Sitting of 27 April 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HASLAR BRIDGE) BILL
    SAMUEL MONTAGU AND CO. LIMITED BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
  WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [Lords]
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
    (By Order)

    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Pay Beds
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received requesting him to reconsider his policy regarding the phasing out of private pay beds.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): My Department has received between 1,400 and 1,500 letters supporting or opposing our policy over the past two years.
    Mr. Renton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment. Will he confirm clearly that the overwhelming majority of those representations are against the principle of separating private medical practice from
    168
    the NHS? Will he tell the House how he proposes to follow up his stated intention not to be unbending about this divisive legislation?
    Mr. Ennals: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I cannot give him the assurance that he wants. Overall, about a third of the representations were in favour of the policy and about two-thirds against. I would not say that a ratio of two to one was over whelming in that sense. Many of the representations were from organisations with very large memberships, so it was not overwhelming by any means.
    As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will just have to wait. Later in the day the House will be debating the Health Services Bill. I shall then indicate my willingness to consider all sorts of questions and my willingness, provided that we do not undermine the basic principle of the Bill, not to be unbending in Committee.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome him to his new responsibilities and wish him well? In view of what he has just said, why did he give instructions that the Bill should be given a First Reading before he had even read it?
    Mr. Ennals: I did not give that instruction. I read it. In fact, I did more than that, I satisfied myself that the Bill honestly fulfilled the commitment given by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and the former Prime Minister in the House in December. Having satisfied myself, I thought that no advantage would accrue to the House or to the health service by postponing any longer the taking of action on an issue which is dealt with very clearly in this legislation.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extent to which skilled and slick pressure groups are able to make representations to Government Departments in no way makes them representative of public opinion at large? Does he agree that it would be an unwise Government who based their policies on the activities of skilled pressure groups?
    Mr. Ennals: I am prepared to listen to views from whatever source they

    169
    come. It would be unwise for me to start picking and choosing, saying "I shall hear these views but not those". I and my hon. Friends have to decide how much weight we attach to each of the representations, but the consultation must be fair and honest.
    Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people, especially women, of modest means who want to have privacy when undergoing hospital treatment and who are prepared to save for it out of their modest means as well as paying out of taxes for others to have ordinary hospital treatment? Will he bear in mind this sincere view that is held by many people?
    Mr. Ennals: It is a sincerely held view, and it can be catered for by amenity beds. One of the advantages of the phasing out of pay beds will be the increased availability of amenity beds. It would be wise to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and others know that for a quite modest fee, they may have the opportunity of privacy, provided it does not stand in the way of someone who needs the room for more urgent medical reasons.
    Mr. Speaker: We shall hear more of that later in the day.

    One-parent Allowances
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next expects to review one-parent allowances.
    Mr. Ennals: I understand that my hon. Friend's Question is directed at the supplementary benefit earnings disregard for one-parent families. As my predecessor announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) on 30th January, the Government intend to increase this disregard from £4 to £6 and I hope to bring forward the necessary legislation shortly.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even the £6 disregard is inadequate? Does he also agree that the application of the child interim benefit scheme has not been satisfactory for many single-parent families, that the advertising campaign to induce people to apply for the benefit has not been productive, and
    170
    that many disappointed applicants are bitter? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a much wider application of the scheme?
    Mr. Ennals: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the level of the disregard. To disregard too much of a person's income would distort the purpose of the supplementary benefit scheme, which is to augment inadequate incomes and bring them up to a given level. It is estimated that about 255,000 lone parents stand to gain financially from the child interim benefit scheme. Up to 6th April, 185,000 claims had been received, and that is a take-up rate of about 70 per cent. My hon. Friend said that many claimants were disappointed, but 128,000 claims have been approved and 6,314 have been disallowed, so a large proportion of claims have already been accepted. I would encourage others who would be entitled but have not yet claimed to do so. There is plenty of time.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I gather from the Secretary of State's earlier answer that he has had to do his homework quickly and come to quick decisions. Will he accept that if he studies further this cheap confidence trick known as Child Interim Benefit for one-parent families, taking account of income tax, supplementary benefit and other means-tested benefits, he will find that the only people who will benefit fully from the new scheme are single mothers under the age of 16, who would have been excluded from the scheme but for Conservative amendments which were accepted in Committee? When will the Secretary move on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—it may be too long but it is a clear exposition of what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said a moment ago—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only taking up time. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I believe, is just coming to a conclusion.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Secretary of State tell us when he will move on and make an announcement about the level of child benefits for next year for all families, so that we can see what the Government's policy for family poverty amounts to, if anything?
    Mr. Ennals: I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement before long. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is sheer nonsense and claptrap. There are 255,000 lone parents who stand to gain from the scheme, of whom 45,000 are below the tax threshold and not in receipt of either family income supplement or social security benefits. The majority of those people would get the full benefit of the £1.50. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the terms should be widened, how does he square that with the constant demands made by himself and his right hon. Friends for further cuts in public expenditure? What is he talking about'?
    Mrs. Hayman: On the general question of financial allowances for one parent families, does my right hon. Friend accept that tinkering with the supplementary benefit system is no substitute for a long-term programme of financial support for this group of families? After the Government's rejection of the guaranteed maintenance allowance suggested in the Finer Report, will my right hon. Friend undertake to initiate a departmental review into a new non-means-tested scheme of support for these families?
    Mr. Ennals: Being new to this office I shall of course listen to the points made by my hon. Friend. I recognise her dissatisfaction, and that of others, with the fact that the recommendation of the Finer Committee to which she referred was not accepted. But the proposals would have been extremely difficult to administer and had many grave disadvantages. We have to look for financial support for single-parent families within the general context of our child benefit scheme. I shall certainly look at the points made by my hon. Friend, but in my new office I have not only to accept wise decisions already taken but to look at new problems as they emerge.

    Eltham and Mottingham Hospital
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): The rationalisation of services in
    172
    Greenwich and Bexley is the responsibility in the first instance of the area health authority. No submission on the future of this hospital has been made to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm that cottage hospitals are coming back into vogue in city as well as country areas and recognise that the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital is largely supported by the local community?
    Dr. Owen: In the past there has been a tendency for hospitals to be too large, but we must look at each proposal for the retention or expansion of a hospital on its merits. Size is not the only factor. There are certain minimum sizes below which it is uneconomic to run a hospital.

    Normansfield Hospital
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of Normans field Hospital.
    Dr. Owen: The Kingston and Richmond Area Health Authority has no plans to change the role of this hospital.
    Mr. Jessel: In view of the fire risk in this mental hospital, will the Minister say when the patients on the second floor will be evacuated?
    Dr. Owen: The third floor of the building, with which was associated some fire risk, has been evacuated, and replacement beds now planned will enable evacuation of the second floor to take place. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    Mr. Jessel: I asked when.

    Pension Ages
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in 1976 in connection with respective pensionable ages of men and women.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): All the representations received by the Department of Health and Social Security have taken the form of letters. Records are not kept of the total number concerned with each specific subject, but in the first quarter of this year 163

    173
    letters about pension age received personal replies from Ministers at the Department.
    Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend will remember that a target date was set for equal pay for women. Will he give a 10-year target date for reducing the pensionable age of men to 60? Will he put forward proposals for reducing the pensionable age of men year by year until that target is reached? Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is deplorable, now that we haxe sex equality, that we are not prepared to move—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House? As the House will have noticed, in the past two sitting weeks I have deliberately allowed hon. Members to go on longer with their supplementary questions. But supplementary questions are getting longer and longer and that is unfair to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Orme: The ratio of people of working age to people of pensionable age is at present about 3½:1. The reduction of the men's pension age to 60 would bring the ratio down below 3:1, and the net cost would be more than £1,000 million a year.
    Mr. Roberts: In 10 years' time.
    Mr. Orme: I understand what my hon. Friend said, and I see the need for creating more employment prospects, but, because of the difficulties, it is not possible to make a forecast.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to explain to the country precisely why the Government cannot regularise the retirement age, in view of the expectations aroused by the principles and the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act?
    Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Lady advocating a further £1,000 million a year public expenditure? That is the corollary of what she said. The Government have considered regularising the pension ages, but at the moment it is not possible to move from the retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the bad feeling that exists among pensioners about the differential
    174
    levels of pension paid to men and women in view of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act? Will he give an early commitment to eradicate this differential?
    Mr. Orme: When the new Pensions Act comes into operation in 1978, many of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Lady will be eradicated.
    Mr. Greville Janner: In estimating the net cost of bringing down the pension age for men to the present pension age for women, has my right hon. Friend taken into account that about 750,000 jobs would be left free to be taken up by people who are today employed, who are ready, anxious and willing to get work, and who would not then receive unemployment or social security benefit for their families?
    Mr. Orme: I am aware of my hon. and learned Friend's concern about this matter and about the unemployed. We have considered this factor, but one of the major difficulties is that my hon. Friend's suggestion would not necessarily have the effect he desires.
    Mr. McCrindle: In the interest of true sex equality but keeping an eye on public expenditure should not the Government he reducing the retirement age of men to 64½ while raising that of women to 60½ and working gradually in six-monthly periods so that eventually every one retires at 62½? What possible objections could the women of this country have to that suggestion?
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman might find that some women would object very strongly indeed. It is an interesting suggestion but it does not meet the basic fact that the Government have to face—the increased cost at this time.

    Alcoholics
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with progress towards the provision of detoxification centres and other services for alcoholics; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Owen: It has taken longer to set up the first experimental detoxification centres than I would have wished, but I am reasonably satisfied with the progress which has been made recently. The

    175
    objectives for these services have been set out in the recently published consultative document on priorities.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How can my hon. Friend be satisfied when every year 3,000 drunks and alcoholics are sent to prison because of the inactivity of his Department? Is he aware that the Home Secretary has already enacted one section of the Criminal Justice Act and that it is now for his Department to provide facilities and resources to ensure that such people are treated and not imprisoned?
    Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the question is about progress. There has been progress. At the beginning of May a detoxification centre will open in Leeds and another will open in Manchester at the end of the year. We are making reasonably good progress with the proposals for a detoxification centre in central London. We always envisaged that nationally there would be three such centres.
    Mrs. Chalker: What consultations has the Department had with the Home Office about the disturbing rise in the number of young alcoholics?
    Dr. Owen: We are in fairly constant touch about the whole problem of juvenile deliquency. One of the most serious problems which the House has to consider is the rising number of alcoholics, particularly among juveniles. Private Members' legislation is being discussed at the moment and I hope that hon. Members will look seriously at the warnings of the Advisory Council on Alcoholism.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: As the Minister's Department sponsored one of the first major surveys undertaken by the Royal Maudsley Hospital, what effect has that report had on the policy of the Department?
    Dr. Owen: I am familiar with the proposal, which underlines the general concern about the problem of alcoholism. I am not complacent and I share some of the anxieties about the number of places available in detoxification centres. The idea of such centres is to find out whether this method of treatment will be successful. But we are also discussing the proposal for Liverpool by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

    Hospital (Costs)
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage increase in the revenue cost in real terms of the NHS hospitals between 1965 and the latest available date; and what was the percentage change in the number of beds occupied daily over the same period.
    Mr. Ennals: Between the financial years 1965–66 and 1974–75 there was an increase of about 35 per cent. in the revenue cost of NHS hospitals and the number of beds occupied daily decreased by about 14 per cent.
    Mr. Morrison: Can the Secretary of State explain why this deterioration has taken place. What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Ennals: I would call it not deterioration, but exactly the opposite. The increase in real terms in the cost of National Health Service hospitals in this period depends on a number of factors. A more intensive use of beds has led to 16 per cent. more in-patients a year being treated in 14 per cent. fewer beds. That is an achievement. The number of outpatients treated has increased by 8 per cent. and the number of day patients has trebled—that is not bed occupancy. New and improved methods of diagnosis and treatment often involve higher costs. It is an achievement and not a deplorable situation.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the increases he is currently facing is that of junior doctors' pay? Does he accept that the cost of paying overtime under the agreement reached last September may now be over £31 million compared with the £14·2 million estimated at the time of the settlement? What advice has he given to regional health authorities on how to meet this staggering increase?
    Mr. Ennals: The cost estimated by the Review Body was £14·2 million and it looks as though the current estimate will be £28 million—twice the original estimate. I am not laughing the matter off: it is a fact. One must recognise that the employing authorities—the health boards—have contracted for longer hours of work and a greater degree of availability for junior staff than previously. For the

    177
    future we are making arangements to obtain more detailed information on the cost of the allocation of A and B class unions. It has been made clear to the health authorities that the cost of the new junior doctors' contracts must be met from within their budgets. It is for the health authorities to decide on the priorities within their existing budgets.
    Mr. Ward: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if Conservative Members are going to use statistics for bed occupancy and National Health Service costs as a subject for criticism, that is an even greater condemnation of the pay bed sector where the occupancy is smaller and is a less effective use of health resources?
    Mr. Ennals: I am new to this subject in the House. I was staggered by the attitude and the ignorance of Opposition Members in their use of pay bed occupancy rates as though they were a test of efficiency in the health service.
    Mr. Powell: Has the Secretary of State yet learned what all occupants of his office discover—that there is no satisfactory unit of measurement of quantity or quality in medical care?
    Mr. Ennals: Yes.

