go to a dentist, it does not necessarily imply their dental health is of a standard not requiring treatment. They are therefore relying
700
entirely upon the general dental practioner, a rather unique person who has the ability to practise in the Service or privately, or both, at his free will. I believe dentists are the only people in this country who are self-employed and yet still enjoy the benefit of superannuation from Her Majesty's Government.
The National Health Service, so far as dentistry is concerned, restricts its service largely to what one might call a "care and maintenance basis"—maintaining oral dental hygiene rather than doing anything else. My noble friend Lord Colwyn says a dentist has complete freedom to prescribe treatment, not having to worry too much as to who is going to pay the bill at the end, but I do not think that is quite fair. The Dental Estimates Board—particularly in some areas of the country—are exceptionally strict about what they call "cosmetic dentistry". They are very strict also on the use of some of the new adaptic materials for fillings, which are rather more expensive in terms of the material and labour involved than the more traditional silicate materials. This is a pity, because although the dentist may wish to use the later materials, he feels perhaps the fee will not be sufficiently rewarding. But if the fees payable took into account the fact that the use of such material would probably enable that patient to attend fewer times for treatment, the saving in the long run would be that much greater.
Each year the Department of Health make an announcement, usually about April, regarding expenditure on the Dental Health Service, and the Dental Rates Study Group meet and fix rates in October, by which time they are usually working on figures some 12 months old. It would be rather more useful to the profession if the Dental Rates Study Group could use forward projection techniques. As we have been told this afternoon, the practice expenses, particularly in the past two years, have risen enormously. This is for rents, rates, materials, machinery and so on. A practitioner tells me that in the past 12 months his practice expenses have risen 65 per cent. over an average of from between 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. in the previous two years. This increase cannot be contained by the existing fee scale. One should attempt in the future to bring rather more sophisticated techniques to bear on this

701
question of fee fixing. From my knowledge of the profession (which is fairly scant and is gained from my wife's participation in the dental service) I do not think that the practitioners are particularly militant or upset at the presen level of fees. They may come again another day when the moment is more opportune.
If the National Health Service is concerned with care and maintenance, it must be more aware of the preventive aspect of dentistry. My noble friends Lady Ruthven and Lord Colwyn referred to this in terms of children's teeth. Fluoride treatments and sealing treatments are not available under the National Health Service. I am advised by my wife, who treats many children in oral hygiene, that innumerable people, from all walks of life, salary scales, and so on are paying for this service. It is prescribed only by dentists, and there are cases where, because of inadequate diet or other factors, this treatment is not desirable or helpful. It is painstaking and difficult. It would be more helpful if this kind of treatment could be brought within the National Health Service. We could then start right at the beginning of a child's life with an aim to improving dental health of all people throughout the entire age group. Then we do not have the problem of tremendously expensive dental and oral treatments in later years.
In conclusion may I ask the Minister this question, of which I have not given notice, and I understand if he is not able to give an answer this evening: Why is it that the proposed new charges for dental treatments appear to favour those who do not go to the dentist frequently and who require more treatment as a result of their laxity? Also, it is probably more expensive treatment in that the more work that has to be carried out, the less the patient is going to be required to pay, whereas the man or woman who goes to the dentist reasonably frequently—perhaps two or three times a year—is to be required to pay more. Surely that is a denial of the right kind of attitude we would wish to encourage in having people go for preventive dentistry rather than curative dentistry.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords. I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers this afternoon, and
702
to express the hope that the next time the most reverend Primate speaks, he will not have oil poured on troubled waters in front of him. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for giving your Lordships the chance to discuss this vital matter. With so many eminent doctors taking part in this debate, I think it would be advisable for me to speak from the patients' point of view. It does not seem very long since your Lordships debated the White Paper on the National Health Service. I remember a conversation I had with the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota. Neither of us could find patients mentioned once, but the word "management" was there very many times. A great many of your Lordships remarked on the top heavy management, but pleas in your Lordships' House were not heeded and we are now experiencing what many people working in the Service, or interested associates, prophesied would happen.
Throughout the country many people have remarked that the National Health Service has become first and foremost a Service for the staff who work within it, while the patient takes second place. So long as the deplorable appointments system exists, with little consideration for the patient, inadequate sanitary facilities, the lack of privacy for those who crave it and the heavy and unappetising food, many patients will he attracted to using the private treatment. Apart from a few, most patients are very grateful for the treatment and care they receive from the National Health Service, and basically it is providing a wonderful service. Therefore, a way must be found to overcome the problems that beset it now.
For many years the strains have been showing. People have, sadly, found that nonce is taken of them only when they descend to industrial action. This is deplorable when the patients are at risk. Many staff working in the hospitals and the community feel that more personal direct contact with the civil servants who work for the Department of Health would be useful. The civil servants are so often called "faceless bureaucrats", but when one meets them personally they often become thoughtful and charming human beings. Many doctors feel that they are working in isolation and have become divorced from taking any part in running their hospitals. Morale must not drop

703
lower. The red light has been showing for too long. It is the front-line field workers who really know what is needed, and not those people who sit in their offices, deprived of personal contact.
Travelling round the departments, finding out what the needs are and passing up-to-date information to those who need it must be of mutual advantage. If more of that were done it is likely that there would be a considerable saving in expenditure. I have heard that doctors who prescribe drugs and treatments to patients are often not aware of the costs involved. Because doctors and patients are themselves not paying, nobody seems to question the cost or the real need of some prescribing. I am sure that all your Lordships will have heard of the classic example of patients in hospital being woken up to be given their sleeping tablets. There is in many hospitals a desperate need for more efficient and up-to-date equipment. If the waste in some areas were alleviated, more could be spent on the vital necessities.
Staff morale will not rise unless the priorities are right. It is tragic that the National Health Service in many areas has become a political pawn, open to abuse and not able to attract more full-time medical staff who would give their undivided attention to raising the standards. The aim should be for excellence. So many skilled people have become disillusioned and disheartened that they have found themselves forced to find the freedom and incentive to achieve their aims and meet their challenges in other countries. Doctors, as patients, are highly individual people. They need to be sensitive to the needs of their patients. They have the qualities, and indeed they need the qualities, of leadership to create a loyal team to work with them. To do this they need to have enthusiasm and freedom to achieve self-actualisation.
The thought of "nine to five doctors" makes one shudder. Some years ago I had an internal haemorrhage on a Saturday evening and my life was saved by the medical skill given me through the night. This Monday evening, a consultant friend of ours came to dinner and he said that his junior had been looking at her watch during an operation. He told her that this should not be done. She
704
left the hospital at 5 o'clock. Unless one has full commitment from medical people, there will be disaster after disaster. Patients, be they in need of surgery or psychiatry, should have continuity of care. If the Government intend to remove pay beds from the National Health Service, hospitals are going to lose the service and a much needed sum of approximately £30 million. If Her Majesty's Government want to attract consultants to work full-time for the National Health Service, they will have to make their remuneration comparable with that of their colleagues in other European countries and in the Commonwealth. I should like to ask the Minister whether, at this period of crisis in our country, this is the time to do it.
The Government may have been forced by the unskilled workers in the National Health Service to take this action now, but they must face the fact that nobody else can do the job of a surgeon or physician. If the worst happens and the hospitals close, the surgeons could perform on a kitchen table and the patient could be cared for at home. I do not believe that senior doctors will desert their patients. Most consultants give so much of their time over and above their contracted hours: they teach students and visit patients. If this good will is to go, the Health Service will be in a very much worse state than it is now. There is a desperate need throughout the Service for more humility and devotion from the most senior to the most junior employees. A climate of mutual understanding and of the needs of the patients is called for.
As a member of a community health council in a rural area, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice a few of the problems involved. Patients in our district, which is in North Yorkshire, who are in need of psychiatric treatment, are not being adequately cared for because there is no full-time consultant in the district. Strange things go on up the Dales, and there is a high rate of intermarriage. Continuity in psychiatric medicine seems important. A few weeks ago, not far from my home, a man hanged himself on a tree in a children's playground.
The rise in the cost of petrol has hit the rural areas particularly hard. Villages are cut off from public transport, and this involves great difficulties over people visiting their relatives in hospital. A