    Hospital Facilities (Folkestone)
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will pay a visit to Folkestone in order to see hospital facilities there.
    Mr. Ennals: I have no plans to do so at present, but will bear the suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Secretary of State recall that in his earlier political life he was Member for my neighbouring constituency and made several comments about the inadequacy of the health service? Is he aware that the proposal to modify the use of the Royal Victoria Hospital is causing a great deal of consternation and that a petition opposing the proposal and signed by 20,000 people was presented last week? Will he give an assurance that he will look personally at the matter before the proposal is implemented?
    Mr. Ennals: I have followed the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The district management team discussion
    178
    document explains certain proposals for a change in use of the hospital following the proposal for a new hospital at Ashford in 1978. It is intended that the Royal Victoria Hospital should continue to provide a service to the community. No proposal can be implemented without full consultation with the parties concerned, particularly with the community health council.
    Mr. Aitken: Isthe Secretary of State aware that in some Kent coastal towns, particularly in my constituency, there is growing public concern that they are becoming dumping grounds for ex-mental patients who have been discharged from hospitals many hundreds of miles away? Will he consider establishing a licensing system to ensure that no one community has to bear an unfair burden of this problem?
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman's language is deplorable. He has said that there are dumping grounds for patients of psychiatric hospitals. Most people who are discharged from psychiatric hospitals are as fit as, if not fitter than, the hon. Gentleman. It is deplorable to make such allegations. My Department is supporting a campaign to be launched this week by MIND to encourage the population to co-operate in enabling people in psychiatric hospitals to be discharged and to live in the community as normal people. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would warmly support this initiative. If he does not, I am sure that most of his hon. Friends will. I totally reject his concept.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Minister has chosen to answer my hon. Friend by making a personal attack upon him. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has been in his office for only a few days, but does he not realise that only a few weeks ago we had a debate, initiated by the Opposition, on the problems of the mentally sick, a debate in which there were frequent allegations from both sides of the House: that mental patients were being dumped? That is the word we all used, and to make an accusation against my hon. Friend is most unfair.
    Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman must come off it. I do not claim to be an expert, but during the period when I was out of the House I worked for four

    179
    years for the National Association for Mental Health. I visited mental
    hospitals throughout the country and communities helping to provide accommodation. I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman: I was attacking his language. I would do so again if at any time he gave that sort of interpretation of the proper and rightful discharge of patients from psychiatric hospitals.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the occupational pensions interests.
    Mr. Ennals: None yet, Sir. But departmental contact has been and remains very close. My predecessor met the pensions organisations as recently as 31st March, and my officials sent them draft regulations for comment on 15th April.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it likely that in the new phase of incomes policy, which I understand is being discussed today, it will be possible to negotiate improved pension schemes in addition to the 3 per cent., 4 per cent., or whatever is decided on pure incomes? Does he realise that this step would help to improve the development of good occupational pensions schemes as almost nothing else would?
    Mr. Ennals: That is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment. Occupational pension scheme improvements were included in the present pay policy, just as all fringe benefits were. There was a measure of rough justice in the pay policy, but it was equitable and I think that it has worked. The points made by the pension funds and the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind, but I repeat that it is basically a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Loyden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty in occupational pensions over the past decade or more has had a tremendous effect on workers, who have seen changes taking place, and that we require an approach by his Department enabling occupational
    180
    pensions to start the process of laying down what will be their own future?
    Mr. Ennals: This is a very important question which my right hon. Friend and I are studying. We are considering an important report from the Occupational Pensions Board on which I hope to make a statement to the House in the near future.
    I think that the passing of the legislation for the new pensions scheme will produce a much greater measure of clarity for occupational pensions schemes in their relationship with the State scheme. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) for her achievement in this respect.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Remembering past discussions on transferability of pension rights, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be his policy to guarantee transferability of existing rights in occupational schemes, or only rights which accumulate in the future?
    Mr. Ennals: Having had exchanges with him in years gone by, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will want to trap me into making a commitment on an issue that I have not yet considered. I shall give thought to the hon. Gentleman's representations, as I always do and always did.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study the recent speech by Mr. Len Murray about the investment policy of pension funds, a speech in which he drew a distinction between the desire by unions to have more involvement in investment policy and his rejection of the idea of any Government control of funds' investment policy? Will the Government continue to draw a clear distinction between the interests of members of pension schemes wanting a say in the investment policy of their funds and the idea of the Government in any way interfering with the commercial and other judgments of fund managers?
    Mr. Ennals: We shall always give first priority to the interests of the members. As I think I hinted in reply to an earlier supplementary question, it is our view that the members of pension schemes should have much more influence on the investment and other policies of their pension funds.
    Mr. Skinner: Surely my right hon. Friend is not using the argument of economic necessity, especially bearing in mind that on Thursday night the House will undoubtedly pass an occupational pension scheme which will give Members of Parliament the ability to receive one third of £8,000 a year, provided they have been here for 20 years. If that applies to Members it should apply to many of those who receive only £3 or £4 per week in occupational pensions.
    Mr. Ennals: Having taken on my new job, I have not been able to look at what will happen on Thursday. I shall now do so and I shall take my hon. Friend's point into consideration.

    Maternity Services
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage change in the cost of the maternity services—at constant prices—per birth, between 1970 and the latest available date.
    Dr. Owen: The estimated revenue cost per birth of hospital maternity services rose by over 19 per cent. at constant prices between 1970–71 and 1973–74. These increases are in part the result of the sharp fall in the number of births, while staff numbers increased and facilities were under-used.
    Mr. Ridley: As there has been no change in the technology of the process, surely the large increase in cost per birth must be attributed to the increase in the bureaucracy. What will the hon. Gentleman do about it?
    Dr. Owen: I think that it is one of the areas of inefficiency in the health service. Attention was drawn to this in the consultative document. There is room for sensible economies. Some increases in technology have taken place, particularly in trying to reduce perinatal mortality and to improve the care of children born rather sick. But in the main the hon. Gentleman is right. Bed occupancy fell from 72 per cent. to 65 per cent. during that period.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is not some of the increase in cost due to the higher incidence of induced births, many of which are done not because of the wish of the mother, or for medical reasons, but solely for the convenience of the obstetricians
    182
    concerned? Could that be contributing in some way to the extra costs per birth?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that it is causing an increase in costs, but it causes increasing concern to many mothers and doctors. We are doing research into the whole subject of induction policy.
    Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister agree that his answer illustrates that substantial savings could be made in many parts of the National Health Service? Will he conduct an urgent investigation into why no fewer than 11,000 beds are empty on any one day because of lack of staff?
    Dr. Owen: There are areas where economies can be made in the National Health Service. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in looking at the rationalisation of maternity services, which will undoubtedly mean the closure of some small units, particularly those close to large hospitals. The other question relates to establishment figures, which are often above what can be currently afforded. In some areas we want staff and are finding it difficult to recruit them and in others we have considerable overstaffing.

    Young Offenders (Secure Accommodation)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a further statement on his plans for increasing the provision of secure accommodation in accordance with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
    Dr. Owen: Applications for loan sanction for 1976–77 have been received and are being studied. Some 20 of the projects include secure accommodation and would between them provide some 200 new places. Many should qualify for grants under Section 71 of the Children Act 1975.
    Mr. Lane: Will the Minister bear in mind that even in the relatively law abiding region of East Anglia there is great anxiety about the shortage of secure accommodation? Will the new Secretary of State, as an East Anglian Member, inject more urgency into the efforts of central and local government to improve the situation?
    Dr. Owen: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does. We shall do everything possible, within the financial constraints within which we and local government must operate, to try to improve the provision of secure accommodation.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my hon. Friend accept that, whereas every year 4,000 juveniles go to penal establishments because of the lack of secure accommodation—more secure units are needed —as 40 per cent. of those children are getting non-custodial treatment, far more attention ought to be given to alternatives to residential treatment, such as day care and other facilities?
    Dr. Owen: The Government are still considering the report of the Expenditure Committee in which many of these issues are raised. But I agree very much with my hon. Friend that there is a case for looking at alternative methods. We should not pin all our faith on secure accommodation, where the results are not always very satisfactory.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister aware that the majority of the disturbed children are sent home because there is no accommodation for them and that they then commit further crimes? Will he not agree that this situation is jeopardising both the correction of the offender and the safety of the public? Has the Minister had any consultations with the Home Office about reverting to the former numbers in the remand homes, because many of the homes no longer have so many children in them?
    Dr. Owen: We are in constant consultation. There is under-utilisation of some of the community homes which were formerly the responsibility of the Home Office. We are trying, together with the local authorities, to increase the utilisation of these facilities. The real problem which underlies the difficulties relating to the Children and Young Persons Act is that since its implementation inadequate resources have been made available. It is not always the fault of local government, which has often asked for loan sanction and not been given the resources needed for full implementation.

    Young Offenders (Remand Arrangements)
    Mr. Alan Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with arrangements made for young offenders on remand; and what action he proposes to take in this regard.
    Dr. Owen: No, Sir. Because of the the shortage of secure accommodation in community homes, juvenile offenders are still being remanded to prison establishments. It is the Government's policy to phase out such remands as soon as possible.
    Mr. Clark: But surely this possibility depends entirely on the provision of funds. Will not the Minister agree that it is much more desirable to make financial provision in this regard than to improve the conditions of inmates of long-stay prisons?
    Dr. Owen: We have available, specifically under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, power to direct grants for secure accommodation, and we have made available £2 million for this purpose. We are giving a very high priority to all loan sanction approvals for secure accommodation. This comes off local authority social services budgets, which are already hard pressed with demands for the elderly, the mentally handicapped, and the mentally ill. It says a lot for the commitment of local authorities to the principles of the Act that they are prepared to give this such a very high priority.
    Mr. Sims: Will the hon. Gentleman urge upon local authorities the rapid completion of the 200 additional secure places to which he referred so that a date can be given after which in no circumstances will any child be sent to an adult prison?
    Dr. Owen: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to announce today that no more children will be going to an adult prison. Concerning children under 14, particularly girls, there is a particular problem in the London area with Holloway. Local authorities are well aware of this and share the concern of the House and of others outside, but

    185
    secure accommodation cannot be conjured up overnight. It would be ridiculous to make such a pledge and then not be able to fulfil it.

    Mentally Handicapped Children (Fostering)
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to increase the numbers of mentally handicapped children who are fostered.
    Dr. Owen: This is a matter for the local authorities and voluntary bodies concerned, but my Department encourages fostering schemes for children with special needs.
    Mrs. Chalker: In view of the cash limits on local authority spending, will the Minister look again at the payment of attendance allowance to the foster parents of mentally handicapped children?
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Lady will he aware from the debate on 14th April that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is looking again at the possibility of paying attendance allowance to foster parents looking after a handicapped child who satisfies the medical conditions for the payment of the allowance.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: As the number of physically and mentally handicapped children needing the allowance is only 300, could we not have an urgent decision on this matter?
    Dr. Owen: I know that my hon. Friend shares this anxiety, and we shall get a decision as soon as possible. It requires public money but it is not expensive. We all wish to encourage fostering schemes for these children and to give them a home environment, which they desperately need.

    National Health Service Income
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to increase National Health Service income.
    Mr. Ennals: The Government's plans for increasing financial provision for the National Health Service were published in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd. 6393.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the Secretary of State also consider making proposals to the Royal Commission, based on the experience of other European countries, and consider again the question of lotteries, as held in France and Eire, greater medical insurance, as in Germany, and fees for general practitioner visits, as in the Channel Islands?
    Mr. Ennals: A number of the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman would not find much favour in the House or in the country, but certainly the Royal Commission will be in a position to look very widely at these questions. The points made in the House will be noted by the chairman and members of the Royal Commission once it is set up.

    GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMME
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in implementing the proposals in the Queen's Speech.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 8th April.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the commitment in the Queen's Speech to attack unemployment? Does he not agree that an alternative Socialist solution to the nation's unemployment problem might be forthcoming if he did not restrict his Westminster job creation scheme by bestowing most of his privileges and patronage on those who supported him in the recent leadership election?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the way to get a job.
    Mr. Canavan: I am not asking for one.
    An Hon. Member: Tell him how.
    The Prime Minister: I will give my hon. Friend a little private advice about that. The trouble with my party is that there is so much ability and so much talent that it is impossible to meet all the requirements that should be met.

    187
    Concerning the serious part of the question, I agree that unemployment is too high in Scotland. There is no doubt that the first task is to overcome the problem of inflation. When we can do that, I believe that we shall see moving ahead in Scotland the investment that is required to produce productive jobs. Meantime, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken a number of steps concerning the dispersal of jobs in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere which will have a long-term effect on improving the position.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the Budget's relaxation of the industrial development certificate policy and the growing unemployment in Scotland, will not the Prime Minister realise that the pledges given in the Queen's Speech have not been fulfilled and that the time has now come for a deployment of the Scottish oil revenues towards solving this very serious problem in our country?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that, although serious in Scotland, unemployment has increased less than in any other region in the United Kingdom except for the North of England and, I think, Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman indicates, that is partly due to the oil development, which has had the effect of providing some 50,000 to 60,000 jobs in Scotland. I am sure that Scotland appreciates this. I also believe that Scotland will want to share its good fortune—I have never detected any selfishness in anybody in Scotland—with the whole of the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom as a whole is stronger than Scotland would be individually.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: While we are talking about jobs, is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment on Merseyside is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us when the people on Merseyside, especially the 3,000 school leavers unemployed there, will get a job?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the answer is the same. The Government must concentrate on reducing the level of inflation. When the level of inflation is reduced to a point where productive investment will take place, we shall see the growth of jobs. This is the first and
    188
    overriding task of the Government. As I am asked what progress has been made concerning the Queen's Speech, I refreshed my mind on it at lunch time, and my hon. Friend will be glad to know that this was the first and highest priority to attack. Therefore, we are doing what we said we would do.
    Mr. David Steel: Since the Queen's Speech also referred to the efforts to bring about a just and peaceful settlement in Rhodesia, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of commending the blunt and constructive approach to this matter of Dr. Kissinger?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the speech made by Dr. Kissinger, of which I have read only Press reports, should commend itself to the Europeans in Rhodesia. I say that not because we wish in regard to the future of the Europeans there to be vindictive, but because we believe that this is the best way in which they can hope to have a long-term future in that country. This fact is recognised perhaps more by the Africans in Rhodesia than by Europeans there. I hope that the weight of Dr. Kissinger's words will now get through to the Europeans.
    Mr. Adley: Now that Mr. Jack Jones has joined the Prime Minister in his eulogies about the incomes policy, will not the Prime Minister complete this king-size, hypocritical somersault by recommending to Mr. Jones and his colleagues at the next stage that the incomes policy should be £1 plus 4 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman used the word "hypocritical".
    Mr. Adley: In terms of policy.
    The Prime Minister: Trade union leaders deserve encouragement rather than the sneers and jeers of Conservative Members.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a meeting with the TUC Economic Committee.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek

    189
    an early joint meeting with the CBI and the TUC.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will be meeting the TUC in the near future.
    The Prime Minister: I met representatives of the TUC yesterday and I shall be seeing them again, together with representatives of the CBI, on 5th May when I take the chair at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the Government have given a pledge to trade union leaders—that, in the event of the current voluntary wage discussions failing to agree, the Government will not introduce a statutory policy—the best thing that can now happen is for this House to allow trade union leaders to get on with concluding a voluntary agreement? Will he also accept that the other part of the desire of trade union leaders namely, the wish to discuss an early return to full employment—means that the public sector now has the responsibility of providing 1 million jobs in the next four years? Will he now give a pledge that provision will be made for that objective to be reached?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that hand in hand with the aim of overcoming inflation is the desire to produce more employment. However, I do not agree with his analysis that this must fall on the public sector. It is important that productive jobs should be created and that we should rely on investments on which a successful return can be expected. That is the way to achieve more employment rather than transferring more and more jobs to the public sector. There is a part for the public sector to play and it will do so, but it is impossible to assume that 1 million jobs can be created.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Since it is the employers who will have to pay the 3, 4 or 5 per cent. at the next stage of the incomes policy, could not the Government pretend to take some notice of employers' views as well as of the views of the TUC?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We take notice of everybody's views, including even the hon. Gentleman's. On the question of who is to pay, the increase in
    190
    wages will be paid for out of increased production and productivity. Those increases will be contributed to by management and by people on the work shop floor.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend recall that in the discussions on these matters last year the trade union negotiators agreed to the £6 policy on the basis of no increase in unemployment and no cuts in public expenditure? Will he give a guarantee that this time round in the negotiations there will be a reduction in unemployment and no cuts in public expenditure? Will he be able to tell the TUC what he intends to do about speculators who invest abroad without paying a dollar premium? Indeed, what action do the Government intend to take to stop that speculation in future?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think I can give answers to all those questions. Such a reply would demand more than a yes-no-yes kind of answer to supplementary questions. It is generally recognised that the future level of unemployment depends on the future level of inflation. The trade unionists with whom we are discussing these matters are aware of that and in the interests of their members they are now desperately keen to secure an agreement that will reduce inflation. There is no point in giving guarantees on matters of this kind. We believe that such an agreement will produce conditions in which unemployment will begin to go down.
    As to cuts in public expenditure, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, and also the White Paper, made clear that the level of public expenditure will be maintained this year. As the economy takes off again, there will be room with that increase in production to enable levels of public expenditure to be maintained. I prefer not to answer my hon. Friend's further supplementary question because it would mean that my reply would take far too long.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Bearing in mind that the pound has fallen by an average of 1 cent per week since the beginning of the last pay limit, why is the Prime Minister basing his whole economic strategy on the next pay limit? Does he not agree that in the long run the pound