705
technical officer who visits disabled people who are marooned in their homes, told me that his mileage was astronomical but that his superiors, sitting in their offices, were unsympathetic. I hope the Government will take into consideration the special needs of rural areas.
The Westminster Hospital should be of special interest to your Lordships, as this is a hospital which is closely linked with Parliament. Every nurse who has trained and qualified there wears on her belt the Westminster coat of arms, which we share. I was a patient in that hospital a year ago and found splendid nurses working under extremely hard conditions. So much is said of the extras which teaching hospitals are supposed to have, but in the surgical ward, with a very quick turnover of patients, there was only one lavatory and one bath. With so many cross-infections and extremely ill patients, those facilities seemed totally inadequate to the needs of the patients. Nurses and patients were united in their wish for more basic sanitary ware. There was only one hand basin for the ward, which was used by the staff and the patients. One night the drain became blocked. A maintenance worker unblocked it in the early hours of the morning, but the basin remained in a disgusting state until 3.30 in the afternoon. A nurse said that she could not bear it any longer, and she cleaned it out of sheer dedication. Some years ago one would never have experienced such events. Our standards of cleanliness in many hospitals leave a great deal to be desired.
This year, I have been pleased to visit some of the hospitals which have been made demonstration centres in rehabilitation. This seems to have raised morale and interest. I should like to ask the Minister a question which I found myself asking. Will patients who come from areas without these facilities be able to benefit from the expert knowledge and treatment within these centres? I have recently visited West Germany and have seen some excellent new rehabilitation developments. We should benefit greatly if we had such improvements. Am I right in thinking that application can be made to the European Community for allocations for a rehabilitation programme from the European Social Fund? Also is it correct that the demand has to be made on the basis of specific programmes initiated either by Her Majesty's Gov-
706
ernment or by voluntary organisations, in which the Government have an interest? I do not expect an answer tonight, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, could write to me later with an answer.
There is great difficulty for the social services and the Health Service after being under different authorities. The aims of those services are often so similar, working for the benefit of the same consumer, and yet, because of independent budgets and controls, it appears that there cannot be an easy coming together and a sharing of the pool of resources, which, of necessity, restricts development. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has quite understood the present problems here. I hope that there will be steady progress in the future after the immediate problems are solved, and that when the country picks up there will be more up-to-date health centres built. Also, health self-care education, as part of the curricula in schools, could help take some pressures off the National Health Service.
Furthermore, I hope that the Government will look again at the new mobility allowance for disabled people. To cut this off at the age of 60 has given these people the impression that it is the first step to euthanasia, and this cannot he helpful in the rehabilitation of this age group. I am sure your Lordships will agree that at 59 there should be some useful years of life left. Everything seems to cost money, and today there must be some very worried, helpless patients in our country. I hope that there are still some people who will give them at least a little TLC—tender loving care —for this can be administered at no extra cost.
8.4 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, this. debate has so far produced two notable maiden speeches, with contributions from many facets of the National Health Service, both from those who have practised in it and from those who have been concerned with it executively and in voluntary grades. I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Aberdare and to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for not being in my place to hear their opening speeches, due to a very long-standing and important business engagement. Also, I should like to assure

707
the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, that any remarks I make which may be taken as unfavourable to Her Majesty's Government do not reflect upon him, because I believe that noble Lords in all parts of the House will recognise the excellent work which he has done during his tenure of office in dealing with health matters in this House.
Not for the first time, your Lordships' House is debating a matter of great importance at a very suitable time. One of the problems is that from day to day, and possibly even from hour to hour, there are changing developments. I am sure that all sides of your Lordships' House will hope that today's consultations are fruitful, and the very last thing I want to do, or any Member of your Lordships' House who has any experience of the Health Service will want to do, is to say anything which is abrasive enough to prejudice those negotiations. But I am bound to say that in recent years both of the main political Parties have indulged in legislation and in actions which have not always been favourable to the National Health Service.
The reorganisation of the Service has been widely criticised, not least by the medical profession itself. Of course, the reorganisation is now a reality and the onus is upon us, and all who are in public life, to see that it works as well as possible, because those who serve on the Area Health Committees and the community health councils are, I am sure, dedicated people. But I think I may be permitted to say that those who served on house committees—asI did for 12 years or more at two hospitals—and on hospital management committees, also did a very fine job for the National Health Service, and I venture to suggest that in these difficult days their services are very much missed.
It is difficult at this stage of a long debate to throw much light on anything new, but there are still some points which need to be made or reinforced. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to whose excellent speech we have just listened, referred to the patients. If there were no patients in our hospitals there would be no doctors, nurses or physiotherapists and, indeed, hospitals would not be needed. Some people may say that it
708
might be good if this Utopian situation were a reality, but this is a completely unreal situation. The fact is that faster cars and other mechanical phenomena will result in more accidents. We still have the scourge of cancer and other diseases which our doctors and nurses have to treat.
Last Monday I had the good fortune to tour one of our leading teaching hospitals in the East End of London—the principal nursing officer of that hospital, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for some years, has been listening to much of this debate—and talk to several consultants and junior hospital doctors who spoke in a restrained and responsible manner. There is no doubt whatever as to the number of hours a week that most of the registrars work. As part of what is clearly a compromise I do not think that it is a reality to reduce the working hours of a registrar to 80 per week.
The great difficulty is that certain hospitals have a reasonable complement of consultants, registrars and nursing and medical staff, but in the "grey" areas—one might speak of the Potteries, South Wales or North-East England—there are far too many old hospitals which do not necessarily attract nurses and doctors, as do some of our teaching hospitals. Until they visit them, many people think that our teaching hospitals are luxury palaces. The hospital in White chapel which I visited dates back to about 1790 and I saw much of the upgrading which has been carried out. I saw also depressing sights. Indeed, pharmaceutical products are stored in the bowels of the hospital, and these are an obvious fire hazard. As Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents this causes me, and others, much concern. This is not the fault of the hospital. The fact is that there is insufficient space in which to store these products.
Nor is it the fault of the present Government, or of the present Minister or previous Minister, my right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph—at least, not entirely. Over the years Ministers must, of course, take some blame for these conditions, but the fact is that a growing population and the increasing use of these hospitals means that time has caught up with them. For all that, I

709
found complete dedication in this hospital on the part of all the nurses and doctors whom I saw. However, the doctors are very worried. One of the doctors to whom I spoke comes from Australia and he is likely to return to that country. Australia and New Zealand have provided us with some outstanding doctors, but present conditions will make it very difficult to attract them to this country.
It is difficult to justify the action which some of the junior doctors and consultants are taking. It is true that when they enter the profession they know that the working hours will be long and that somebody who is run over by a car at three o'clock in the morning cannot be left lying in the road but must have immediate treatment. Their hours are unsocial, unlike those of your Lordships' House or of those who work in offices, although we in this House have recently been working rather unsocial hours. However, the medical profession have to work unsocial hours in order to save life, and this the general public as a whole do not always realise. Only by visiting both teaching and district hospitals and seeing conditions for oneself, can one realise that as a fact.
If I may turn to the Royal Commission, a number of Royal Commissions have been set up during the 18 years that I have sat in your Lordships' House. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, in a somewhat controversial but very interesting speech, many people take a cynical view of Royal Commissions. They can take a very long time to report, and the Royal Commission on the National Health Service will be no exception; there is an enormous spectrum to be covered. I join those who implore the Government to consider the question of pay beds within that spectrum. I believe that this is very important. My family and I have always been National Health Service patients and have received excellent treatment. Indeed, my own general practitioner listened to part of today's debate. So far as he could, he has always given us the best possible treatment. In these circumstances, the National Health Service is in danger of losing some of its finest doctors.
One or two points were made to me by a consultant at a hospital near to where I live. In the interests of time I shall quote only one of them, although this consultant went to a great deal of
710
trouble to give me many facts, and I shall be very pleased to pass them to the noble Lord for study because I believe that they are reasoned points.
He says:
"I would also add that as a part-time consultant I work on average a minimum of 56 hours a week and on top of that I am on call continuously one week out of three."
I think it is true that the vast majority of consultants in this country have come up the hard way. They have not come up through working office hours. Many of them have worked—indeed many of them now work—80, 90 or 100 hours-plus per week. I believe the junior doctors probably have today an easier time than the consultants before them. At the same time, their job is not an easy one and I think they need more understanding from the general public, and from Parliament, than they are getting at this time.
It would be the greatest possible pity if Parliament were to be engaged at this time in a kind of death struggle between the National Health Service and private beds for private patients. In my view, both have a vital part to play and it seems to me that the most important point to consider is this: is the pay bed system as operated at the present time prejudicial to the National Health Service? Is the existence of pay beds depleting nursing and medical staffs for National Health Service patients? If I thought—I believe many noble Lords would endorse this—that there was any serious chance of this happening I would certainly be for phasing out private beds at the earliest possible moment, but from inquiries which I have made of many grades within the medical profession, this is not the case.
During the last 18 years I have taken part in a number of debates on the Health Service. One of the great problems of the Service is that it has been subjected to report after report, but all too little has been beneficial to those who operate therapeutically within the Service. If there is to be a Royal Commission, let it be set up as soon as possible; although I believe obtaining a chairman and members will be no easy task. But let it have sufficient terms of reference to restore our National Health Service to being the envy of the world that it once was—those who operate it are still the envy of the world—and let

711
it soon return to the status which it so thoroughly deserves.
8.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I wish to join with those who have already voiced their congratulations to the most reverend Primate my Brother of York and to the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley. It is not my intention to dwell on the present dissention within the Health Service, particularly that concerning the junior hospital doctors and the consultants. I only want to express the hope that the junior doctors will very soon get a reasonable deal and that the pay bed issue will be resolved on some basis other than that of politics, because to confuse it with politics seems to me to neglect the real essence of the situation, whatever may be the embarrassment to the present Government.
Apart from this, my concern is the impact of the National Health Service on the ordinary man and woman. Of them, millions already have good reason to be grateful to the National Health Service and particularly to their GPs and to those who have served them well in hospitals. Here, I am in entire accord with the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, in the emphasis she places on where the hospitals belong. They are our hospitals: they do not belong to the National Health Service; they do not belong to those who work in them in whatever capacity. In my judgment we should not be told what to do with our hospitals by any sectional interest within those hospitals. We should, rather, seek to educate them into their role as part-owners with us of this splendid inheritance.
Even so, I think this debate is timely, if only that it provides an opportunity to say. "Thank you" to all those who are so engaged in our hospitals, and to wish them well. They need and deserve our encouragement as well as our thanks. But I believe the time is also needed to get the system more nearly right after the considerable upheaval of the recent re-organisation. From the opinions which I have gathered from quite a large number of people engaged in different ways in the Health Service, they see a great need for readjustment in the structure of the NHS and in the attitudes which the
712
structure creates, both for those within the Service and among the general public for whom that Service exists. I am certainly one of those who thinks that there is one tier too many in the structure. The chain of command is too complicated and too remote, as against the former and still-remembered simplicity of the Regional Hospital Board.
There is a real problem in deciding where responsibility lies, and from my inquiries, and indeed from my own observations, there seems to be an obsession with management structures which tends to limit the ability of the Health Service to respond more adequately to the needs of the people. We need to take note that any large institutional system rapidly assumes its own momentum and then meets its own institutional needs before all others. But surely the first priority of the National Health system is not the system but the patient. In this context, I suggest that the policy of working towards the very large and therefore often remote hospital needs thought on other levels than efficiency and the concentration of expertise and expensive equipment. Those who work in such large institutions sometimes see the disadvantages very clearly. I heard an observation from a psychiatric consultant whose offices have just been moved to a vast new health factory. He remarked that one needed to be in first-class mental health just to find it. I believe that is a serious criticism of what could be the outcome of these vast institutions for those who are taken there, sometimes literally in fear of their lives, in order to be restored—as it is hoped—to better health.
If it is argued that present resources are insufficient—it is undoubtedly true that in some parts of the country they are—it is also important to note that insufficiency of resources is not just related to needs in some objective sense but is complicated by demands for services, and those demands are, of course, affected by what people have been led to expect or what is understood to be available. I believe that this kind of a resources dilemma will become more important as it becomes clearer that we do not live in an automatically expanding economy. So the local community must be organised more and more for local activity. It is just not possible to go on adding ad infinitum to the number of people who

713
are paid as professionals for dealing with other people's problems.
I believe it is almost certainly not healthy to go on endlessly in that direction. After all, the National Health Service is a national health service, and not a national sickness service. If it is concerned with prevention—as I think it ought to be far more than it is—as well as with diagnosis and the treatment of disease, then we need to ask whether our technological skill in doing this is producing an impersonal style of hospital medicine, so that birth and death, the two great events of life, take place more and more as clinical events, and less and less in a family context.
I believe it is essential to recover a value system in hospitals which gives care of patients priority even over the cure of disease. Doctors and nurses and the ancillary professions must get together to work out their ethical values. At present the doctors are too divided on important issues such as, for example, when to prolong life or to let people die. Implicit in the care of people there is surely the need for a reassessment of our own use of high technology medicine in acute hospitals, involving great expense and specialisation. We need to give priority to community services for care in the home, for home helps and district nurses; I know areas where there are certainly not enough of these and where that need cannot as yet be supplied. We must recognise that the sky is not the limit in health care. There is such a thing as enough.
My Lords, this inevitably means there are things which we cannot do, and that there are some people—this is a terribly serious thing to say—whose lives cannot be prolonged except at the expense of others whose health is not being safeguarded. We must face this hard fact and discuss how we can approach these immense problems in the most humane spirit. I have only to mention the treatment of terminal illness, already referred to implicitly. Are we to keep people isolated so that they live longer, or are we to permit them to die in a community context? In our approach to geriatrics—all of us are moving steadily in that direction—we should ask ourselves how much should be expended in warding off the deterioration of old age, and what good is done to them, and for whose good.
714
Then there is the question of the choice of expending scarce funds on very complex treatment units such as accident centres, for transplantations, and so on; wonderful and attractive things, but how important are they in terms of what is really a National Health Service? It has been suggested to me, by some who have thought long and hard about this aspect of it all, that on careful exploration and reflection it can be shown that their health treatment could be better done; much could be better left undone, and much could be done differently with less resources.
My Lords, I am glad mention has been made of community health councils, because I believe they can have a very significant part to play, although it seems far too soon as yet to judge their efficacy. Some about which I have heard seem to be insufficiently serviced as against those multitudinous hospital committees, full of people making sure they work despite their inability otherwise to do so. But with these community health councils, there can be an involvement of the community in the whole process of health, so as to enable more and more of us to get out of the obsession with illness and sickness in its various forms. The more we think about these things the more we can become open to infection, and I use that word in a non-medical sense.
My Lords, we need to be wary of over-professionalism, although at the same time I believe if the community health councils or any other aspects of the Hospital Service are to work well, then we cannot do without our professionals. Nor must they be handicapped in their professional independence, either within the National Health Service or outside it. May I close with a short quotation from the most experienced of the hospital chaplains in my own diocese. He writes:
"There is no doubt that many of the general public have the idea, and they have been led to believe, that there are unlimited resources and that every demand can be satisfied. The education of the public in the realities of the situation seems to be of importance, and at the same time people may well have to learn to do more for themselves, for their own physical and spiritual wellbeing. While we must be thankful for the presence of experts in the field of community care, quite clearly they are not coping with all the demands and are never likely to do so. To take away personal responsibility can never be right."
8.36 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I feel sorely tempted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham in his excellent speech, particularly his reflections on the problems that face all of us in our geriatric state, and when he touched on the fringes of euthanasia. But there have been already so many excellent contributions in this debate that, at this late hour, there are only a few points I would venture to touch upon, even at some slight risk of repetition. First, I think we must all deplore the fact that industrial action has been taken by medical men; whether junior hospital doctors or senior consultants. On that issue, there should never be any doubt.
Secondly, I feel it is time to call a halt to sniping at the Minister. This can only confuse the issues and do no good whatever to the doctors' case. Moreover, the present Minister has inherited an appalling legacy from many years past, one which would have bedevilled any Minister trying to cope with existing problems. I dimly recollect having made a maiden speech 11 years ago on this very Subject, the malaise existing then in the National Health Service. That was a convenient diagnosis way back in 1964. Since then, matters have become steadily worse. Today, we are faced with almost a head-on confrontation between the Government and the medical profession.
My Lords, I recall an occasion just a year ago when I was with a Parliamentary delegation in the Caribbean, and the local airline could not maintain its scheduled services. The pilots did not go on strike or work to rule; they merely announced that henceforth they would operate with "lack of enthusiasm", and so the aeroplanes between the islands merely arrived some two or three hours late, and the passengers were thankful if they arrived at all. Today, the supreme act of statesmanship would be to rekindle the enthusiasm of the medical profession. Every young doctor qualifies with some sense of a mission, with a burning enthusiasm to go out into the world, and heal the sick. The aim of any Minister should be to keep that enthusiasm alive through the whole of a doctor's career. It is not primarily a matter of pay, but rather of the climate in which the doctor has to work.
The medical profession, by its very nature, is the most difficult profession in
716
the world for which to legislate. A doctor's relationship is intensely personal towards each individual patient. His diagnosis often has to be tentative and his treatment empirical, related to the particular patient rather than to his particular illness. That is why we flounder so often in trying to assess his salary scales. During an intricate operation, when the patient may be hovering between life and death, and the slip of a scalpel may prove fatal, how can we assess the level of a doctor's salary in terms of the human life on the operating table?
Surely, the best we can attempt to do is to ensure that a doctor is enabled to carry out his duties free from any financial anxieties, and free to concentrate all of his skills on his work. This may well be the ultimate ideal for which to aim, but in the meantime, it seems utterly wrong that today, just in the midst of our present economic crisis, doctors should withdraw their help, in demanding higher scales of pay. They may go slow or work without enthusiasm, but to withhold their labour entirely, is, in my view, quite unforgiveable.
And yet, cannot something be done to dispel the present mood of discontent? I believe the statistics of doctors who emigrate are totally misleading; they are merely the tip of the iceberg. For every doctor who is able to emigrate there may be a dozen or more frustrated, embittered or disillusioned who would willingly emigrate if only they could. It is this feeling of profound dissatisfaction that has eaten into the heart of our National Health Service today. I recall a proverb of my younger days, "You may take a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink".
So where does the power of Parliament come in? Do we appeal to the doctor's patriotism, to his loyalty, to his law-abiding nature, to his respect for the institution of Parliament and to his dedication to his Hippocratic Oath? Of course, we appeal to all of these, but, in the last resort, what sanctions can we impose without endangering innocent human lives? One cannot arrive at a difficult diagnosis by democratic means, nor perform an intricate operation successfully by Act of Parliament. To that extent the role of a legislator is limited, and even the highest court in the country cannot compel. Moreover, in the last resort, every medical practice is a private