    191
    will continue to be in difficulties and that confidence will continue to dwindle if the Government do not reduce the rate of their own expenditure as well as the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is too simple a view. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not give countenance to that view because it is misleading. The plain truth is that the 3 per cent. limit, or a figure in the area of 3 per cent., whatever the final negotiated figure may be—[Interruption.]—I hope that Opposition Members will not jeer, because a most important process is now taking place and what is needed is help from hon. Gentlemen.
    As for the future of sterling, one should not neglect the view of the market. One must always take it seriously, and I do so because I have lived through it before. But the market is not infallible and can be wrong. Indeed, I believe that at this time the market has overdone things and that perhaps we shall see some change. There is no doubt that if agreement is reached—as I firmly hope it will be in the light of the discussions I have had yesterday and today—the questions of wages policy and the future of sterling, a matter of concern to all of us wherever we sit in the House, will be more than assured.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister say whether he shares Mr. Len Murray's expressed surprise at the fall in the value of the pound in recent weeks? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman when he has a moment to spare, perhaps in his bath tonight, write down in two columns on a piece of blank paper the reasons why anybody in the world today should hold or buy sterling and the reasons for not doing so? Does he not conclude that the country is virtually ungovernable?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is given to extravagant utterances and he has lived up to his reputation this afternoon. It was not said that we were ungovernable when in an earlier period wages were increasing at a rate of 30 or 40 per cent. If at that time it had been said that in future we would be aiming at a figure in the area of 3 per cent., people would have regarded that as a miracle. It is a demonstration of the fact that the country is showing self-
    192
    discipline and understanding of the situation and is taking the matter in hand.
    The reasons for the holding of sterling are many and various. One lies in the fact that this is a stable parliamentary democracy and is a country where people can invest in the knowledge that debts will be met. That is one of the major reasons why people prefer to hold investments and overseas holdings in this country, and it is clearly right. There are other technical factors involved, such as interest rates and so on. But basically the reason is that people rely on this country and on our word. That is why they keep their sterling here.
    Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he remind its members of the memorandum recently submitted to the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry—[Interruption]— on the textile clothing and footwear industries, particularly bearing in mind the need to renegotiate the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, and will he look at the possibility of introducing a similar scheme for footwear?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to have a word with me afterwards, because I confess that I did not hear all of that question. However, in relation to both footwear and textiles the Secretary of State for Trade has taken action. He has recently met representatives of the two industries. I shall be glad to have a word with my hon. Friend about it if he would care for that so that we can discuss the matter further.
    Mr. Grylls: When the Prime Minister told the meeting of the shop workers' union on Sunday that he could no guarantee that they would not be sea sick but that they would get safely to port, was he thinking of a sinking pound and an inflation rate four times that of West Germany, or is it not more likely that the ship may sink unless he takes command and cuts public expenditure right now, as my right hon. Friends have suggested?
    The Prime Minister: Picking up the last part of that supplementary question I do not believe that cuts in public expenditure would do anything more than increase unemployment to a marked

    193
    degree. Looking at the division of public expenditure, which I have in front of me, I would not recommend that as a policy at present. What is important is that in 1977 and 1978 there should be room for the increased production in industry which will then take place. I believe that the Chancellor's work on public expenditure is creating that room in the next two years.

BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. Prescott: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for reasons of which I have given you, Mr. Speaker, prior notice, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the admission by British Petroleum of payments to political parties in Italy."
The House is aware that the recent allegations made in a Grenada television programme that British Petroleum had made payments to political parties in Italy has been admitted by BP—on the last day's sitting of the House before going into recess. That is that such payments were proportional to the direct financial benefits received, which by any definition amounts to political corruption.
The matter is specific in regard to British Petroleum Company Limited, as the Government are the custodians and owners of the majority of shares in that company and it is viewed abroad as a Government-owned or Government-controlled oil company.
This matter is of crucial importance for a number of reasons: that the Government-appointed directors had no knowledge of the payments—according to their statements—and consequently the question of the Government's policy and Parliament's accountability is raised, especially in view of the recent reports that the Government may be considering selling the majority of shares in BP and that it would appear that the oil companies, of their own admission, have secured a breach of the Treaty of Rome.
It is urgent that we debate this matter, as this very week the Italian Government may fall, due to payments that have been
194
made, and this House should make clear that it in no way condones these actions.
As the House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is unable to investigate this matter, unlike other countries that are able to conduct investigations, and as the Leader of the House said on the day before the Easter Recess, 13th April, that he thought that the House would surely want to return to the subject after the recess, I think that time ought now to be provided, as the Government have had time to reflect upon the statements and the House has made clear its wish for an opportunity to debate the matter and to express its own view.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the admission by British Petroleum of payments to political parties in Italy."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would give some consideration to this point? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has just sought to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, has taken the opportunity, at some length, to repeat some fairly defamatory and offensive comments about two very great oil companies. These allegations were very well dealt with by Sir Frank McFadzean, the Chairman of Shell, over the weekend, and I think that it is a great abuse of the rules of order that hon. Gentlemen who feel so little enthusiasm for British concerns of this kind should be allowed to get up and repeat, unchecked, such monstrous comments.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not try to argue the matter now.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am answering a point of order—unless it is on the same matter.
Mr. English: It is. I should merely like to point out that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want anything pointed out. I want only points or order at this stage.
Mr. English: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be unfair—as I hope you would agree—if a right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Front Bench alleged of one of his honourable colleagues in this House that he had said something additional to what has already been said, with less protection from defamation, in the Press and on television.
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members on the Government side of the House felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made his application under Standing Order No. 9 in the most moderate way possible. Is it not an abuse of the House for hon. Members to cast aspersions, in the way that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has done, when my hon. Friend was doing his duty to the House and the country in raising a matter such as this?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that honour has been satisfied on both sides, because hon. Members take responsibility for their own statements in this House. As long as they are within the rules of order, my task is to listen.

MINISTERS' STATEMENTS (EEC MEETINGS)
Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance on the question of the desire of Back Benchers to hear from Ministers who go off to Luxembourg, have a major conference, come back and do not make statements to the House about that conference? We were promised that statements would be made to the House as a matter of routine after any important
196
meetings in the Common Market, and we have not had any for rather a long time. The height of this matter was that the Council of Ministers had a summit meeting and all that we got was a Written Answer to a Written Question that had obviously been planted. There was no statement. The Prime Minister recognised that as a mistake that would not happen again. On the Finance Ministers' meeting, which was very important, we should have had a statement from the Chancellor today.
Mr. Speaker: The arrangement of the business of the House is not a matter for me. However, the hon. Gentleman's point of order seems to be one on which if anyone sought to answer the point of order with a further point of order, it would be permissible. However, what is sure is that I cannot answer it.
Mr. Blaker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does this not involve the way in which the Government are treating the rights of the House? If the meeting were sufficiently important for the Chancellor himself to invite his colleagues to meet him, surely it is equally important for him to tell the House of Commons what happened.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of judgment for me. It is a matter of judgment for someone else.
Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept that it is a matter of judgment for someone else. We are so fortunate that the "someone else" is present. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to jump at the opportunity of bringing weight to his own words in relation to the importance that he attaches to the rights of the House of Commons, and I hope that he will, first, remind his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House is not uninterested in what the Chancellor has been doing over the last few days. Perhaps the Leader of the House will promise us now, with certainty, that his right hon. Friend will make a statement tomorrow.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Having been incited by the right hon. Gentleman and by you, Mr. Speaker, to put myself out of order, I shall respond to the invitation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. To make the right hon. Gentleman respectable, I should feel better if he began by saying "Further to the point of order".
Mr. Foot: I was not absolutely sure that it was a point of order, and I am pleased to have your assurance. Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the views stated in the House today and I am sure he will take them fully into account.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE)
3.41 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the school health service and the status of its workers; and for connected purposes.
For 60 years, the health of our nation's children has been entrusted to school nurse—qualified State registered nurses and State enrolled nurses who have specialised in community care within the school health service. In 1962, the health visitors certificate was introduced as an extra qualification and school nurses who completed the eight-months course increased both their status and their pay. The differential in 1970 between those who had the certificate and those who had not was about £180 a year.
In 1975, the Government, by accepting the Halsbury recommendations on nursing, distinguished between those with the certificate and those without it. They upgraded those who had the certificate and downgraded those who had not. Nurses who did not have the certificate were placed on the lowly rung of the nursing ladder—staff nurse.
Though other nurses working in the community, such as district nurses and district midwives, have had their status raised, the school nurses have not, although their job is partly in the school but mostly in the community. Unless a school nurse has the HV certificate, she reverts to square one and goes back to the basic grade even though she may have been nursing for 30 years or more.
In the 1950s and 1960s many nurses who had become ward sisters responded
198
to the call for them to gain wider experience in the community and a considerable number joined the school health service. Even they will be pushed back to the basic grade while those who have recently qualified as nurses and have been fortunate enough to take the certificate are put in the top grade. The salary differential is approximately £1,200 between school nurses who have the certificate and those who have not, and with community nurses £900.
Whether the school nurse has the HV certificate or not, she does exactly the same job, with exactly the same duties and responsibility. Why does she receive around £1,200 a year less? Why have her pension rights been reduced, and why is she subjected to the stigma of demotion in status?
It is as if Halsbury and the Government have no regard for a lifetime of experience and give no credits to past service or a host of other qualifications which many of the school nurses possess, such as State certified midwife, certificate in tropical diseases and qualifications from the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. Have the Government the audacity and effrontery to suggest that 20 or 30 years' experience in nursing is irrelevant whereas an eight-months training certificate is not?
It is as if the Government are casting a blind eye to the fact that, since the HV certificate has been in existence for only 14 years, only approximately half the school nurses can have it. Of the 4,375 nurses in the school health service, 2,236 have the certificate. Yet school nurses without the certificate have successfully brought up generations of our children and in many of our great cities the majority of nursing staff in schools today are without the HV certificate. In Liverpool, 57 of the 74 school nurses do not have the certificate and they are penalised when running the service. Yet without them, the service would collapse. They are penalised when they are at work and they will be penalised when they retire.
One of the arguments put forward is that the HV certificate enables nurses to undertake a wider range of duties. That is correct, but in the school health service it is untrue because the work done is identical and, inevitably, those who have been there the longest tend to be the most experienced and those who have

199
Just come into the service are only too happy to be taught by them.
Last July, the Government acknowledged that the discrimination among members of the staff of the National Health Service was wrong and that the situation of nurses within the school health service was anomalous. The Minister went on to say that he recognised that the matter was causing a great deal of unrest and that further representations would be considered from the staff side. But what has happened since then? In spite of these pious and hopeful words, the distasteful and repellent distinction still exists.
The anomaly is divisive, unjust and unfair. Surely it must be as repugnant to the Government so full of purported high principles as it was to those 70 hon. Members on all sides of the House who put their name to Early-Day Motion No. 487 last year calling on the Government to put things right. Yet nothing has been done. Surely a Government which set up an Equal Opportunities Commission must recognise the rights of each individual to get equal pay for equal work.
So long as the Government continue to ignore the plight of school nurses without the HV certificate, all of us here are collectively responsible and each one of us should feel deeply ashamed. This Bill will put right what is so clearly so wrong.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Bryan Gould, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. William Molloy, Mr. Wm. Ross, Mr. Raphael Tuck and Sir George Young.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE)
Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the school health service and the status of its workers; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed.[Bill 128.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HEALTH SERVICES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Enna1s): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill fulfils the pledge given in the Queen's Speech that legislation to phase out pay beds would be introduced ill the course of this Session. The Bill, in Part III, also contains provisions relating to the regulation of the private sector, in respect of which there have been the consultations promised in the Queen's Speech.
  I shall shortly deal clause by clause with the Bill, but before doing so I want to make a personal comment and then make some more general remarks to the House about the philosophy behind this Bill and the considerations which have led to its presentation today.
  I want to say a word about my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Some very hard and very unfair things have sometimes been said about her. When the dust has settled—and I am not denying that there has been some dust—she will be widely applauded as one who fought bravely and effectively to ensure that the NHS got its share of our national resources. She leaves behind many very good friends in the NHS as well as in the community and country at large who benefited from her commitment to all those who are needy and underprivileged in our society. It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend, and no small challenge.
  However much disagreement there may be in the House on the issues dealt with in this Bill, on one thing there can be no argument—namely, that pay beds in NHS hospitals are and have long been a matter of great controversy and division among those who work in the NHS, among patients, and in the country as a whole. That this controversy exists should cause no surprise, for the system of pay beds itself arose out of conflict. On the one hand, we have the principles

  201
  on which the National Health Service was founded—of a health care system free at the —point of use and available equally to all on the basis of medical priority alone—and, on the other, the principles strongly held by some of the right of the citizen to use his money to purchase medical treatment, and the corresponding right of the medical practitioner to offer his services through the private sector. Through the pay beds system facilities for the exercise of these rights of private practice are provided in an environment dedicated to a free and public service.
  The marriage has not always been a happy one. Many staff who work in the NHS have often been offended by what they have seen as the operation of a system opposed to the principle of public service, and even more offended by what they have seen as the abuses of the NHS which have followed—of queue jumping, of greater attention to private patients than to NHS patients, of different qualities of food—and generally by the implication of dual standards—a first-class one for the private patient and a second class one for the NHS patient.
  So great has been the feeling about this matter that it has led to four trade unions—NUPE, COHSE, NALGO and ASTMS, representing in all some 435,000 in the NHS, or over 55 per cent. of all staff—.passing policy resolutions against the existence of pay beds and, in some cases, the members of those unions taking industrial action.
  If any proof were needed of the divisive nature of this issue, last week's events in the Oxford region should suffice. For there we had industrial action being taken by consultants in protest against our policy, causing inconvenience to some NHS patients, and that action being met by retaliation by ancillary workers who, I understand, decided to withdraw services from some doctors and from some private patients.
  I want to make it clear that. as Secretary of State for Social Services, I deplore such action in the Health Service, from whichever quarter it comes and in pursuit of whatever objectives. The first casualties of industrial action are the patients. It is they who suffer, and suffer quite unfairly. Industrial action on the issue of pay beds—for or against them—is
  202
  totally unjustified, and I hope that the Opposition agree with me on this issue.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to address any of the four union conferences in the same forthright terms as I have just addressed 400 junior doctors and put forward the same argument in the Grand Committee Room?
  Mr. Ennals: I shall have no doubt about doing so. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am prepared to make the same comments to my union colleagues, to the doctors, and to the House. These are matters on which we must be fair. This argument—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman put it to the doctors, and others have put it—must be decided democratically in Parliament. This issue cannot be resolved through industrial action with patients as the pawns. There are, in my view, ethical issues involved when patients are affected by industrial action. I am glad that they are to be considered by a joint working party set up by the Royal Colleges and Faculties of Medicine and the BMA. Certainly the high standing of the doctors will be undermined by irresponsible unofficial industrial action.
  The conflicts arising from pay beds may have nit the headlines only in the last two years, but they have been there, bubbling under the surface, for very much longer. It is five years since the Expenditure Committee, through its Employment and Social Services Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)—I am glad that she is in the House today—began taking evidence on this matter. There, in the Committee's Report, we have page after page of charge and counter-charge—475 pages of evidence—one group of staff claiming that the system of pay beds worked to the detriment of the NHS with another group claiming the reverse. It is clear that these views were held strongly and with deep conviction. It is also clear that there were substantial differences of view between the professions themselves. I know this from my current postbag.
  Of course, I accept that the British Medical Association's policy of opposition to the separation of pay beds has been arrived at after democratic debate,