717
practice, based on a doctor's private knowledge, experience and understanding of his patient's stresses and anxieties, all worked out in the inner recesses of the doctor's mind. What we can do is to create a climate of co-operation and mutual trust, to enable the doctor's mind to work in an atmosphere of quiet confidence, with his skills unhurried and unharassed.
This does not mean a profession which is pampered or feather-bedded or singled out as another special case, but it does mean a profession keen with enthusiasm, always on its toes in the interests of its patients. Let us never forget that in the bad old days, before the NHS, consultants gave their services to the hospitals entirely free of charge, without any fees at all; junior hospital doctors were glad to work without any salary, merely for their subsistence, and senior registrars were proud and honoured to work full time for pocket money alone. The same was true of our nurses in those bad old days. But those days have now gone for ever. Yet the same spirit of dedication to medicine, and through medicine to the community, still survives in our midst today.
What then, as others have already asked this evening, has gone wrong? Today it is virtually impossible for most consultants to live on their private practice alone. The wealthy patients are no longer there in large enough numbers. Middle-class patients no longer have the means, and have rushed to join the various contributory schemes, such as BUPA or PPP, to opt for the doctor of their own choice. So most consultants today must depend, either wholly full-time, or part-time, on the NHS. And when a doctor achieves eminence in his profession he often finds the strain of whole-time service in the NHS too exacting, and reverts to part-time work to leave himself more free time for medical reading and research. Moreover, in the old pre-NHS days, hospitals had to compete with each other for private benefactions, and to make do with smaller administrative staffs. They had to economise rigidly in order to survive at all. So it became inevitable that the voluntary hospitals could not continue and the State had to come to their rescue.
Standards of medical practice in this country are, I believe, still the highest in the world. Woe betide that we should
718
ever sink to the cut-throat, beggar-my-neighbour standards of medicine in the United States. But how can they be maintained in this country in both the public and private sectors? Surely by each helping the other, and drawing the best out of both. The only justification, in my view, for the separation of the private from the public sector of medicine would be if, by so doing, the standards of both could be improved in the interest of the patients. I cannot believe that it is in the interest of the patients that National Health medicine should be improved and private medicine allowed to go hang. Surely, the Government cannot be indifferent to maintaining the highest possible standards of medicine in the private sector as well as in the public sector. Today we subsidise excellence in so many diverse fields in the private sector, in the Arts, in music, in the theatre. Should not excellence in the healing art, in both the public and the private sector, also stake its claim for Government aid?
What then can we do in the present impasse? I believe that we ought to rescue what was best in the old system and adapt it to the needs of the new. Above all, we ought to revive the enthusiasm of the younger doctors, who knew not the bad old days, and are eager to devote their highest skills to the patients of today. Perhaps the climate of medicine needs a little altering, and highly skilled men should be released from the tedium of endless committee work and be free to devote more of their time to the study of their art and the practice of their skills. Perhaps general practitioners should be released from some of the less essential form filling, of supplementary certificates, long lists of prescriptions, that distract a doctor from his role as a healer. If he were adequately paid, there would be none of these petty claims for extra remuneration.
I believe that medicine today is as glorious a vocation as ever it was. The medical staff of a hospital is the keystone of the arch, and if it is removed the whole edifice is in danger of crumbling. Perhaps one may take comfort in the fact that the consultative document is not yet a final declaration of policy, and its concluding paragraph states that the Secretary of State will still welcome comments from all concerned. Perhaps we may also draw

719
comfort from the fact that the Royal Commission has not yet started its inquiries and that the Prime Minister has personally intervened in the doctors' disputes. But if there is a continued failure to gain the confidence of the medical profession, a failure to revive its lost enthusiasm, then the National Health Service is likely to remain in the doldrums for a long time yet to come.
8.50 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, much of the current controversy in the National Health Service seems to centre round such issues as pay beds and mainly concerns itself with the acute sector. But do your Lordships realise that nearly 50 per cent. of all hospital beds are occupied by mentally ill or mentally handicapped people? In her foreword to the White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Ill, Mrs. Castle said that mental illness is a major health problem, perhaps the major health problem of our time. More than 24 million working days are lost each year to mental illness; 5 million people a year consult their doctor about a mental health problem.
While money continues to be poured into the more fashionable and more acute specialties, mental health services languish in a state of apathy and low morale brought on by constant neglect, constant under-financing, and a failure to afford mental health services the resources they need to cope with the size of the problem. Persistent under-financing has created conditions that would arouse outrage were they found in general hospitals. Recently I myself heard the Secretary of State for Social Services admit that the neglected areas of the Health Service might well have received more material support had public concern been expressed with comparable vigour to that which emerged in the educational sector. These people are unable to speak for themselves. There is still time to think again. It would be madness for any society to ignore mental health, which cuts across every conceivable social issue.
Since 1974 local authorities have been given greater freedom to establish their own priorities when submitting applications for loan sanctions, but how can Central Government ensure that these
720
authorities are building up those services and providing the neccessary care and after-care? I believe that it should be mandatory on local authorities to provide these services. At the moment, there is an imbalance between the health and the social services. These problems are interrelated and should be considered in the overall context of the National Health Service.
The National Health Service could be crucial in helping patients, many of whom no longer need hospital care but have to remain because no other facilities exist to leave hospital and resettle in the community. But domiciliary and day care social services are already under pressure as a result of cuts in public expenditure, and this would increase the demands on them. May I remind your Lordships that there are 645 children under the age of 15 years in psychiatric hospitals, some being cared for in adult wards.
Much of the development envisaged in the White Paper seems to depend on effective joint planning. Large mental hospitals can be phased out only as specialist district services are built up, and these in turn must rely on adequate support services in terms of day and residential provision. At the moment, it is probably voluntary organisations such as Mind local mental health associations who are doing most to move patients out into the community.
I realise that the financial constraints stop any major developments, but I must suggest to your Lordships that some of the proposals in the White Paper could be implemented now. If wards in mental hospitals were to be split into divisions, each division being a part of the hospital serving one health district, this would be the first step in the relocation of specialist services in the community and would not require additional capital or revenue expenditure. Secondly, provision of a 24-hour crisis intervention service. This is already operating in some areas and can often be the means of avoiding admission to hospital. Thirdly, the provision of in-service training for social workers in contact with the mentally ill. This need not be costly and could contribute to a much more effective and humane use of services. Regional planning now during this period of financial restraint would

721
ensure that any plans could be implemented without delay when resources become more readily available. Hospitals should be taking the lead in jointly funded health and social projects which would enable hospital patients to move into community facilities, perhaps also funded jointly by the health and social services.
The Department of Health and Social Security should consider further the potential sale of surplus hospital land in order to finance further services. There is a need for much more qualified manpower, and care must be taken to make the maximum use of present resources both of manpower and finance. There is no need for further legislation. There is plenty of legislation on mental handicap already on the books. We should also be looking at the possibility of re-housing patients through the Housing Corporation. "Mind" has talked to my noble friend Lord Goodman, and plans are under way for housing in one area of London. The Royal Commission on the National Health Service must reflect the high proportion of beds occupied by the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. It should have a good representation from the statutory and the voluntary sectors of the Health Service.
May I beg the Government to take the lead in initiating a public education campaign together with local authorities and voluntary bodies. At the moment all the Press talk about are the small numbers of ex-Broadmoor patients who tend to represent one type of patient, the psychopath. This is not representative of the vast majority of mentally ill or mentally handicapped people. There are problems—no one can deny this. Assessment procedures set up by social workers to deal with the elderly mentally ill and children at risk demand co-operative working and good communication systems to be effective. Increased failures to follow up or to communicate seem certain to arise in the present disrupted situation. The lack of adequate consultant psychiatric cover in some areas has been a topic on which the British Association of Social Workers has expressed concern to the BMA. Nevertheless, we have a Health Service second to none, and one to be proud of. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I cannot
722
stay until the end of the debate, but I have to catch a train.
8.58 p.m.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, I first wish to comment on the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services that by the closing of 2,400 pay beds the Service would be acquiring the equivalent of four district hospitals. Such a statement is a totally misleading simplification; it is unacceptable. The whole is always greater than the part, and it is wrong to suggest that the complex organisation and achievements of four large district hospitals can be equalled by many small parts or groups of beds scattered diffusely across the country. Apart from this incorrect presentation, the cost of administration and upkeep of 2,400 beds would be an additional charge on the already overstretched and under-financed National Health Service. At present this is met by charges to private patients variously estimated, as we have heard, at £20 million or £40 million.
I next wish to put forward the evidence that much harm is being done to the National Health Service by the present policies of the Government and the Sectary of State. Essentially the threat is to the freedom of action of doctors. So much has been written and spoken about the steady and progressive deterioration of the NHS that it is scarcely necessary to repeat all the arguments, with most of which your Lordships are familiar, and indeed have heard today. The outstanding feature, one that is so significant and is doing so much harm to the Service, is the flight of doctors from the country. We have heard and continue to hear of many senior consultants, even professors, who have decided to pack up, in addition to many younger doctors who have only recently finished their training. For example, early in October we were told of a distinguished woman professor who was leaving a famous London hospital for a post in the United States and was taking with her 10 of her research team, including three doctors, three science graduates along with some junior and senior technicians.
At about the same time we heard of various other specialists who were leaving, most significantly several radiotherapists, who are in short supply, who take about 10 years to train in a close specialty