  203
  that of the other three doctors' organisations only one—the Medical Practitioners Union—supports our policy and indeed would go much further, while the other two—the Hospital Consultants Specialist Association and the Junior Hospital Doctors Association—oppose it.
  But let it not be forgotten that it was the Junior Hospital Doctors Association which in 1971 strongly criticised the pay beds system in evidence to the Expenditure Committee. The memorandum that it presented claimed that there were a number of abuses, including queue jumping and dual standards, arising from the system of private practice within the NHS. The JHDA made out a strong case in support of Government policy when, in the conclusion, it said:
  "In view of the widespread staff shortages any significant increase in private practice must have an immediate adverse effect on service to NHS patients. Private health insurance is growing rapidly, following a widespread increase in real incomes, and any decline in standards of NHS care or any increase in waiting lists could lead to an acceleration of growth in private health insurance. This would lead to a diversion of scarce manpower to the private sector, inside or outside the NHS, with an inevitable further decline in NHS standards, thus accelerating still further the growth of private insurance. It would be difficult to arrest this vicious circle before the maximum number of people who can afford private health insurance had been driven into the private sector. This could amount to 40 per cent. of the population, and at this point there would be a two-tier medical service with a high standard private sector in competition with an impoverished low standard public sector."
  Of all the objections to pay beds, it is queue-jumping—seen as the purchase of privilege—which causes the greatest controversy, and understandably so, in my view. We all know that it is to "jump the queue" that is one of the main motives for patients choosing to go into pay beds.
  I have been Secretary of State for Social Services for less than three weeks. But I served at the Department of Health for two years, from 1968 to 1970, and saw a great deal of the NHS during the time I was out of Parliament. Coming back to the NHS I have been struck forcibly by the intensity of feeling on this issue. I am convinced that the argument on pay beds will not just go away
  204
  because we wish it. It will remain a cankerous divide unless the Government act.
  The separation of pay beds from the Service is the only solution which will end tension and conflict within the service. Moreover, I think that no purpose would be served either by referring the whole issue to the Royal Commission, as has been suggested by the Opposition, thus leaving it to fester for two years or so. This Bill has been prepared after a great deal of consideration and consultation. It seeks to meet many of the criticisms from the professions, as I shall show. It is better now to proceed with the measures and to deal with this ulcer by skilled surgery.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the abolition of pay beds in NHS hospitals will abolish queue-jumping? There is queue-jumping in NHS hospitals today by local dignitaries, hospital staff, prominent members of society and perhaps MPs. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if I could put the question in my own way. Will queue-jumping be cured by the abolition of pay beds in NHS hospitals?
  Mr. Ennals: I think that it will make a great contribution. I do not know to what extent my hon. Friend is right about the degree of queue-jumping in NHS hospitals. I should regret it. However, my hon. Friend appears to have some evidence and I will not question it now. This is not based on the ability to pay. Our task, as long as there are pay beds within the National Health Service, must be to seek to have a common waiting list. That is one of the tasks to which I shall be referring in the course of my speech.
  On the day that the Bill was published the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) put forward his own suggestion for solving the problem —that staff "directly involved" in treat private patients should get an extra fee, just as the consultant at present does. This would, he claimed, remove one of the main sources of resentment from pay beds.
  I cannot imagine any proposition more likely to intensify resentment in the service than this half-baked idea. What would the payment of an additional bonus to the staff who happened to be servicing the pay bed patients do for

  205
  industrial relations in the NHS? Would they get this bonus for extra work, or just because the patient happened to be a private one? And who would decide which staff had been "directly involved" in treating the private patient, and so would benefit from the bounty? Presumably the nurse and the porter in direct contact would get the bonus but not the boilerman responsible for keeping the private patient warm or the electrician responsible for ensuring vital supply of power to the operating theatres? The mind truly boggles at the disharmony that would break out if such a system were introduced.
  Strangely the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is the absolute opposite of the conclusion reached by his Government in their White Paper, Command Paper No. 5270 in April 1973. Paragraph 26 said this:
  "There was a reference in some of the evidence to dissatisfaction felt by staff whose work was concerned with private patients but who, unlike the consultants concerned, received no fee. In all such matters it must be remembered that the private patient pays to the hospital a daily charge which includes all except consultant services, and that this includes an appropriate share of the services of all other staff in the hospital. Thus it is within the functions of nursing, technical and junior medical staff to attend private patients as part of their normal duties and without a fee".
  The right hon. Gentleman now reaches exactly the opposite conclusion. It will be interesting to see whether he develops it in the course of his speech this after noon. If he thinks that the staff in the NHS hospitals can somehow be bought off on this issue, then I believe that he is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. Michael Ward: Does not the Minister accept that, among staff where, for example, nurses are taken off duty and put on to private wards, there is intense resentment because of the different work load carried by nurses in the private sector compared with those in the public sector? To give additional payments for this work would be a gratuitous insult to the rest of the nurses involved.
  Mr. Ennals: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward). He adds weight to my own conclusions that it is a nonsensical approach. It would be very divisive
  206
  and it is quite contrary to the conclusions reached by the Government.
  In my judgment the separation of pay beds from the NHS would have been inevitable within the next few years even if a Conservative Secretary of State had been in office. It would have been forced on him through the pressure of events and feelings which I have described. But I should make it clear that on this side of the House the separation of pay beds is seen not only as inevitable, but right because of the principles involved, and welcome for the benefits that the separation will bring to the service. I believe that the separation of pay beds will help restore that harmony and common sense of purpose to the service which is so necessary if all the other problems faced by the NHS are to be tackled.
  There will also be more tangible benefits for the service which will arise from the release of staff and other resources previously used for pay bed patients. Because the phasing out of all but 1,000 of the pay beds will be in the hands of an independent board which will set its own timetable, I cannot say with precision when all these benefits will accrue. But over time the staff and resources released to the service will equal those needed to maintain 2,500 beds, the accommodation of three or four district general hospitals, which is a substantial benefit on anyone's reckoning.
  I believe that the injection of the extra resources should have a beneficial effect, in the long term, on waiting times, though I am, of course, aware that other measures are needed if waiting times are to be reduced to an acceptable level.
  I wholly reject the claims made by groups opposing our policy that the phasing out of pay beds will damage the NHS. One of the most vocal of these groups is the Campaign for Independence in Medicine. Let us look at its case, for it is not a very strong one.
  First, it claims in its publicity that
  "the fact that doctors have been able to combine public and private practice under the same roof has meant the saving of countless hours of travelling time—and countless hours in emergencies".
  The implication is that countless hours and lives will be lost once pay beds are phased out. That is not so. I accept that it is of value to have doctors working

  207
  in the same place the whole day, but for many consultants, whether they do private practice or not, the exigencies of their jobs are such as not to make this possible.
  In London and other centres, for example, many consultants hold appointments in two or three hospitals and may already hold their private consultations outside their NHS hospital. Taking account of the hours they spend at home and on any non-clinical work, the hours during which they will be available on the spot in a particular hospital for emergencies are already a relatively small part of the 24 hours, and will be affected only marginally, if at all, by the phasing out of pay beds.
  I accept that the consultant with an appointment to a single hospital might be more affected once the pay beds there are phased out, but here again the effect is likely to be far less than is made out, for one of the factors which the independent board will be taking into account in determining the phasing out of pay beds will by Clause 4(7) of the Bill be whether sufficient accommodation
  "for the private practice of medicine"
  is
  "reasonably available… to meet the reasonable demand…in the area …served by the hospital in question."
  Secondly, the Campaign for Independence in Medicine claims that the phasing out of pay beds
  "will increase the shortage of hospital doctors in the NHS—a shortage that could endanger your health and your family's".
  Not a word of justification for this scare-mongering claim is offered, and there is none. As I have said earlier, the phasing out of pay beds will ultimately lead to a release of staff resources to the NHS. And it is significant that this false claim was made only days before junior hospital doctors, at the BMA Junior Members Forum, were voicing fears not of a shortage of doctors but of a glut. Indeed, The Times of 29th March 1976 quoted a Dr. Olsen as speaking of
  "a spectre of mass medical unemployment"
  and Dr. David Wardle, Chairman of the HJSC, as speaking of the medical schools "churning out doctors ".
  There has been much exaggerated talk of the cost of phasing out pay beds, and figures of £40 million loss of income have
  208
  been referred to. In fact, the loss of income in the foreseeable future will be far, far less than that. Because the pace of phasing out will be in the hands of the board, one cannot give precise figures, but my Department estimates that the cost will be about £3 or £4 million in the first full year, rising to about £20 million by 1980. My predecessor made clear that health authorities' allocations would be adjusted to make good these sums. It is certainly my view that the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear up one matter. He said that his Department estimated the cost of phasing out as being £3 million or £ million in the first full year. However, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
  "The best estimate that can be made is that the reduction in income in 1976–77 will be of the order of £3–4 million."
  The Bill will not reach the statute book until later in the year, and clearly that estimate is for the remainder of the year. What is the figure for the first full 12-months period?
  Mr. Ennals: I have given the best estimate I can. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will look at this, and if there is any further information which we can give, he will give it later in the debate.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The former Minister said that the saving would be roughly £40 million. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that the total saving will be £20 million. I cannot reconcile the two figures.
  Mr. Ennals: The figure of £40 million was never given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. Nor was it given by my Department. It was a false figure given by others. My Department's figure was always £20 million, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will confirm that.
  Lastly, the Campaign for Independence in Medicine makes its most sweeping and ill-founded allegations by claiming that this Bill represents
  "a long step on the road to the eventual destruction of independent medicine".
  That is nonsense, and the medical profession knows it. This Government have said, time and time again—predecessor said so, too—is no part

  209
  of their policy to abolish private medicine. Our policy is for the separation of private medicine, not its abolition— is very different. Not only have we said this, but we have backed our words by safeguards written into this Bill which protect the rights of private practice both by hospital consultants and by general practitioners. Clause 2(2) provides this safeguard for consultants, and Clause 9 for general practitioners.
  One other claim that I keep hearing from the doctors is that there has been insufficient time for consultation on this issue. On the contrary, it is difficult to recall an issue on which there has been more consultation or on which the consultation has been more effective in altering the manner in which a policy is to be carried out. The policy was first announced in our manifesto in February 1974, and it was repeated in October 1974. On 5th May last year my predecessor announced the Government's intention to implement the policies by legislation, and in August she issued a detailed consultative document on the subject. There followed much debate and controversy, publicly and between the organisations concerned, and then in very late November there began what Mr. Anthony Grabham, Chairman of the CCHMS, described in a letter of 5th January as a
  "period of consultation with Government and with representatives of the professions (including those of the BMA, the British Dental Association, Hospital Consultants Specialist Association and of the Royal Colleges and Faculties),"
  and involving Lord Goodman. That was a statement made back in January.
  These discussions culminated in the proposals which were made by my predecessor, and announced to this House, on 15th December. They were backed by a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), then Prime Minister, to the Chairman of the BMA in which he stated that if the proposals were accepted by the profession as a whole and normal working were resumed, the Government would embody those proposals in legislation.
  I have taken note of the BMA's ballot result in which consultants voted by 4,438 to 2,048 in answer to the question whether they would accept the proposals provided they were embodied in the legislation, and of the resumption of
  210
  normal working. That was a very important vote, and we have now sought to inscribe in legislative form the proposals presented to the House on 15th December. I believe that it has been done fairly. So far as has been consistent with the requirements of parliamentary drafting, the Bill reproduces the actual wording of those proposals. The BMA recognises the extent to which the Bill reflects representations made by the profession, and Lord Goodman has accepted that the Bill fairly interprets the proposals presented to Parliament on 15th December.
  Mr. Patrick JenkinIn the interests of accuracy, may I correct what the right hon. Gentleman said about the CCHMS ballot? The question posed was not whether the Goodman proposals were acceptable. The question was whether those voting were prepared to accept Goodman or to hand in their resignations, as it were in escrow, to the BMA. The majority of those who voted said that they were not in favour of further industrial action. But I shall be giving the figures of the consultants' votes on the merits of what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Ennals: There is no difference between us. The consultants were asked to ballot on the proposals which had been presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—not on whether they agreed with them but on whether they would be acceptable it they were incorporated in legislation and normal working hours were resumed. I have indicated the result of the ballot. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford questioned its unanimity and spoke of the extent of the strong feeling amongst consultants. I might point out to him that half the consultants did not even trouble to vote in the ballot.
  It is in this light that the Bill is presented. We have endeavoured faithfully to embody the 15th December proposals within the Bill, and I believe that we have succeeded. So far as has been consistent with the requirements of parliamentary drafting, the Bill reproduces the actual wording of those proposals.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: How can my right hon. Friend say at one stage that it is a matter of principle—and I agree—should phase out pay beds, and, at another stage, imply that this Bill is not the Government's Bill