723
and whose departure is determined, even precipitated, by the threat to withdraw the ability to use independently the highly complex and expensive apparatus which at present they are permitted to use, not infrequently for no payment to themselves. They see only continuing frustration in Great Britain. This is a serious loss to the country because their skills are scarce and it takes so many years to replace them. Similar examples can he repeated many times.
It is not solely a question of being deprived of the ability to carry out some private practice. In fact, many of those who complain and who, because of frustration and interference with their freedom of action, have decided to emigrate, are engaged in full-time employment with the NHS and have never engaged in private practice. It is the loss of or interference with professional freedom that disturbs them and which they feel is so unacceptable, especially the threat of future loss. On this the profession is firmly united. There could be no better example of that than a letter written to The Times on 29th September by Sir George Pickering, formerly Professor of Medicine at St. Mary's Hospital and Regius Professor of Physics at Oxford.
Sir George said:
"I worked for three London teaching hospitals, 30 years of that time being as a Professor of Medicine… In my experience, quality of service did not depend on whether the doctor did private practice or not. It depended upon the ability of the doctors, upon the excellence of their training and, above all, on their morale. Morale in turn depended on the character of the doctor or nurse and on whether or not they were satisfied with their conditions of work and enjoyed a measure of professional freedom. ….During the whole of my service I never received fees from private patients and I refused two opportunities to take up private practice, not because I had any objection to it but because I was far too interested in teaching and research and in the patients whom I had to serve as a Professor of Medicine. I just had not got the time….In the past few years there has been a sad decline in the morale of senior doctors employed in the Hospital Service. This is due first to the increasing yoke of bureaucracy imposed by the reorganisation of the Health Service of 1974. Now is added a new threat, that decisions concerning the NHS are based on politics and not on the best interests of the sick. Doctors ask themselves, who wants to work for that kind of Service? Where I young again I certainly would not. I would emigrate to a country where my colleagues and I could try to preserve the professional standards to which I have become accustomed."
724
Sir Herbert Seddon, a distinguished ortho-paedic surgeon, wrote that he was badly shaken by Sir George Pickering's sad letter and especially by the statement that if he were young again he would get out, emigrate.
One noble Lord referred to the fact that this move to emigrate was only the tip of the iceberg and that many people would like to emigrate but had not done so. There is, in fact, a flood of refugees. A recent assessment in the Daily Telegraph mentioned the answers to a questionnaire about leaving Britain and included 99 surgeons. 48 physicians, 45 anaesthetists, 31 radiologists, 35 psychiatrists and 39 gynaecologists; also that the Australian authorities had confirmed that 221 British doctors had applied for assisted passages last year, treble the number applying in 1973. The BMA reported that in the first six months of this year 622 doctors asked its special emigration inquiry department about appointments abroad. This was 76 more than in the whole of 1974. The United States Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates tested 1,800 doctors from Southern England alone at its last examination in London. Even though some of those leaving the country may return, the cumulative effect is very serious and, I repeat, within a few years many of those who have left, if not already consultants, will have reached that status and are a complete and serious loss to the NHS.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has given some very impressive figures. Will he please now tell your Lordships how many of them took up those options? If he cannot, I can.
Lord BROCK: I am unable to say how many took up the options, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will tell the House.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but is not the real point the fact that they wish to emigrate, whether or not they are able to do so?
Lord BROCK: My Lords, this yearly loss is becoming increasingly serious and represents a bleeding of the trained medical profession in Britain. It means that the supply of doctors, including many highly trained ones who can be replaced with difficulty, if at all, is running down. This is a loss that we cannot

725
afford, just as a patient cannot tolerate a steady and increasing loss of blood, of haemorrhage. We must recognise that this is what is happening as a direct result of the way in which the NHS is governed and functions; and the loss has been accelerated and made worse by both the action and the mistrust of action taken by the Government in proclaiming their intention to phase out private beds in hospitals, and the conviction that this will be a prelude to the introduction of compulsory State service and complete loss of professional freedom. It is the threat to freedom, not the closing of private beds, that is the cause of the trouble.
Why is this grave step being taken? Why, in times already troublous and anxious, are we faced with this extra worry and this extra threat to our well-being? The Labour Party maintains that in two Election Manifestos it has committed itself to doing this. It protests that the promises in the Manifesto to phase out private beds must be implemented. The Labour Party seems unimpressed that the number of voters expressing an opinion on its Manifesto was no more than 40 per cent., and the proportion of voters who supported them was only some 30 per cent. It is not possible to assess how many of these were actually influenced by the content of the Manifestos, even if they read them. The Government loudly declaim that they are bound by their Manifestos and that these are a complete answer to their provocative and destructive action, action which is causing great distress and destruction of morale among the medical profession, constantly and repeatedly declared. It is a terrible criticism of the-action of the Govenment that they have led astray—some might even say corrupted—the doctors by their cruel and insensitive threat to a great profession which ordinarily sets its ethical standards very high. In that, I refer to a matter which has been mentioned very often this afternoon—the temptation to strike action.
This is no new situation. It is one that was presented convincingly and emphatically by Shakespeare over 300 years ago in his play The Merchant of Venice. Surely this is a straight Merchant of Venice situation. The unpleasant character in the play, Shylock, makes much of the bond he holds, just as the
726
Government keep yelping about their wretched Manifesto. "Give me my bond, give me my pound of flesh," is the truculent and malevolent demand even when mercy and compassion are suggested.
" My deeds upon my head! I crave the law…
There is no power in the tongue of man
To alter me: I stay here on my bond."
The answer to Antonio the Merchant is, "Therefore lay bare your bosom." And this the doctors are expected to do. They are expected to submit like lambs to the slaughter.
" Have by some surgeon. Shylock, on your charge,
To stop his wounds, lest he do bleed to death?"
Shylock replies,
" Is it so nominated in the bond?"
Does the Manifesto say that the life of the NHS must be guarded lest it do bleed to death? Portia replies:
It is not so express'd; but what of that?
'Twere good you do so much for charity."
This suggestion is brushed aside.
" I cannot find it: 'tis not in the bond."
That is to say, let the doctors go to the devil and the NHS with them. We know only too well the next comment of Portia but it would appear that the Government are not aware of its significance. At the risk of being thought tedious and of telling your Lordships something you know only too well and probably learned at school, I must remind your Lordships of it and the Government of its significance.
" This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
The words expressly are ' a pound of flesh ' …"
The disreputable character in the play realises the position he has placed himself in and tries to withdraw, but without success. I maintain that, in declaring the rights and justification of their Manifesto, the Government are placing themselves in exactly the same position as did our unpleasant character who loudly declared the justice of his bond. It might be excusable if the Government were able to get their pound of flesh without shedding blood—if the excision of pay beds were the sole achievement. But much else will be lost, as is only too well seen by contemplating the present sad state of the NHS. The Government have been told time and again that they