  211
  but Lord Goodman's Bill and that we are simply phasing out those 1,000 pay beds which are surplus and which will go anyway?
  Mr. Ennals: I did not make that implication. This Bill is the Bill prepared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and it is based on the proposals put to the House on 15th December by my right hon. Friend. I have made no changes in the Bill, but certainly it is true that Lord Goodman was involved in the discussions which led to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend which forunately ended a very damaging industrial dispute. It was recognised by many of those concerned that in the course of this long period of consultation many of the proposals in the consultative document were changed so that we could have a Bill which would be generally acceptable—
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Not by us.
  Mr. Ennals: I hope that it will be felt that the Bill which I am presenting today fully implements the manifesto policy of our party and in fact goes beyond it in terms of the regulation of the private sector.
  Let me now turn to the clauses in the Bill. The "broad declaration" of paragraph 2 of the 15th December proposals that private pay beds and facilities should be separated from the NHS and the expression of the Government's commitment to maintain private medical practice is contained in Clause 2.
  Clause 3 and Schedule 2 provide for the phasing out within six months of 1,000 pay beds, as provided under paragraph 3(b) of the 15th December proposals.
  The make-up of this schedule, within the overall total of 1,000 beds, was one of the two items left over in the 15th December proposals for further consultation. There has been consultation with health authorities, area professional committees and other staff bodies and the Independent Hospital Group on the schedule, and we have endeavoured to accommodate all the points put to us. But I want to make it clear that consultation on this schedule can continue right up to and including the Committee stage on the Bill, and, in an effort to bring further flexibility to these consultations,
  212
  I have told health authorities that I am considering whether to use my powers to grant group authorisations in respect of those beds that remain after the 1,000 beds have been withdrawn.
  I want to make it clear that on the particular division of the first 1,000 beds which is shown in Schedule 2, there has already been a considerable amount of consultation at area level and with the Independent Hospital Group. However, the profession have emphasised to me that the actual location of the beds that are to be withdrawn is to them very important. It could, they say, have significant effects on the viability of private practice. I accept that more time is needed. My predecessor had made it clear that local consultation would continue on the schedule. I should like, if possible, the list to be an agreed list. I am therefore inviting the profession and the Independent Hospitals Group to consult with me to see whether we can mutually agree which 1,000 beds are to be withdrawn. In doing this, we should of course want to take account of local representations.
  I also intend to invite the Committee considering this Bill to accept a motion which will enable the Committee's discussion of the schedule to be taken towards the end of the Committee's deliberations. Then, if we manage to have an agreed schedule to bring forward, I shall be able to table it, in substitution of the one which is now in the Bill.
  Part I and Schedule I establish the new Health Services Board, which will have two vital roles—that of determining the phasing out of all pay beds apart from the first 1,000 and that of regulating certain developments in the private sector. The board will be entirely independent of me as Secretary of State and of the Crown. It will have an independent chairman, two medical practitioners representing the professions, and two other members appointed after consultation with the NHS trade unions, other staff organisations and those representing the interests of patients. There are special committees of the board to operate in respect of its functions in Scotland and Wales. It is my intention to appoint a chairman of legal standing.
  Clause 4 is the main operational clause for the board so far as its functions on phasing out are concerned. This requires the board to make proposals every six

  213
  months for the progressive revocation of pay beds, and requires the board, in deciding which pay beds should be phased out to have regard to four vital criteria set out at subsection (7). These almost word for word repeat the criteria in paragraph 3 (d) of the 15th December proposals, and, in short, provide for the pace of phasing out to be linked to the reasonable availability of alternative accommodation for the practice of private medicine, to the demand for private medicine and whether reasonable steps have been taken to provide those alternative facilities.
  When the board makes its first report to the Secretary of State, it will have to include separate proposals dealing specifically with accommodation made available to consultants for private consulting rooms and authorised out-patient services for radiotherapy, diagnostic pathology and diagnostic radiology. At present the private sector relies heavily on the NHS for the provision of these services, and therefore careful consideration may be needed of the case for withdrawing authorisation for these services at individual hospitals.
  As Secretary of State, I already have powers to make NHS supplies and services available other than for purposes of services under the NHS Acts. Clause 7 ensures that I can exercise these powers only if I am satisfied that doing so would not cause disadvantage to NHS patients. Clause 8 also requires me to use this power to allow a person access to accommodation and services at an NHS hospital as a private patient only if the services required are specialised and not privately available and accessible to the patient in Great Britain or if it is in the interests of the NHS for such services to be given at an NHS hospital.
  These powers can be used only where I am satisfied that there will be no queue jumping—Clause 8(3)—and they cannot be used to reserve particular accommodation for private patients. These requirements will apply equally to patients from the United Kingdom and to those from overseas.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: My right hon. Friend may be aware that there could be difficulty over the definition of the word "specialised" and that access to the NHS could continue for treatment of a specialised character.
  214
  There may well be a difference in the interpretation of the word "specialised" in relation to the word "specialist". I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at that in order that the Committee and the House in due course can be satisfied as to the definition.
  Mr. Ennals: I will readily look at that point in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Clause 8 sets out the method by which charges for these services should be drawn up.
  Clause 9 enables the Secretary of State to give permission to practitioners offering family practitioner services at health centres, and to NHS chiropodists, to use the facilities for the treatment of their private patients. It confirms the existing entitlement. The Secretary of State for England, Wales and Scotland will have to submit to Parliament annual reports describing the facilities still authorised for private in-patients and out-patients and also the use they have made of their powers to allow the use on particular occasions of NHS services or accommodation.
  The second area that was left over for further consultation under paragraph 3(f) of the 15th December proposals concerned the need for some system for regulating the developments in the private sector. The possibility of a wholly voluntary scheme was left open by those proposals, but the professions in subsequent discussions told my predecessor's Department that they had no proposals for a wholly voluntary scheme. For their part the Government have concluded that it is necessary to take powers in the Bill to control certain developments in the private sector. It is possible that some private sector developments could seriously damage the NHS, particularly by drawing off skilled and scarce staff in a particular area. Last November in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) my predecessor gave details of some 38 private hospital developments, with provision for some 2,500 beds, of which my Department had notice. Some of these developments were small and are unlikely to damage the NHS wherever they are sited. But some are large—over 100 beds—and

  215
  some are very large–300 beds in Cromwell Road, and 500 beds in Bristol.
  It must be obvious that hospitals of this size, in the wrong places could drain off resources from the NHS rather seriously. It is perhaps not realised just how large, in terms of staff, a 75 or 100-bedded hospital is. A 75-bedded hospital providing acute medical and surgical treatment would need about ten full-time doctors, 70 nurses, and 40 other staff. For a 100-bedded hospital 16 doctors, 90 nurses, and 65 other staff would be required.
  In judging the potential harm which might be caused to the NHS it should not be considered that such development will be "competing" only with the larger district general hospitals of 500 beds or so. In fact, of the 2,280 non-psychiatric hospitals in Great Britain 877, or 38 per cent., have fewer than 50 beds and a further 1,034, or 45 per cent., have between 50 and 250 beds. Fewer than one-sixth of NHS non-psychiatric hospitals have over 250 beds.
  After reviewing this evidence the Government have concluded that it would he right to take powers to control developments in the acute sector leading to hospitals over 100 beds in the GLC area, and 75 beds outside that area.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that, instead of taking resources from the National Health Service, the provision of this private sector might reduce the flood of consultants and others who are emigrating from this country?
  Mr. Ennals: Not at all. First, there is not a flood of doctors and consultants emigrating. Although there are more than I would like, one of the encouraging things is that an increasing number are actually returning to this country. The percentage increase of those returning is higher than the increase in those departing. I do not accept that argument at all.
  We consulted the Independent Hospital Group about these size limits, but I regret to say that we could not accept its proposals for 250 beds for hospitals in the London area, 150 beds for those in the metropolitan counties and 1,000 beds elsewhere. To have done so would
  216
  have placed some parts of the NHS potentially at risk and would have rendered the controls virtually otiose.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not think that anyone has been asking for hospitals of 1,000 beds.
  Mr. Ennals: If I said 1,000 beds, I meant 100 beds in hospitals elsewhere.
  If we had not imposed these controls but had accepted the proposals put to us, the control would have been negligible. It is interesting that that was recognised in an editorial in this week's Lancet. But I am pleased to tell the House that, in a number of other important respects, the Government have accepted the scheme of scrutiny which the Independent Hospital Group proposed in a letter to my Department of 5th April. The board, and not the Secretary of State is to be the determining authority, under Clause 13. The board will be assisted by assessors. There will be a right of appeal on points of law, and the criterion by which the board will judge proposals, in Clause 13—namely, whether the development would significantly operate to the disadvantage of NHS patients—is broadly similar to, though a little wider than, that proposed by the IHG.
  In the light of the group's further comments, I intend to propose a change in the scheme so far as the smaller developments are concerned. It is only necessary for the independent board to have information to assist it in its general task of phasing out pay beds and facilities, and to underline that this is not a form of licensing for those under the figures I have given, I intend to substitute a simpler notification procedure for what the Bill describes as certification. The developer will be required to notify the board of a private hospital development before he seeks planning permission from the local authority. He will receive an acknowledgement of this notification, which he will need to show to the local planning authority. There will be no charge to the developer for this simple procedure. But I want to emphasise that these regulatory matters have one purpose only—that of preventing damage to the NHS.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that queue-jumping has long been one

  217
  source of the friction and conflict that has developed on this issue. Under para. 3(a) of the 15th December proposals, now written into Clause 6 of the Bill, the board will be required within six months to make recommendations for the operation of common waiting lists, to ensure that private and NHS patients, whether in-patients or out-patients, are admitted to NHS hospitals so far as practicable on the basis of medical priority alone. On this side of the House we shall look forward to the board's recommendations with great interest.
  Since my offer to the professions to consider carefully any suggestion for improvements in the Bill, they have sent me details of a considerable number of points which I am examining. I think some of them go to the heart of matters which we shall want to discuss in Committee. Others are matters of clarification and assurances on which I shall be ready to help them. My Department will be meeting the professions' representatives shortly to discuss these points.
  In conclusion I want to make a direct appeal to the medical profession and to some of their spokesmen in the House. This Bill is very different from the proposals contained in the consultative document. It is the result of frank and sometimes acrimonious exchanges between the profession and the Department. Major changes have been conceded, although the principles of the Bill have been left absolutely unchanged. We now have a framework in which the phasing out of pay beds will take place, but at a pace which gives the medical profession time to make adjustments in the private sector, and which safeguards the right of private practice. There is no point in doctors and others tilting at windmills as some of those who are threatening industrial action are doing. It is time to recognise that a fair compromise has been struck which should provide an enduring basis for a settlement of this divisive issue. Let us stop the politicking and get back to the primary task of patient care.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I think that the whole House will endorse the last six words of the Secretary of State—that we should once
  218
  again start to try to put patients before politics. That is just what this Bill does not do.
  We oppose this Bill for many reasons, but the core of the case which I shall seek to advance is that, inevitably, it will damage the National Health Service and harm the National Health Service patient. Ministers have in the past—I concede, not the right hon. Gentleman today—tried to represent those who oppose their policy as somehow diehard defenders of outdated privilege. If one's own motive is primarily envy, naturally that is the sort of reaction that one adopts towards those who resist one's proposals.
  However, the new Secretary of State has recognised, I think, as regrettably his predecessor did not always recognise, that the doctors, whose main organisations have united—that in itself is pretty unprecedented—to fight the Bill, are primarily concerned for the future of health care in Britain, which must mean primarily the 98 per cent. of patients in NHS hospitals who are not private patients. It is they who will be the losers when doctors have to spend their time travelling between NHS hospitals and private clinics. It is they who will be the losers when the NHS loses—[Interruption.] I will justify these figures in a moment.
  This absurd policy will cost £40 million to £50 million. It is the NHS patients who will lose when hospitals cease to be the object of private benefaction and when some of the best doctors withdraw from the NHS altogether, either to emigrate or to confine themselves to independent practice outside the NHS.
  Mrs. Renee Short: Tell us where they will go.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady wants to know where they should go. Perhaps she should ask them herself. Why are they all learning French and German? What will be the opportunities in the rest of the Community when, in December, there is free movement of professional personnel? The hon. Lady should ask herself that.
  I shall have more to say about these points later, but they are some of the hard practical consequences which will inexorably flow from the Bill; it is NHS patients who will suffer.

  219
  These are some of the reasons which have driven some doctors to resort to the strike weapon. I have just addressed about 400 junior doctors in the Grand Committee Room and what I shall say to the House now I said to them then. I said that I should make my position quite clear. I totally condemn any form of industrial action which has as its intention the coercion of Parliament or Government. That is the negation of parliamentary democracy. But the corollary is that Government and Parliament must listen to reasonable arguments and respond to them.
  When I tell the leaders of the doctors' organisations that I cannot support or condone their industrial action, I am told in terms that it was the only way that they made this Government listen to their case. Sadly, that was true of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but it need not be true now of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The leader in last Sunday's Sunday Times made the point admirably:
  "Further concessions are being asked from the professional side: senior doctors will have to travel between hospitals more than they do now. Those concessions will only be cheer-fully made if the suspicion of bad faith, the feeling that the Government is vowed to its own schemes whatever counter-recommendations it hears, is banished for good."
  That is the challenge to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the policy in this Bill is misconceived and damaging. It is largely irrelevant to the real problems confronting the National Health Service and I hope that it will be defeated tonight. But if it is not defeated—and that depends on the view taken by the minority parties—and perhaps the minority party on the Government Front Bench below the Gangway will be of some assistance—the Government must at all stages conduct the debate in a spirit of magnanimity, compromise and reconciliation. Lord Goodman, in a very long apologia pro vita sua in The Times this morning, said that the new Secretary of State had a
  "grave and even terrifying responsibility to restore tranquility to a profession which traditionally wants to get on with its job."
  It is sad and regrettable but true that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) left a poisonous legacy of bad blood which history will never for-
  220
  give. But the right hon. Gentleman—and he alone can do it—must now undertake what I might call the process of parliamentary dialysis.
  Mr. Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only a matter of trying to bring tranquillity to the National Health Service by means of concessions to the doctors. This is an issue on which principles are deeply held and views strongly felt by many other people in the service, and I have the task of not giving in to one side under the mistaken impression that this would buy peace. Peace can be bought only when the views of all are properly considered.
  Mr. Jenkin: I accept that; but one has to examine the validity of the arguments put up by the different contenders. I am already listening to the arguments of those who perhaps share the Minister's views.
  The Minister emphasises that changes have been made from the August consultative document. Perhaps about the only good thing about the Bill is that it is not now the total disaster foreshadowed in that paper. I pay unstinting tribute to the work of Lord Goodman, but I cannot go as far as he has gone in The Times today and at the weekend when he speaks of
  "massive concessions and immense victories"
  to the doctors in the negotiations. It is true that some of the worst features which disfigured that paper have been removed, but the central themes remain—the phased abolition of pay beds and the introduction of quantity licensing of hospital care out-side the National Health Service.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to recognise, even at this late hour, that these two sensitive and contentious matters must be part of the wider consideration of National Health Service problems which the Government have refered to the Royal Commission. Why cannot he recognise that the right way to resolve the conflicts tormenting the National Health Service is to let the Royal Commission examine them and include them in its report?
  When Ministers are pressed they are inclined to mutter something about manifesto commitments. Quite apart from the fact that there was nothing in the manifesto about licensing, the decision to

  221
  appoint a Royal Commission has changed the whole context in which the question falls to be considered. There was nothing in either the February or October 1974 manifestos about a Royal Commission to examine the whole financing and man-power of the Health Service; yet by October last year the mounting problems and the collapsing morale of the service, to which this politically inspired vendetta made a major contribution, led the Government to decide that a Royal Commission was the only answer. From then it became at once, and remains today, utterly senseless to proceed with this legislation in advance of the Royal Commission's report.
  Mr. Ennals: It would be absurd now to postpone, for as much as two years before the Royal Commission reports, a decision on this issue which has been under discussion. We want to get this settled as there are many much more important issues to be taken up by the Royal Commission.
  Mr. Jenkin: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure of two years and I will come back to that. What I said about the Royal Commission is the view of the Liberal Party. On 20th October the Leader of the Liberal Party asked the then Prime Minister if he would consider referring the pay beds issue to the Royal Commission,
  "thereby obtaining the widest degree of consultation and avoiding a possible confrontation".—[Official Report, 20th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 39.]
  I do not know what view the Liberal Party will take in the Division tonight, but it would be wholly consistent with the view of its Leader that the Bill should be rejected so that the issues can be referred, as they should be, to the Royal Commission.
  If the policy is rejected by the Royal Commission the country will have been saved the damage of this disastrous legislation. If, however, the policy is confirmed by the Royal Commission, what has been lost? The Secretary of State says two years. But pay beds have been in the Health Service for 30 years, and I shall refer later to what Aneurin Bevan said about them in the beginning.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Oh!
  Mr. Jenkin: It may be news to the hon. Member. I do not suppose that he has read Mr. Bevan's speeches.
  222
  Between 1964 and 1970 there was no pressure to end the system of pay beds. There was the Health Services and Public Health Act in 1968 which expressly confirmed the principle with only minor modifications. The minority Report of the Select Committee in 1971–72 to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)—who was Chairman of the Committee—was a principal signatory shrank from recommending out-right abolition of pay beds. It suggested a series of detailed administrative changes to deal with the abuses which were referred to in evidence by some witnesses, but it did not recommend that pay beds should be abolished.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What were the abuses?
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to them. Perhaps the hon. Member will contain himself. He has been sitting there shouting comments, and he must now show a little patience. Neither the minority Report nor the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East recommended abolition.
  The House should and could properly reject the Bill tonight, not necessarily in final judgment of the substantive issues, but because the appointment of the Royal Commission has supervened. Whatever else is said about the Bill, it cannot be wise for the Government to pre-empt the report of the Royal Commission by legislating hastily in advance of its doing its work.
  The new Secretary of State has thrown away one chance by instructing his officials to put the Bill down for First Reading before he had read it. The House has another chance tonight. I believe that we should take it.
  The Secretary of State says that the Bill represents the Goodman proposals. That is not wholly true. I want to make a general point about Goodman. Whatever may have been agreed between the professions and the Government, legislation is for this House to decide. Changes to the Bill will be urged on the Government by both sides and I ask that they be considered on their merits and not rejected as deviating from Goodman. Legislation is for Parliament, and Parliament cannot be bound by any under-standing reached by the Government out-side Parliament. Understandings rarely

  223
  comprehend the full detail that is in the Bill, and it is the Bill when it becomes law which will govern the conduct of affairs, not the proposals foreshadowing it.
  Second, it is clear that the professions never agreed with the Goodman proposals. Those who took part in the talks had no power to bind their colleagues. The consultants who took part in the CCHMS ballot to which the right hon. Gentleman referred voted three to one to reject pay bed separation, and seven to one to reject licensing. I shall not remind the right hon. Gentleman of the actual question to which he referred, but they were given a choice whether to accept or resign. That is a very different matter from accepting outright.
  Mr. John Ovenden: The right hon. Gentleman is becoming very erratic in his arguments. He has said twice within the past two or three minutes that legislation is a matter for Parliament, yet only five minutes ago he was saying that Parliament should not concern itself with this legislation and that we should await the Royal Commission. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make up his mind.
  Mr. Jenkin: With respect, that is a sophistical argument. It is complete sophistry. I am saying that the Bill should not be before Parliament at all. The issue should be referred to the Royal Commission. However, as it is here, it must be a matter for Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is demeaning himself by trying to pretend that I am illogical.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: The right hon. Gentleman has tried to imply that the consultants, in the ballot chosen by their own organisation as the correct way of consulting them, voted to reject the proposal. Is that what he said? I that were so, the Government would have proceeded not with this Bill but with the original Bill.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Lady is drawing a wrong conclusion. The profession was invited by the Government to withdraw its industrial action. The consultants were asked,
  "please indicate which of the two propositions outlined below is nearer to your view as to the
  224
  desirable course of action for the professions now to adopt. Please tick one box only. EITHER I believe that the Goodman proposals should be accepted, on the understanding that they will be incorporated in any legislation OR I do not believe that the Goodman proposals provide adequate protection for the independence of the professions and I am therefore prepared to submit my undated resignation from my NHS" —
  Mrs. Castle rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: No, let me continue. It is perhaps indicative that, given that unpalatable choice, nearly half the consultants felt unable to tick either box. On the substantive question,
  "Do you object to the proposed separation…?"
  there were 5,165 consultants who said "Yes" and 1,834 who said "No"—namely, a three to one majority. On the question of independent licensing, 5,995 said that they were against it and 866 said that they were in favour of it.
  Mrs. Castle: Incidentally, nearly 2,000 voted for the separation of pay beds. It would have been interesting if the right hon. Gentleman had quoted that. Is he not still running away from my major point? Is he saying that the professions do not accept the Goodman proposals? As the former Prime Minister's letter of 15th December to the BMA made clear, the Government were prepared to embody these proposals in legislation only if they were accepted by the medical profession as a whole. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should withdraw the Bill and return to the original proposal?
  Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State knows that I am saying that we should withdraw the Bill and refer the matter to the Royal Commission. That would be the sensible course to take. The right hon. Lady has referred to the Prime Minister's letter. In fact, the Prime Minister recognised that the profession would remain rootedly opposed to the proposal. On 15th December the then Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the BMA in the following terms:
  "I fully appreciate that your willingness to submit these proposals does not mean that you and your colleagues have in any way withdrawn your opposition to the phasing out of private practice and that you will reserve your right to try to influence Parliament's decision on the principle of phasing out."
  What is wrong with that? In fact, they withdrew their industrial action. That

  225
  put the Government in the position in which they cannot now resile from the Goodman proposals to the detriment of the medical profession. No doubt we shall discuss these matters in Committee.
  The Secretary of State has said that the Bill fully embodies the Goodman proposals. It does not. There are several important departures, but at this stage I shall refer only to two. The first departure involves the issue of the 1,000 beds. The schedule does not cover Northern Ireland. It was always the clear understanding of the BMA representatives that the total of 1,000 referred to the United Kingdom, not merely to Great Britain. I recognise that the Northern Ireland Health Service is not part of the NHS, but when representatives of the professions met the former Prime Minister and other Ministers on 21st October 1975, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was present. He took part in the dialogue on phasing out pay beds in the Province. If phasing out were not to cover Northern Ireland, why was he there and why did he take part?
  Alternatively, if subsequent discussions did not include Northern Ireland, why was that not made clear to the professions at the time. Whichever it is, as Northern Ireland is not included in the Bill the figure of 1,000 must be reduced to about 800 if the 13111 is to reflect the Goodman discussions. Some part of the 1,000 was clearly understood to refer to Northern Ireland.
  The second departure concerns consultation. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman felt a bit uneasy about the consultation he has managed to have so far on the list of beds to go. I shall remind him of what the Goodman document provided about the schedule of 1,000 beds. The document reads,
  "In determining this Schedule the Government will wish to consult fully with the medical and dental professions".
  At a later stage the document reads,
  "The Government will also wish to consult at the level of the individual hospital."
  There can be no dispute between the two sides of the House that they have not even begun to do that.
  On 27th February a letter was sent to area administrators. It was sent to area health authorities. It said that such authorities were not required to comment on the location of the pay beds from which
  226
  authorisations would be withdrawn or the distribution or location of those that will remain. It continued:
  "These are matters which the Secretary of of State recognises should be the subject of fuller consultation during the passage of the Bill"
  The matter does not stop there. The letter continues:
  "and, if necessary, in the period immediately following Royal Assent."
  That is what was written. But there is no power in the Bill to change the schedule. There is no power in the Bill as it stands to make that change.
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the inconsistency of the situation in which he finds himself, but it is worse than that. A Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) disclosed that the community health councils have not been approached either. It is impudent nonsense for the Government to try to pretend that they have consulted in accordance with the Goodman proposals.
  I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman react it, but the Press notice put out by his Department under the heading "Note to Editors" reads:
  "Proposals for the initial reduction of pay beds in each area health authority made after wide consultations, are contained in a schedule to the Bill."
  That is impudent nonsense and the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of it.
  This is an important matter of principle because phasing out is not merely a matter of numbers. It must take account of the kind of beds to go and the location of beds to go. It must take account of the availability of alternative beds. If it does not refer to individual hospitals and refers only to areas, it is impossible to decide whether the numbers are right in the first place.
  Indeed, The Sunday Times made the following point:
  "These are pre-eminently decisions where there should be careful, and if necessary prolonged, local consultation. Otherwise charges of dogmatism and high-handedness will persist."
  I believe that it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention not to have that label hung around his neck. Clearly we have had enough of it over the past two years. If he wants to live up to that intention he must be prepared to spell out exactly how he proposes to handle the consultation and in the meantime to take the

  227
  schedule away so that the list can be properly dealt with.
  The nub of the Bill is the question of separation. The Government are abandoning one of the key compromises on which the NHS came into existence and has existed for the past 28 years. I should like at this point to refer to the wise remarks of the late Aneurin Bevan speaking in Committee on the National Health Service Bill. He said:
  "I admit at once that specialists are being given very favourable treatment, but I believe that by this means we shall eventually obtain a far higher standard of service for the patient…What we are endeavouring to do and what we must try to secure, is that the specialist is induced, as far as possible, to spend all his time at the hospital, both for his own sake and for the sake of the patients in the hospital, and—in the case of the teaching hospitals—for the sake of the students, and indeed, the whole atmosphere of the hospital. The more he spends his time in the hospital, the better for everyone concerned. I would encourage the specialist to have as much consultation in the hospital as possible. I do not want him to go to his surgery; I want him to be there on the spot and to see the people in the hospital."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 21st May 1946; c. 1155.]
  I suggest that that argument is every bit as valid today as it was in 1946. That is the concept which has become known as geographical whole-time practice.
  I want to try to remove the misconceptions on which some accusations of abuse are based. A consultant who takes maximum part-time service with the NHS undertakes to give to the NHS and his NHS patients the equivalent of the care given by his whole-time colleagues—that is his contract—but he forgoes two-elevenths of his salary and two-elevenths of any distinction award he may receive. In return for giving up that part of his salary—and, remember, he accepts the full obligation of the whole-time man he has the right to do private practice and to arrange his NHS commitment flexibly enough to combine both. I stress these two points because they are not always recognised even by those who work in the NHS. He has a reduced salary but he has the same obligation as the full-time consultant. In that, he is different from all other employees in the hospital who get their full pay and
  228
  whose normal duties may cover either NHS patients or private beds.
  Nearly half–47 per cent.—of the consultants in the NHS are maximum part-timers. Thus, their services are retained for the benefit of NHS patients, or they are working for NHS hospitals virtually full-time and overwhelmingly for NHS patients.
  I have no doubt, and the Secretary of State should have no doubt, that if pay beds go and the consultants who wish to continue to take advantage of the private practice undertaking are forced to divide their time between two locations, some of the most distinguished will leave the NHS altogether and cease to be available for NHS patients. Others will continue to serve the NHS but this division is bound to be to the detriment of the NHS patient. If the consultant has to look after his private patients outside the hospital, in an emergency someone else will have to look after his patient in the NHS hospital. Instead of being on the premises he will be elsewhere or, even worse, commuting between hospitals. If all consultants opt to do that, one expert has estimated that the equivalent of 500 full-time consultants will be lost to the NHS. It is impossible to see how that will benefit the NHS patient.
  As Mr. Bevan pointed out, not only patients but medical education will be affected. In 1968 the Todd Commission proposed the opposite of what the Bill proposes for private practice. Paragraph 515 of the Todd Report reads as follows:
  "A number of Consultant teachers will probably wish to continue some private practice. The problems which this raises …have given rise to proposals that Consultant teachers' service should be geographically full-time', i.e. that they should be enabled to see and treat private patients at the teaching hospital.…We think that facilities for 'geographically full-time' service on these lines would offer great advantages to medical education.… we think that all university hospital authorities should do their best to provide accommodation suitable for this purpose and should expect that any private practice by their medical staff would be undertaken there".
  What a sensible view compared with the nonsense in the Bill, which goes in exactly the opposite direction! I have been told that in Canada the problem is dealt with in exactly the opposite way to the way which the Bill proposes. Consultants who wish to combine both functions have to

  229
  do so under one roof, whereas here the Government are forcing them to go separate and to perform their functions in different locations. I believe that Aneurin Bevan was absolutely right on this issue.
  Mrs. Castle: Does the right hon. Gentleman also think that Nye Bevan was absolutely right when in "In place of Fear" he referred to his concession on pay beds as a defect in the scheme which was seen as such from the start?
  Mr. Jenkin: I said that it was a compromise. It is a compromise which has produced inestimable benefits for the National Health Service.
  Then there is the question of finance. I hoped that it would not be disputed that the policy will cost a great deal of money. At a time when NHS resources are under great pressure, that is money needlessly thrown away. The Secretary of State challenged the figures given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) in an intervention. But his predecessor made perfectly clear what would be the cost. The right hon. Member for Blackburn said:
  "Income from pay bed charges in England in 1973–74 was £14·3 million. On the basis of a similar use of pay beds, the estimate for 1975–76 is £26 million"—[Official Report, 4th November 1975; Vol. 191, c. 201.]
  Since then there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the charge for pay beds, so that the £26 million should perhaps be about £33 million or £34 million in 1976–77 for England, and for Great Britain as a whole perhaps £36 million. £37 million or £38 million.
  In addition, some consultants will give up part-time status and take full-time consultancy, and they will have to be paid the extra two-elevenths. So I believe that we are talking about £40 million plus as the full-term cost of this policy. That is a loss to the NHS.
  Dr. Glyn: That was the figure I mentioned to the Minister, but he denied it and said that the figure was £20 million and that the figure of £40 million had never been mentioned. My figures show that the cost is between £38 million and £40 million.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in these matters. I have adequately justified the figure on the basis
  230
  of the figures given by the former Secretary of State. We know that the NHS is running out of money. There is no shortage of other resources but there is a shortage of money, and the public expenditure White Paper made clear that this money which is being lost because of the loss of pay bed revenue has to be made up by the Government at the expense of other things.
  What will £40 million buy? It is the full cost of implementing the proposals in the White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Ill" which we debated a few weeks ago. It is what the Government hope to save by repealing last year's decision by the House on the pensioners earnings rule. A sum of £40 million would go a long way to meet the objectives of the Central Council for the Disabled on mobility for the disabled. There is a whole raft of important medical priorities which are being shoved aside by the Bill. Is it the case that the Government put a higher priority on separating pay beds from the National Health Service than those matters that I have mentioned?
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Yes.
  Mr. Jenkin: Even the administrative costs of £200,000 represent the annual cost of treating 200 dialysis patients. The Bill talks of medical priorities. What sort of priority is that?
  The matter does not stop there. The Sun newspaper today bears the headline:
  "Healey poised to slash spending. Massive Government spending cuts may be on the way."
  It should not be thought that the Health Service will be exempt. On page 2 the
  Sun says:
  "The health service would also get a battering."
  Having been in a Government Department myself, I recognise that that has the smell of truth about it. I believe that the Government are considering further major cuts in spending. Is it the case that the Bill, which is the product of Socialist dogma, will have a higher priority than the care of patients in hospitals even though the matter could be referred with complete honour and integrity on all sides to a Royal Commission?