727
are also destroying professional freedom. As they take this pound of flesh, they must be made to realise that they are also taking the lifeblood of the NHS. Even our unpleasant character in the play suddenly realised the full consequences of his action and tried with withdraw.
I am now pointing out to the Government the full consequences of their action, which they do not seem to have grasped or appreciated. I ask them whether they intend to insist on their pound of flesh and the profound and fateful results which will spring from it; that is, the steady loss of the lifeblood of medicine and of the NHS. Although this may in part be checked by the skill, devotion and readiness of the doctors to face this calamitous situation, they can only check the amount of harm which will result, but the amount of harm will still be incalculable. I challenge the Government to think again, deeply, conscientiously and intelligently before they insist on their Manifesto and on their pound of flesh.
9.6 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a late intervention, not being on the speakers' list. The reason why my name is not on the speakers' list is that I thought that, in view of my past involvement with this matter, it would be better for me not to make a contribution. However, in the course of listening to your Lordships' debate on this subject, a quite non-controversial analogy has occurred to me in which matters in controversy between the parties or between the Government and the profession have in another context been solved. I feel that it may perhaps be worth reconsideration.
In the field of transport, one can buy a first- or second-class ticket. The first-class passengers do not jump the queue if passengers are queuing up to get on to the station. It is entirely an option of the consumer whether he buys a first- or a second-class ticket. There are no politics of envy or malice about this at all. If one has a short journey and is in good physical health, one probably saves the money and travels second-class—at least, I do. But, if it is a long journey and one has arthritis and one does not like to be cramped, or perhaps if one wishes to
728
use the train journey from London to Edinburgh to catch up on reading and papers and wants to travel only three to a side so that one's papers can be spread out on one's lap, one can travel first-class. There is no class prejudice about it in the social sense. It is simply a buyer's option. Since we have solved this matter satisfactorily and, in the social sense, without tension in the field of transport, is it beyond the wit of man somehow to preserve a feeling of natural justice, which is what people want, so that, having paid, as it were, a contribution to a minimum standard of public health, the consumer can add to it from his own means and at his own wish out of the income left to him after he has paid his taxes? That is all I want to say and I hope it will be accepted in a non-controversial spirit.
9.14 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as the thirtieth speaker in this debate I should like, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Aberdare for introducing this Motion today. Surely to attract such a very large number of speakers at this most appropriate date has been a great personal triumph. The fact that the debate has attracted two maiden speakers is of very great significance—and it is a particular pleasure that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York was one of them. In his most notable speech, which lasted only four minutes, we recognised immediately that the House has been exceedingly fortunate that he has been appointed to this very high office, and we thank him for what he said today. My noble friend Lord Kemsley also addressed your Lordships in a most notable speech, which lasted eight minutes. Thus, we have had two Members making maiden speeches with that admirable quality of brevity which I am quite sure can be reflected by many of us; and I shall endeavour to do so.
We have examined in very great depth the question before your Lordships concerning the condition of the National Health Service. Perhaps I may be allowed to begin in the international context and consider the Health Service as one of the National Health Services of the world. This is a very significant moment in world health because that scourge of mankind since the years of the Pharaohs—smallpox—is all but defeated,

729
eliminated, and expunged from human experience. This is indeed a year to mark down in world health. I understand that the World Health Authority believes that its monitoring system throughout the world is in sufficiently good a condition as to expect that after a period of years it will be able to confirm this particularly welcome piece of news for mankind; and the National Health Service should be congratulated for its part in monitoring, in preventive action, in examination, and for all its other work. But do not let us forget the work of Dr. Edward Jenner, the founder of vaccination, who performed that very great service to mankind. In his death in 1823 mankind lost one of its greatest friends in the health field. With that historical recollection—
Lord PLATT: My Lords, Edward Jenner would not have been allowed to carry out his experiment today, because it was done on a boy aged 9, and one cannot now experiment on children.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for the very helpful intervention.
There is no doubt whatsoever what has been upper-most in the minds of your Lordships this afternoon; that is, the present situation in which the National Health Service finds itself. I believe that the spirit of the debate was reflected in one of the remarks of my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland, who said that she had great faith, and not despair, in the Health Service. She is not here at the moment, since she came to the House earlier suffering from a severe cold. I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that the quality of her speech stemmed from a very deep knowledge of the whole of the health and hospital service.
It is a hard task to attempt to sum up from this side of the House the excellent speeches which have been made. There have been very few speeches which one could regard as being of an abrasive character. Certainly my noble friend Lord Aberdare opened the debate with an extremely healing speech. In other circumstances—and perhaps in another place—it would have been an opportunity to handle the debate in a wholly different manner, but my noble friend entered into the debate from a very different viewpoint, from a spirit of inquiry and con-
730
ciliation. This has been reflected in many speeches, but it is very remarkable that out of 29 speeches there have been only three which have come out on a different side, against pay beds. This issue is not necessarily the most important; nevertheless, it has commanded considerable attention in your Lordships' House for its obvious connotation and link with the medical profession. I think we must take the view this evening—I hope the Government will take the view of the House this evening—that your Lordships feel that the referral of this matter to the Royal Commission would be of very great benefit.
I should like to comment first of all on the question of agency nurses. As your Lordships are aware, there are no fewer than 11,000 in this category. Approximately 8,000 to 9,000 agency nurses are probably working at any one time, of which about 5,000 are working within the National Health Service; and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, stressed the need to retain the maximum number. The agency nurses have behaved with very great dignity throughout this issue of pay, and, although they have accepted a very much lower award, they have continued in their duties and have not, I think, complained over-much. I feel they deserve the Government's very close and sympathetic attention to their predicament.
The morale of the National Health Service was stressed by many noble Lords, and I feel that issue was raised in regard to the question of the Humberside study of reorganisation. But surely, my Lords, if the whole issue is to be placed before the Royal Commission we shall look forward to their impartial judgment on whether or not the various tiers of organisation are necessary.
In regard to finance, much depends on this factor. I think I must begin by mentioning and quoting the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he said—and I think I took down his words correctly:
" Doctors accept cuts from a Conservative Government which they would not accept from a Labour Government ".
I think that is accurate. If I may comment upon that statement, the fact is that the doctors believed they were acting in the national interest when they accepted this cut, which was imposed upon them

731
by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, when there was a reduction in the health budget to £3,860 million.
My Lords, I think that the nursing profession as a whole owes a very great debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, whom the House was delighted to hear when he made his brief intervention—all too brief, if I may say so—at the very end of the debate. There is no doubt about it. The nursing profession has been hitherto underpaid and perhaps exploited, but the work of the noble Earl's Committee has done a very great deal to redress the situation.
My Lords, I was particularly interested in the most reverend Primate's speech, when he referred to managerial techniques which are at present employed in the National Health Service, and the fact that he queried whether these should be employed as they are employed at the present moment. He was indeed supported in this by his right reverend brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, and I believe that both speeches reflected a philosophical anxiety about a problem which is very nearly insoluble but perhaps not quite insoluble. It is that now, and indeed in the future, only the very large hospitals can attract the important techniques and equipment necessary for the most advanced variety of treatment for diseases.
At the same time, the anxiety of the patient in such circumstances, in an environment which must be wholly strange to the patient, is something which can be only a matter of concern to those who are very much involved in the Health Service. These clearly will be matters for the Royal Commission to concern themselves with; but I think that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, placed her finger on something which has been worrying noble Lords. That has been the activities of NUPE, NALGO and COHSE. She said that NUPE, particularly, "has been petty and spiteful". It is a matter of great concern that the National Association of Local Government Officers, three months ago, in September, urged its members to file objections to all planning applications for new local hospitals within their areas. This has added a dimension to the argument which has been wholly unwelcome and
732
unfortunate in the circumstances. Activities which have taken place the past have added greatly to the fuel in the circumstances and have been wholly unnecessary and harmful to the actions of those trying to conciliate between the parties.
The licensing of hospitals was mentioned especially in his maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Kemsley. We agree with him that there is great concern that the licensing system to be adopted by the Secretary of State will be unlikely to reduce waiting lists in National Health Service hospitals. I think that every noble Lord would agree with what he said; that is, that every bed in a private hospital releases one bed or makes necessary one less bed in a National Health Service hospital. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, made a particularly interesting speech in which he questioned the whole structure of the Health Service and recommended that it should be dismantled and restructured. At this late hour I feel totally unqualified to comment on such a statement, but also I feel that this, too, is a matter most appropriately to be dealt with by the Royal Commission. Nevertheless, the noble Lord ended his speech by expressing his desire for the re-establishment of trust between the Government and the profession.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, was particularly welcomed on this side of the House. He, too, mentioned the question of licensing and suggested it would be a stranglehold both on patients and on the profession and should be firmly resisted in every way. I feel that, in present circumstances, the statement which is before the House in the Consultative Document may perhaps be misinterpreted; nevertheless, it is the only interpretation we can place upon it.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn commented in some depth as a professional dentist. I was particularly glad to hear what he said although I did not altogether agree with him. Your Lordships have not had the opportunity to discuss the very large, thick and valuable document entitled, Childrens' Dental Health in England and Wales, 1973. It is a monumental survey carried out in collaboration with the Department of Dental Health at the University of Birmingham and the