  231
  That then is the formidable case against the Bill. What of the case for? In 1971 a Select Committee examined the abuses of the system. In any large organisation, perhaps even within the Labour Party itself, there are abuses. Every profession has its few black sheep, and one must maintain constant vigilance. But one does not amputate the leg because of a few bunions on the toes. That is what is happening here. It is a major criticism that the Government have made no attempt to examine with the professions or anyone else how absurd might be eliminated.
  The Select Committee considered abuses under six headings four of which were specific. The first was that consultants neglected National Health Service work; secondly, that the consultants altered hospital operating lists; thirdly, that they borrowed or stole drugs and equipment; fourthly, that hospitals sometimes used unauthorised pay beds.
  Everyone agreed that it was impossible to quantify the extent or the effect of such abuses and that there was no evidence that they were widespread. Tighter administration, better controls and more vigilance would cure the trouble and certainly all that would be left would be a tiny pinprick compared with the damage done by separation.
  One disadvantage which was referred to is the distortion of career structure—an argument primarily put forward by the Junior Hospital Doctors Association. Having been faced with the consequences of separation, that organisation is now entirely against the Government proposals. The Association's change of view is one of the most significant features of the argument.
  The Government have made it cleat that their primary goal was the elimination of queue jumping, and I want to deal with that subject fully. The argument could be relevant for two reasons—first, the perceived effect—what people think is the effect and think is happening—and, second, the real effect—what actually happens. It is important to distinguish between the two because what people think happens affects attitudes. The only relevance of the queue jumping argument would be if it had any material effect on the waiting lists of National Health Service patients or if it lengthened the
  232
  time they have to wait for consultation or operation.
  Let us look first at the substantive effect of so-called queue jumping on the waiting lists. It is doubtful whether there is any substantive effect at all. Paragraph 20 of Command Paper 5270, the White Paper published in reply to the Select Committee's Report, shows that the average number of private patients is less than half of 1 per cent. of NHS patients waiting for treatment. We are therefore dealing with a tiny corner of the service. There is no correlation between the level of waiting lists and the number of pay beds. Paragraph 20 states:
  "Between 1966 and 1969 when the number of pay beds was reduced by over 22 per cent. waiting lists actually increased—by a little more than 4 per cent. From the end of 1969 to the end of 1971 when there was a small increase in pay beds (from 4,766 to 4,883) waiting lists for the first time for many years showed a reduction of about 6 per cent. There are acute general hospitals with long waiting lists and few or no pay beds, and some with shorter waiting lists and a large number of pay beds."
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If pay beds do not provide the ability to queue jump, why do consultants refuse to agree to common waiting lists?
  Mr. Jenkin: The question is, what will be the effect on the NHS patient? The attitude of some hon. Members is one of pure, undiluted envy. At least that is clear. The supporters of the Bill are not interested in whether it will confer any benefit on the patient.
  It is hardly surprising that the question put to the DHSS by the chairman of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, Mr. Nigel Harris, on what effect the phasing out would have on waiting lists received this reply:
  "I am afraid it is not possible to confirm that the waiting time for a consultation will be reduced and the waiting time for admission for treatment will shorten when pay beds are phased out of National Health Service hospitals, but it is certainly hoped that this will improve the situation"
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): Since that letter has been misquoted on many occasions, will the hon. Gentleman read the next paragraph?
  Mr. Jenkin: People do not always quote the whole sentence as I did. I was going to refer to the reply by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, but I will

  233
  spare her blushes. The next paragraph reads:
  'The basic waiting list problem is one of very long standing. The Department have made a small start in tackling it by allocating, for the first time ever, £5 million in 1975/76 especially to deal with those aspects of waiting time that can be improved by capital expenditure."
  —there will be less for that, because pay bed money will be lost—
  "We recognise that this can only have a small impact on a nationwide problem, and that much more is needed to eliminate otherwise intractable difficulties in all areas."
  The letter shows that the waiting lists have nothing to do with pay beds. That is confirmed recently in the priorities document which in paragraph 4.21 lays stress on the need to close under-used NHS beds in acute hospitals which are surplus to requirements in many areas. Most of the pay beds to be phased out will be in the same areas and it is becoming clear, as The Times said on March 25,
  "the likelihood that they will be emancipated in large numbers only to be closed is increased."
  The substantive effect is minimal, negligible or non-existent and does not justify turning the whole basis of geographical full-time practice upside down or shattering medical morale as the Government have done.
  But what of the perceived effect? Ever since I learnt that every right-minded Welshman believes that Churchill sent the troops against the miners at Tonypandy I have realised that in politics what matters is what people think happens, not what actually happens. That is what is wrong with pay beds. We need to offset the misconceptions by ensuring that the real advantages of pay beds are equally perceived by all those concerned with the NHS.
  That is why I recently suggested three minor changes which could have that effect. First, and most important, I suggested that part of the money paid to the NHS for pay beds, which now goes direct into the Treasury, where it is lost in the common pool, should be used for the benefit of the hospital where it is earned.
  Secondly, I suggested that the money should go into an earmarked fund, most of which should be used for identifiable projects or equipment which everyone
  234
  would know had been funded by private patients' fees.
  Thirdly, I suggested that it might be right to examine the possibility of the payment of a modest honorarium to those hospital staff who work directly with the consultant for his private patients. I did not place on that suggestion the emphasis that the right hon. Gentleman placed on it, and I was interested in his reaction. I have told the union leaders whom I am meeting that I am prepared to discuss the proposal with them. It might be possible to establish a "tronc" similar to that in the hotel industry, as a result of which all those who do the work can benefit from the payments made.
  I place much more importance on the first two suggestions, which would be sensible reforms, the main purpose of which would be to demonstrate to staff and others that there are undoubted advantages to NHS patients in retaining the system of pay beds.
  I shall deal briefly with the other part of the Bill, which is primarily a matter for Committee. The licensing provisions, even in their modified form, arouse the gravest suspicions. The suspicion is that controls will be used effectively to throttle any developments in the independent health sector. We know that the Labour Party conference has voted twice to abolish independent medicine and to nationalise all independent nursing homes and hospitals. We know also that the right hon. Lady's consultative document contained the express intention to limit the size to the level of beds in 1974.
  This is a fundamental issue of freedom of choice. If people choose to spend their money on providing for their own families' health, who the hell are the Government to say that they should not? If, with rising standards of prosperity, more people choose to exercise that right, why should any Government deny it to them?
  Part III, whose intention must be construed in the light of the known prejudices of the Labour Party, is yet another manifestation of the ugly and unacceptable face of Socialism, the desire to spread the tentacles of State control and State monopoly ever wider over the lives of our people.
  This is a nasty, misbegotten piece of Socialist legislation. It is wholly irrelevant to the real problems of the Health

  235
  Service. It will damage the itnerests of NHS patients. It will cost the NHS tens of millions of pounds per year. It will make no contribution to restoring the morale of the medical profession. Its professed objectives are either illusory or trivial compared with the damage it will cause. The so-called abuses that the Bill aims to correct could and should have been dealt with by tighter administration.
  It is nothing less than a tragedy that so much time, effort and passion should have had to be expended on what is, in the last resort, a peripheral issue. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members who do not share the prejudices, the envy and spite of the party opposite and also those who believe that at any rate the issue should be referred to the Royal Commission will join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against the Bill tonight.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his new job and thank him for the kind things he said about me. I also congratulate him on keeping to the deadline for the introduction of the Bill, which was essential if it was to become law this Session, in fulfilment of our commitment in the Queen's Speech.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend is no more surprised than I am to discover that the Conservative Opposition will vote against the Bill. As I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), opening for the Opposition, I was interested in the remarkable echoes from the passage of Mr. Aneurin Bevan's Bill. It was the right hon. Gentleman's party which, in the period of 1946 to 1948, voted against the original NHS Bill. Now, Conservative Members are saying that they are in business to defend the very NHS they opposed. The fact that Aneurin Bevan had made his concession on pay beds did not alter the fact that on Second Reading they voted against the NHS.
  Mr. William Ross: And on Third Reading.
  Mrs. Castle: And on Third Reading they voted against the Bill complete with
  236
  the very compromise which they now say made it perfect. They used exactly the same kind of argument as we have heard today—that it was the thin end of the wedge of State tyranny and bureaucracy.
  When my right hon. Friend referred to the fascinating brochure issued by the Campaign for Independence in Medicine I hoped that he would send that body a copy of the article by our old friend, Dr. Charles Hill, published in February 1946, when he was Secretary to the British Medical Association. It appealed to the patients of Britain to reject the NHS as a whole. It was for the same reason as has been advanced today that it was the result of "pride and envy" and that the patient would suffer. The actual words that dear Dr. Charles Hill used, addressing the patients of Britain through the Sunday Dispatch, were:
  "You will suffer. You may tend to become a unit, an entry on a card."
  Therefore, what we have heard so far today was remarkably familiar, and it was equally irrelevant.
  We on the Labour Benches know that we must force through the great social changes always in the teeth of bitter attack from the Opposition, only to have them say 27 years later that the thing we now think should advance a little further should not change one iota from the state it was in when they voted against it. That is the position we are in this afternoon.
  I know the pressures that will have been put on my right hon. Friend from the medical profession as soon as he walked into the Elephant and Castle, just as they were on me. He will find that his honeymoon period is remarkably short. [Interruption.] I gather that it has not even started. I have seen no signs of it. My right hon. Friend is accused in the British Medical Journal of continuing what that journal calls my "breathless timetable" to get this legislation through. That is utter nonsense.
  In addition to all the recent detailed consultations of which my right hon. Friend has spoken, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I raised the whole question of our election manifesto commitment the first time the BMA came to see us at the beginning of 1974. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, presiding over the

  237
  Owen Working Party, had two meetings with the BMA way back in October and November 1974 on the private practice panel of that working party, when we told the medical profession that that was our commitment and we intended to honour it.
  The medical profession's policy all along has been to play for time, in the hope that, if it could be delayed, this terrible new improvement in the NHS would just go away. That is all that is behind the demand for the Royal Commission to look at the proposition. Procrastination is politics for the medical profession. It is its right to try to get the proposal postponed, or ditched, if it can, but it is our duty to go ahead without further delay, as two years have elapsed since we fought and won an election on this commitment. This Government were elected twice on their campaign to take the profit motive out of public medicine. That was our campaign. It is an honourable one.
  It is a more honourable one than the campaign for independence in medicine, because the argument over pay beds is fundamentally about money and nothing else. It is the money that is to be made out of queue jumping. That is the point of principle that the medical profession is concerned to preserve. That is exactly why it has always refused to discuss the possibility of our moving more gradually towards phasing out through the introduction of common waiting lists. If the medical profession has the interests of the patient at heart, one would have thought that every consultant concerned about patient care would have hurried forward to say "Yes, let us keep our pay beds in NHS hospitals, but we will accept with you and work out with you and help you to apply and police a common waiting list for patients who come in free on the NHS, so that they may get exactly the same medical priority as those who pay us a fee."
  If that had ever been their argument we could listen to it, but, of course, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State raised this with the private practice panel of the Owen Working Party he was told categorically "We cannot agree to this because some of our people would lose money" This is the point. I have no objection to the medical profession being concerned about the rate of remunera-
  238
  tion just as much as anybody else, but please spare us the hypocrisy of pretending that anything else is involved. The Government can stand with their head high over their treatment of the medical profession in regard to pay.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Hypocrisy!
  Mrs. Castle: Oh, yes. I remember the situation very clearly. There were many in the medical profession, whether consultants, general practitioners or junior doctors, who, because they were at the end of the pay queue, their review being due in April, really believed that they would lose out on pay policy, and that the Government would be introducing some incomes policy before they had had their chance to catch up. I said to them "No, your turn will come. It would be dishonourable not to allow you freely to catch up, as other groups have been allowed to do."
  The Government therefore, fully honoured the review settlement by the DDRB in April 1975, because, of course, doctors must be properly rewarded, and they have the right to be concerned about their remuneration. I will be the first to defend that right, but do not let us pretend, I repeat, that any other principle is involved. If it is a high moral principle that we are concerned about we should be concerned with the foundation principle of the NHS.
  This is how Aneurin Bevan described it in introducing it in those earlier days. He said:
  "No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid for lack of means."
  What we are now adding to this is the principle that our society cannot legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person has to go lower down in the queue for medical treatment because of his lack of means.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I know that my hon. Friend will try very hard to get into the debate later, and perhaps he will allow me to carry on.
  This is a principle that hon. Members opposite have never understood, and that is why they voted against the National Health Service in the first place.

  239
  Intrinsically, the National Health Service is a church. It is the nearest thing to the embodiment of the Good Samaritan that we have in any aspect of our public policy. What would we say of a person who argued that he could only serve God properly if he had pay pews in his church? That is the difference between us.
  When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is pure, undiluted envy on our part, he does not begin to understand that what motivates the other workers in the National Health Service—the nurses, the ancillary workers, the radiographers and the therapists—is not envy. It is not that they are cross because they do not share the swag. It is their deep medical pride in the principle that when a patient comes into a hospital he should be treated and considered on medical grounds alone. Anybody who wants to strengthen that in this difficult time ought to thank God that we have, uniquely in the world, a health service which embodies that principle—the "cohesion of our society" was the term that Nye often used—and should want to strengthen it by removing that defect in the scheme which was clear in it from the start, as Nye Bevan said in "In Place of Fear".
  The argument about the independence of medicine being threatened is nonsense. Apart from anything else, nearly half the consultants work whole-time anyway, and no one can tell me that they are in shackles and chains. They do not think they are. There are specialties after specialties, such as the less glamorous ones in the country where the whole-timer is practically the only consultant there, because there are no extra pickings to be had.
  No one can tell me that those who deal with geriatrics and the mentally handicapped are medical slaves. Of course they are not. People who use that kind of argument are insulting half the profession.
  We have only to look at a great hospital such as St. Bartholemew's, one of the outstanding hospitals in the world. It is part of its charter that it does not take paying patients from the United Kingdom and cannot do so. Nobody can tell me that the people who work there are not free.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Lady not accept that a very large number of the consultants, and an even larger number of the junior hospital doctors, will say absolutely outright not only that they do not have any expectation of having a private practice but that they would not wish to have one, and yet they stand resolutely with their brethren in opposition to the Bill?
  Mrs. Castle: I am well aware of that, but it is a fact that Nye Bevan had to take the medical profession by the hand and lead it gently into the modern world, and 27 years later the profession thanks him for it. It did not at the time. The profession then said exactly the same things as the right hon. Gentleman has been saying about me, when he spoke of my having left behind poisoned relationships, and the rest of it. The profession in those days called Nye Bevan a medical Fuhrer, and said that he was introducing a Hitler regime. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Let hon. Members opposite read Michael Foot's book on Nye Bevan. Indeed, I suggest that no Tories ought to take part in this debate till they have read Michael Foot's book on Nye Bevan. [Interruption.] They were saying these things, incidentally, about the National Health Service even after Nye had made his concession over the pay beds.
  Something even remotely like peace was only restored by Nye by a last-minute concession that it should be written into the legislation that doctors were not to be obliged to serve whole time. We have rewritten that provision into this Bill. It is there in Clause 2(2) and has been from the very beginning of the discussions. I said to the medical profession "We are not compelling you to go whole-time. We will rewrite that guarantee into the legislation."
  I know that a number of my hon. Friends want a whole-time salaried service, but we are not giving them it in the Bill. Some of them have attacked me for it. I cannot be attacked from both sides on that same point without one of them being wrong, and it happens to be the hon. Members opposite who are wrong—not for the first time.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to resist the siren voices of Lord Goodman and