733
DHSS. It is, I think, relevant to what my noble friend said because he was concerned with the preventive system of dentistry and also was recommending to your Lordships that an expenditure of £5 million on fluoridation would cut the incidence of dental caries by half. It so happens that I totally disagree with his point of view; nevertheless, I am not a professional dentist.
He stressed that there is an issue here, and I should like to refer to a problem that has occurred in two parts of the United Kingdom; namely, in Kilmarnock in Scotland and Anglesey in Wales. As your Lordships may be aware, in Kilmarnock fluoridation of water supplies was undertaken. Further, it was adopted for a period of years and totally rejected as unsatisfactory. In Anglesey, a much more interesting situation has taken place. In 1955 Anglesey fluoridated half the county; the other half of the county was to act as a control area. In 1964 the control area was abandoned. In 1973 the local authority decided by a majority of 27 votes to 3 to terminate fluoridation. This decision was communicated to the Area Health Authority, but it felt itself unable to act, so approaches were made to their Member of Parliament, the right honourable Cledwyn Hughes and also to the community health council which adopted the same attitude as the local authority. This is an issue, because here is the machinery of consultation in operation, and evidently there is a blockage in the pipeline because the Area Health Authority finds itself unable to act in these circumstances. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could look into this matter and write to me at a later stage about it. I do not expect a reply this evening because the matter has a considerable history.
The incidence of dental caries, especially among young people, is a matter for grave concern. The Report to which I alluded was concerned with a sample of no less than 13,000 children in England and Wales aged between 5 and 15. In this particular study their mothers took part and greatly assisted with their knowledge of their children's dental health. On page 85 of the Report, table 10.8 shows that only 5 per cent. of mothers thought that fluoridation of water supplies helped, while regular teeth cleaning and avoidance of sweets was the over-
734
-whelming majority decision, between 65 per cent. and 73 per cent. for different age groups.
I should like to refer to all the speeches, but at this late hour it would be unprofitable to do so. I cannot close my remarks without referring to a particularly important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. Your Lordships will agree that, from the noble Lord's wide and deep knowledge of the profession, and his long association with all branches of it, the Government should pay particular attention to what he said. He was emphatically against the phasing out of private patients in National Health Service hospitals, and he was at the same time particularly suspicious of the licensing provisions put forward by the Secretary of State. He laid stress on the fact that the wording of the Consultative Document was particularly ambiguous, and he had a point there as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, noted at the time. The noble Lord shakes his head. Nevertheless, if he reads Hansard tomorrow, I think he will he inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill.
I should like to draw my remarks to a close, after speaking for 20 minutes. I should not like any noble Lord who has spoken and whom I have not mentioned to feel that either I have been absent from the Chamber or not paid particular attention to what has been said, but time precludes a total examination. It would appear that the situation which the medical profession and the Government find themselves in today is one similar to a fable well known to your Lordships—that of Old Man Kangeroo and Yellow Dog Dingo. Old Man Kangeroo and Yellow Dog Dingo chased each other around all day and then under the night sky they turned and faced each other and said simultaneously, "It's your fault!" I think the accusations and counter-accusations may well be resolved in the efforts which we believe are being undertaken at the present moment: that is, the intervention of the Prime Minister and his advisers in a situation which has been fraught with very great difficulty. We hope that these conciliatory activities will bear great fruit.
9.35 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to resist the temptation to reply

735
in great detail to certain noble Lords, because I did put the position of the Government and, if I may say so, my own position too, quite clearly and quite frankly when I followed the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. This has been an unusual debate, in the sense that 25 per cent. of the speakers are very distinguished members of the medical profession. I could not help thinking, while sitting here for something just over six hours: "If I am going to be ill in the future, please let it be now!" I am sure I should get first-class treatment without delay.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can take some comfort from the fact that whatever may be the outcome of this debate he has provided an opportunity for people to discharge a reasonable amount of emotion, and the cathartic effect of this debate must be of immeasurable value to a number of noble Lords who have taken part. I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that, sitting here, I began to ask myself: "What is your role in the intervening period?" As most people seemed to address their remarks to me, I came to the conclusion that at that particular time I was, so to speak, a passive bucket into which people were being emotionally sick. I think that is a good medical term, so it should meet with approval.
All I want to do now is to answer as quickly as possible some of the questions that have been put to me. I may have missed some of them, although I hope not. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised the matter of the health care planning teams. We have issued, as he knows, a draft circular. I know that he was exercised in his mind about when we were going to issue a final circular. All I can say to him at the moment is that shortly we shall be issuing to authorities further guidance in the form of a final circular, setting out the steps needed to secure the joint care approach to planning. This will in fact cover the health care planning teams which the noble Lord has in mind.
He also raised the question of the re-examination of the figures for the extra duty allowance. I can only repeat what I said earlier, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recognizes
736
the amount of work being done by junior hospital doctors. While there is the difficulty of the pay pause, there is also the matter of £12 million, and the question is, how best can the money be distributed? My right honourable friend has referred the matter to the Office of Manpower Economics which serves the Review Body, and also to the British Medical Association's statistical adviser. I understand that they met yesterday, but so far we have had no reaction at all—it is early days yet—from the British Medical Association as to the outcome of the meeting. But a meeting was arranged for this afternoon to allow the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association an opportunity to present their viewpoint, and to give the Department's officials the evidence on extra duty allowances which they believe should be brought to my right honourable friend's attention. So I think it can be sad that the matter is well and truly under way.
I answered the noble Lord's point about the addition of staff when I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, raised a number of matters and, if I may, I shall deal with them very quickly. He raised the matter of agency nurses. Health Authorities have made an encouraging start on the task of reducing the numbers of agency nurses in the National Health Service. Although numbers had increased sharply in the six months to March 1975, by the end of September—which, incidentally, was before the reduction in the rate of pay to agency nurses which took effect on 1st October —Authorities had achieved a 25 per cent. reduction; in other words, from 6,000 to 4.500. The noble Lord may be interested to know that some of the agency nurses have rejoined the NHS.
The noble Lord also raised the question of amenity beds. I did not want to interrupt him at the time, but the charge is now £3 a day and up to the end of 1974—obviously, I cannot give him figures for this year—we had in England and Wales 3,326 amenity beds. The only other matter which the noble Lord raised was the hours of work of junior hospital doctors. I think we must get the figures correct. A survey conducted for the doctors' and dentists' review body showed that the average weekly hours of duty worked by junior

737
hospital doctors were 85.6. But a lot of that time was spent on "stand-by" or on call as distinct from working, and there were 42.4 hours on call or "stand-by" compared with 43 to 44 hours on duty.
I should like to join the congratulations which other noble Lords extended to the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley. Having heard him on this occasion, we hope that he will not be so long in making his next speech and we are sure that his contribution will be just as valuable as it was today. The noble Viscount wondered how 3,000 private beds could make any different to the situation. If I may also answer a number of other noble Lords on this point, there are 4,100-odd private beds in our hospitals today, only 3,000 of which are fully occupied in the course of a year. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, as I am sure the noble Viscount will, that a bed can be occupied by between 20 and 23 people in the course of a year, the average stay in hospital normally being about 13 days, and that these 3,000 beds are in our hospitals where the staff and doctors are already. You will see that if they passed into the use of the Health Service it might well mean that we could take between 40,000 and 50,000 people off the long queue of those who want to enter hospital for medical reasons, and who have been waiting an interminable time. When I tell your Lordships that the last available figures showed that there were 517,422—over half a million—patients awaiting admission, you will see how important this is.
The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, raised a number of matters, and I hope that he will not think I am being impertinent or patronising when I say that I thought he made a very balanced speech. However, he did not give a very accurate description of the situation when he said that this was the first attempt to nationalise the profession and that there would be unwillingness on the part of this Party to allow private medicine to continue. I gave the reasons why the Government want to separate private medicine from the National Health Service. Among them is one of the matters to which I referred just now when I dealt with the points which were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley. There is to be no attempt whatsoever to abolish private practice. Nothing could
738
be further from the truth. Let us not confuse separation with elimination.
We want to separate private practice because we feel that we ought to do so, and we have our reasons which I tried to make perfectly clear to your Lordships. We recognise that we are living in a democracy and that in a democracy there is a right to free choice. We say merely that the National Health Service should be a National Health Service that is separate from the private sector. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, although if he does not mind my saying so I thought he was a little unfair. He referred to the possibility of people wanting to insure against the necessity of going into hospital and spoke in such a way that there was a vague suggestion, albeit by implication, that they might be prevented from continuing to insure themselves.
When the noble Lord raised the question of private medicine, the implication was that this was the thin end of the wedge and that the ultimate and logical outcome would be to put an end to it. There is nothing in this suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, was quite wrong when he said that one could read this into the Consultative Document and that its language is ambiguous. The language is not ambiguous. Let me say to the noble Lord, whose friendship I enjoy, that the language is ambiguous only if you want to make it so; it could not be clearer. It is not fair to suggest that we shall prevent people from themselves making the choice; nor is it fair to suggest that all of these insurance schemes may eventually be denied to them; nor is it fair to suggest for one moment that we shall put an end to private medicine.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, are concerned, as are other noble Lords, about the right which the Secretary of State will have, if we seek and obtain legislation, to say where, when and how many private institutions there shall be. I do not know on what basis this fear arises. There are only about 3,000 private beds in continuous use. Plans are already afoot—your Lordships may not know about them but I have the details here—for schemes to be carried out in different parts of the country, and

739
planning permission has been sought and given to build private hospitals, clinics and nursing homes.
In my speech at the beginning of the debate I referred to a 500-bedded hospital in the Bristol area, but there are several in London. There are many in different parts of the country, in country areas. There is no attempt to try to stop them. We want to control them and stop them spreading suddenly. We know, if noble Lords do not know, that there is plenty of money available to the profession to build these hospitals. We are going to safeguard the interests of the people of this country who want to use the National Health Service, and we want to ensure that nurses and doctors are available.
I feel it was most unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, should have attacked my right honourable friend in the way he did. I hope on reflection he, too, will feel that it was rather unfortunate. Those remarks could only have been made by somebody who does not know her. I have known her for many years. People who work and have worked with her, whether or not they agree with her politically, will tell you that she is the easiest person to work with. The noble Lord has allowed himself to fall a victim of the public image that the less reputable sections of the Press have given her. He could not have made the statement otherwise. She really is a most accommodating person. She has views and she holds them hard if she believes them to be right, but then so do I and so do we all—listen to the doctors this afternoon! There is nothing wrong with holding views strongly if they are sincere. Nothing would be achieved by changing the present Secretary of State. Of course, she would be popular among members of the medical profession, and in particular with the BMA, if she had agreed with everything they wanted. We could all buy popularity that way. The important thing is to adhere to principles that you believe to be right.
I do not want to say anything more with regard to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. I tried to deal with one or two of the points he raised when I referred to what had been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt
740
of Fawley. All I want to say is that I hope he will sincerely believe that the Government want separation and not abolition of private practice. I believe there are many people in the Labour Party who certainly would not go along with abolition. We are not so peculiar.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, raised a number of matters. He spoke about the number of beds within the private sector and the number of beds which are in private nursing homes, and said they were much the same. In point of fact, this is not so: there are over 4,000 private beds and we have in private nursing homes for long-term patients something less than 3,000 beds. One has to bear in mind that 85 per cent. of the beds we use for National Health Service patients in private nursing homes are for long-stay patients. It helps the National Health Service, and I am not putting too fine a point on it by saying that it certainly helps the nursing homes concerned.
The noble Lord asked why dental practitioners are not represented, as of right, on Health Authorities. I do not think my reply will be a satisfactory one, but the noble Lord will know that there are a number of small authorities—almost a proliferation—which have responsibilities for making various decisions which involve a whole variety of members of the medical profession. By virtue of their constitution it is not possible to have representation from the dental profession on every one of them. If the noble Lord feels that the dentists are not adequately represented on some of the small authorities then I think this is a matter we could look into, but there is the problem that they are small authorities and none of them, by virtue of size, can have an adequate representation of each section.
My Lords, the other matter raised by the noble Lord was about the £5 million a year for fluoridation. This is a difficult matter. We have gone into this but, again, it comes down to the fact that we are a democracy. Until 1973, this was a matter for individual local authorities. It is now a matter for individual Area Health Authorities. The Department of Health and Social Security have always commended the virtue of fluoridation, but no Government have felt that

741
they have the right to impose it by law; the simple reason is that there is a considerable division of opinion in this country. Until we move closer together, it would be quite wrong to enforce it by law.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, questioned the accuracy of my figures on doctors, dentists and various other people receiving increases varying from 30 per cent. to 38 per cent. I do not normally give wrong figures, but I have been at some pains to have this checked. All I can do is to refer the noble Lord to page 44 of the Report. I gather he has it there and, if that is so, he will see that, between April 1974 and April 1975, junior doctors received increases of between £657 per annum and £1,536 per annum, depending, of course, on their grade. If we work that out—we will have to take each grade separately—we find it is about 30 per cent.; if one takes the average of all doctors, the increase was about 35 per cent. If the noble Lord disagrees with me, perhaps he will let me know at some later date.
I wanted to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, because we, too, would like to express our gratitude to community health councils. We would accept all that he has said on this matter. They are at the beginning stage, but we are expecting great things of them, which we feel certain will come. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is that the dentists, we think, but I am sure the noble Lord does not, received quite substantial increases last April. This is a matter for the Review Body.
The noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Colwyn, raised the question of dental examinations. The only comment I want to make is that dental examination has always been, and will continue to be, free of charge to patients. It is true that minor treatment will cost the patient who is liable to charges rather more in the future than in the past, but I would think that the important thing is the fact that one can get examination free. While it remains free, there is really no excuse for people not using the services of their dentists. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised a very obscure point and said I
742
could write to her. If that sounds like a rebuke, it is intended to be.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I am used to it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I wish the noble Baroness had given me advance notice that she was going to raise the point. She is my major correspondent, if that sounds all right. I write more to her in the course of a year than I do to anyone else. It is not always easy to deal with the volume of correspondence that I personally have in the Department, while my colleagues at the Department each receive several thousand letters a year to which they have to reply personally. I am always loath to write a letter unnecessarily, and that makes me turn to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in the hope that I can persuade him to put down a Question rather than for me to read Hansard and to have to write to him.
I think I have replied to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who asked whether it is correct to say that pay beds are detrimental to the NHS, He may not be satisfied with my reply, but I think they are, and I would give him the reply that I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham is not here, because he said that the matter of pay beds must not be confused by politics, I do not know whether the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York will tell him to read Hansard, but I feel I must say this—I say it as a churchman, as a lay reader—that the right reverend Prelate must realise that we live by politics. We are governed by politics, and important things cannot be kept out of politics. Our decisions on both sides of the Chamber may be wrong from time to time, but, to be quite frank, if we had left the whole question of the National Health Service out of politics, we should never have had a National Health Service in this country. The Party opposite would not have introduced it. So I want to say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that it does involve politics. For us it is a matter of principle, and I would not dream of asking the right reverend Prelate, if he were here, to compromise on his own principles, which would be

743
based on some sort of ethic or Christian teaching; so far as we are concerned these considerations are just as important.
I think the only comment I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, is with regard to doctors going overseas. I do not want to repeat myself on the pay beds question. It must be very clear to noble Lords how the Government feel about this. My information is that, taking 1974 to 1975 only 64 British consultants and 42 British registrars resigned from the National Health Service in England to emigrate. Although that may seem to noble Lords to be a rather large figure, it does not seem to me to be so when you remember that we have 11,000 consultants and 2,200 senior registrars in post. We derive some comfort from the fact that Sir Cyril Clarke, who I believe is President of the Royal College of Physicians, described the figure as "not a landslide".
I think again it was the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who raised the question of consultant salaries. I do not want to take up a tremendous amount of time on that matter. Consultants in this country receive salaries of between £7,536, which is their minimum, and £10,689, and over and above that 130 of them get a distinction award of over £10,000. There are 5,142 distinction awards, varying from £2,025 at the lowest end of the scale up to £10,689. About two-thirds of consultants are on the maximum of this scale, which is £10,689, and over their working lives about one-half of consultants get a distinction award at some stage during their consultancy. I was not going to mention that, but the matter of consultants' salaries was raised and I thought that it was right and proper that I should do so. I hope that I have succeeded in answering all the questions. If I have not, perhaps noble Lords will let me know at some stage.
10.6 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall say only a word of grateful thanks to
744
all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very well informed and most interesting debate to listen to. It has also been an example of how a debate should be conducted. We have had 30 speakers—I except the noble Lord winding-up who has a very formidable task—and until the winding-up we averaged just under 15 minutes for each speech, which is a creditable performance. I should like especially to thank and congratulate on two excellent speeches the two distinguished maiden speakers, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and my noble friend Lord Kemsley. May I also say to the noble Lord that the right reverend Prelate apologised to me because he had to catch the last train home to Birmingham, and that is why he is not here. I thought the noble Lord was rather surprised that he is not here.
I should like to thank the noble Lord for his winding-up and all he has done to give us information in this debate. The gulf between us still seems to be a rather formidable one, and certainly I was not convinced by anything he said about the merits of removing private beds from the National Health Service hospitals. It seems astonishing to me that a Socialist Government, both in the health field and in the field of education, should almost be increasing the private sector, both in the direct grant schools by almost compelling them to go private, and in the case of the hospitals compelling the private sector to replace beds that otherwise would be in National Health Service hospitals. That is the Government's affair. I shall only say that if I were to press this matter of my Motion for Papers, the Papers I should ask the noble Lord to produce would be an agreement between the Government and the medical profession on these outstanding difficulties which I sincerely hope will be sorted out and solved within the next few days. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  EXOCET WEAPON SYSTEM
  EXOCET WEAPON SYSTEM