  241
  the Sunday Times who seek to pressurise him to water down the Bill still more.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: He has done so—the Minister said so.
  Mrs. Castle: If my hon. Friends will wait a moment I shall get to that point in my speech—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What we are trying to say in our interjections is that already Lord Goodman has watered down this Bill.
  Mrs. Castle: No. He has not watered down the Bill. I shall come to Lord Goodman's role in a moment. This Bill is the product of a compromise, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now being told in terms, by the Sunday Times and Lord Goodman, that his fitness to govern will be proved by the extent to which he is prepared to make still more concessions.
  This Bill represents the ultimate in compromise. I know that for a number of my hon. Friends it goes far too far. I believe that it represents a reasonable compromise. I believe that as trade unionists we should not suddenly and arbitarily cut off a source of income from anybody.
  Mr. Skinner: Dangerous.
  Mrs. Castle: No: it is practiced by trade unionists.
  Some consultants operate in what may be called geographically unattractive areas, of which there are a few in my constituency. In those areas there are only a few pay beds and there are not the fat pickings that are to be found in the South. In the southern part of England consultants can easily transfer into private institutions, but that process is much more difficult in the remote and less attractive areas.
  When I considered this matter originally I envisaged a Bill that would lay down a reasonable period of phasing out, not the abolition of all pay beds from the date of Royal Assent. I believe that phasing out would be a good Socialist and trade union principle. It would give people a fair chance to adjust their lives. I have always believed in phasing out, and, indeed, it is a phrase that we have used in all our manifestos. The difference now is that these matters will be
  242
  controlled not by the Secretary of State for Social Services but by an independent body. The constitution of that body has been carefully argued and agreed in our negotiations with the medical profession conducted through Lord Goodman.
  It is clear that the profession does not trust me, but not just me. Indeed, as Nye Bevan said, the medical profession has never trusted any Minister of Health. In two minutes flat it will be found that they will not trust my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The profession feared that the approach I have outlined would not be applied. Therefore, the idea of an independent board was thought to give it security. I must admit that it gives me a sense of security, too.
  We all know that Secretaries of State change. Powers that might be operated by me in a certain way could be operated in a different manner by somebody else —and I am not referring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that he and I are of the same kidney in this respect, but there are other future Secretaries of State to be considered. There is even the horribly remote contingency that we shall have another Tory Government, and the wicked successor syndrome is very much in my mind.
  We are to have an independent board on which trade unionists as well as members of the medical profession will sit, working under an independent chairman. That will be a guarantee that no Secretary of State in future can come along and administratively wreck the whole programme of phasing out because that power is within his or her discretion. In this situation there is something to be said for limiting the administrative discretion. I should love to have that discretion personally, but I should not be so happy if it were to be in the hands of some other people. I shall not name names, but I am certainly referring to Members of the Opposition.
  There is in this legislation the essence of a reasonable compromise. However, I believe that Lord Goodman is now pushing his luck by making the sort of statement he made last weekend. Now that I have been removed from office he is trying unilaterally to reinterpret the agreement, an agreement which I and my

  243
  hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security worked out with the medical profession, through the intermediary of Lord Goodman.
  Let us make no mistake about the fact that detailed discussions took place on these matters, although the medical profession now refuses to call them negotiations. The profession is terrified of commiting itself to anything. If they were not negotiations, all I can say is that they certainly resulted in an agreement containing proposals that were argued line by line and word by word.
  It is important for the debate that lies ahead for us to understand the nature of that compromise. It was set out in my statement to the House on 15th December. Incidentally, every word of my statement had been seen and approved by Dr. Derek Stevenson of the BMA as a fair interpretation on the outcome of these arms-length talks. I said in my statement:
  "It is proposed that the legislation would embody two principles: first that private beds and facilities should be separated from the NHS"—
  a crucial part of the package compromise. Secondly, I expressed the Government's commitment to the
  "maintenance of private practice in this country through the renewal of the provision in the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949, which maintains the right to private practice by entitling doctors to work both privately and in NHS establishments.' —[Official Report, 15th Dec., 1975; Vol. 902, c. 972.]
  Both those principles are embodied in this package and are crucial to it.
  I wish to draw attention to a letter from my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister which was sent to the profession on the same day as I made the statement. The former Prime Minister referred to the fact that discussions had been going on and said that he understood that detailed proposals had "evolved" and were to be placed before the profession and its committees and councils for urgent consideration. The Prime Minister wrote as follows:
  "I am writing to inform you that if the proposals are accepted by the professions as a whole and normal working is resumed, the Government would embody the proposals in the legislation."
  244
  He went on:
  "I fully appreciate that your willingness to submit these proposals does not mean that you and your colleagues have in any way withdrawn your opposition to the passing out of private practice and that you will reserve your right to try to influence Parliament's decision on the principle of phasing out"
  I stress the word "principle". One important thing to remember is that it was always accepted that the profession should have the right to try to stop the Second Reading of the Bill. Put the profession also accepted the following which is in paragraph 3 of the Goodman proposals:
  "Despite their continuing opposition the medical and dental professions acknowledge that the phasing out of pay beds in NHS hospitals may, through legislation, become the will of Parliament. In that event the phasing out should be subject to the safe-guards outlined below."
  That is a very clear deal which has been struck, and the Prime Minister acknowledged the profession's right to try to defeat the Bill, but if any Bill goes forward, the deal is that it is to be a Bill along these lines. Of course, I accept absolutely that it is for Parliament to decide the contents of any legislation, and the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was right to make that point.
  However, as far as the Government are concerned, what the Government are committed to and what they are obliged to ask their supporters to vote for is this compromise package and nothing else. If it is weakened, and if attempts are now made to say" We have to look now at the schedule because 1,000 beds is too many and we must cut them to 750"—I have even read that—I would point out that the commitment to phase out 1,000 beds within the schedule within six months is in the proposals the acceptance of which by the profession led to the Government embodying them in the legislation. If we are told that the profession is now going back on that then, by heavens, there are some things that some of the rest of us would want to go back on. I say to my comrades and to the House that what the Government of which I was a member tried to do was to bring peace to the NHS by striking a balance between their commitment to separate private practice from NHS hospitals and the fears of the medical profession that this would be a step towards

  245
  the total abolition of private medicine, which was never our policy.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Lady seemed to say—I am sure that it must have been inadvertently —that the Government were committed by their agreement with the medical and dental professions to pay no regard to debates in Parliament and not to be persuaded by them.
  Mrs. Castle: No. I said absolutely the opposite. Of course it is for Parliament to decide the contents of any legislation. However, as far as the Government are concerned, I accepted on their behalf the obligation, in accepting that compromise, at least to try to persuade the House to adopt its contents. But if the profession fights not merely against the principle on Second Reading but fights to change the contents in the remaining stages of the Bill's passage through the House, an entirely new situation arises.
  Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends that what we tried to do was to embody in this legislation a fair programme of phasing out which would give private interests a reasonable time to develop alternative facilities. It is not the Labour Party's policy, and has not been in our manifestos or anywhere else, to abolish private medicine.
  However, when Lord Goodman says, as he did this weekend—I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 24th April—
  "This is not a Bill to phase out pay beds"
  I tell him that he is dangerously inciting key workers in the NHS, who have been very patient through all these discussions, and, I believe, would continue to be patient, and would realise the decency of phasing out pay beds in a proper way if we were standing firm by our principle.
  I remind the House of the key sentence in the whole of the Goodman proposals and which, I repeat, I said in my statement to the House, with full acceptance by the BMA. It is in paragraph 2 of the Goodman proposals:
  "The legislation would contain first a broad declaration that private beds and facilities should be separated from the NHS"
  I would never have agreed to any compromise which did not contain that governing principle.
  Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Castle: No. I must get on.
  When Lord Goodman says that pay beds will not be phased out in his lifetime, and
  "in some places, not at all",
  I wonder how imminent he expects his demise to be. However, it is not for him to interpret the criteria merely in order to win over his medical audience. The criteria are laid down in this legislation, laid down in detail in Clause 8.
  I ask my colleagues to look at these criteria very carefully, because they provide reasonable time for alternative facilities to be provided. They also say specifically that if after a reasonable time opportunity is not being taken to provide alternative private facilities, that in itself would be reason enough for the board to decide that pay beds in that area should go. I repeat that I consider that to be a vital part. There may not be a final date in the Bill, but there is finality.
  As for licensing, which the medical profession is now saying was in our manifesto, I reply that it is in the proposals that I put to the House on 15th December, the acceptance of which, by ballot of the consultants, has led to their embodiment in the Bill. I personally believe that a major flaw in the Bill is that the figures that we have allowed for unlicensed beds are too high, but that is a point on which we cannot have perfection.
  Therefore, while sincerely wishing my right hon. Friend well in the stormy voyage that lies ahead I must say that he has here a very delicately balanced package. He said that he would not be unbending. I say to him that if he is tempted to bend to pressures from the professions he will face some very vigorous pressures from his own side of the House.
  5.56 p.m.
  Sir George Young: The longer I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the clearer it became to me that her removal from office was a prerequisite for better relations in the National Health Service. If she harangued the medical profession as she has just harangued the House, it is no

  247
  wonder that the profession felt embittered, threatened and insulted, and no wonder that the atmosphere between them became tense.
  No one can have failed to notice the contrast in the two speeches that we have heard from the Government side of the House. The right hon. Lady said that the Bill represents the ultimate of compromise and that there could be no watering down. On the other hand, the new Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that he is open to persuasion on the content of the Bill and that he will not have a closed mind on the various representations that may be made to him. Whatever one's reservations about the principle of the Bill, the fact that we have a Secretary of State who is more moderate and reasoned in his approach to it is something on which the House can congratulate itself.
  However, those are the only kind words that I have for the new Secretary of State. I listened very closely to his speech.
  Mr. Ennals: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on and makes me feel uncomfortable, I want to state that I have presented the Bill that was prepared by my right hon. Friend, and any Secretary of State who does not say that in the course of debate he will listen to representations from both sides is very unwise. I listen to representations from all sides. That is why at one stage I intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to make quite clear that I would listen to the views of all sides, and not only of those of the medical profession.
  Sir G. Young: The right hon. Gentleman should not perhaps be addressing me so much as his colleagues. He has made it absolutely clear that he is prepared to amend the Bill in the light of representations made, and his right hon. Friend has already said—she was applauded by some of her colleagues—that the Bill represents the ultimate of compromise. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is not with me but with his right hon. Friend.
  I listened very closely to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and for the answer to two very basic questions that are
  248
  puzzling my constituents and myself. First, who will actually benefit if the Bill is passed? Secondly, why has an arrangement which four previous Labour Administrations have allowed to continue and which has served the country well for 30 years suddenly be removed? The Secretary of State shed no light whatsoever on either of those basic questions. He expressed vague hope that the Bill would promote harmony and common sense. He was unable to describe any tangible benefit which would accrue to anyone in the NHS, and provided no rational explanation for suddenly wishing to separate pay beds from the NHS after so long a period, if not of marriage, of peaceful cohabitation. The Bill represents a triumph of dogma over reality.
  Looking at the very wide range of problems confronting the NHS today, it is quite impossible to conclude that the overriding priority is to separate pay beds from the NHS. If hon. Members talk to their constituents about the problems facing the NHS, they will find that their constituents will not tell them that they find it mortally offensive that pay beds should co-exist with NHS. Constituents complain about a wide range of other subjects—about the difficulties of getting a home visit from a general practiitoner, shortages of experienced doctors in some hospitals, the threatened closure of cottage hospitals, and the need for modernisation of some of our older premises. Those are the issues which the House should be debating. We should be concerned about increasing the resources available to health care in this country.
  If hon. Members opposite believe that the elimination of pay beds is an urgent measure to help the National Health Service or that their constituents want it, that shows how little they know about the NHS and how remote they are from the constituents they seek to represent.
  The Bill introduces itself with a sentence which should be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading. It is described as a Bill
  "To make further provision with respect to the use or acquisition by private patients and others of facilities and supplies available under the National Health Service Acts …".
  If there is one thing the Bill does not do, it is to make further provision for

  249
  anyone. There is less provision for both NHS and private patients.
  What will happen to the private beds which are to be phased out within the first six months? I understand that 18 of the 46 beds to be withdrawn from the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster area health authority will be withdrawn from the Woolavendon wing of the Middlesex Hospital. But they will not be made available to the NHS. They will simply be locked up. The district administrator has made clear that the funds are not available to the hospital to keep them going. This basic resource of the Health Service will not be used at all and the hospital will have less money because it will not receive the income from the beds. This shows how ridiculous these proposals are. It is not only a question of fewer beds, but of fewer hours from our medical practitioners.
  A consultant neuro-surgeon who lives in Ealing does nine sessions a week with the NHS—six at the Middlesex Hospital and three in East London. He also has a private practice based on the Middlesex Hospital. As a result of the Bill, he has offered to go whole time, provided he can work from the Middlesex Hospital. However, he has been told that there is not sufficient money available to the NHS to enable him to go whole time. Consequently, in order to maintain his in-come he must run a private practice, though not at the Middlesex Hospital because pay beds are to be withdrawn. The result will be that, instead of giving 60 hours a week to the NHS as he does at present, he will have time to give only the 31 hours for which he is contracted. He says;
  "The only alternative is to take myself and my skills to another country, but this would involve a great personal sacrifice and, I dare to add, a further loss to the NHS."
  May I also quote from a letter written by a member of the department of obstetrics of St. Mary's Hospital in London. He writes:
  "I do not undertake private practice for my own reward, but occasionally manage private inpatients who pay their fees into a departmental fund. This is used by the professor and myself to finance research and other activities for which our university grant is inadequate. If private beds are phased out of this teaching hospital, I foresee the following results:

  1) Departmental research, the visits of junior doctors for scientific meetings and
  250
  the purchase of medical journals would be restricted by the absence of our departmental private fees fund.

  2) Part-time colleagues, who at present do their private operating here, will do this work elsewhere and will be less available to deal with emergencies involving Health Service patients. They will also be less able to be involved in the teaching of medical students.

  3) St. Mary's Hospital will be less able to offer its special skills to people from overseas."

  For some consultants, the option of going whole-time is not available because the NHS does not have the resources to pay them.
  May I now say a word or two about the North Hammersmith District which serves part of my constituency. Hammersmith Hospital has no private wing, but it has 20 private beds. Between 90 per cent. and 98 per cent. of its private patients come from overseas. This is partly because the hospital has a post-graduate course for overseas doctors, who recommend it on their return to their countries of origin, and partly because it has built up an international reputation in the treatment of certain illnesses. The revenue from these private patients does not go to individual members of staff but to a research fund, and last year the revenue totalled £90,000.
  Not only is this a useful source of foreign exchange, which the country badly needs, but it also represents resources for medical research which would not be available if this private practice were phased out. The revenue is threatened by the Bill, and I see no recognition of this valuable contribution in any of the clauses.
  Patients from overseas often have illnesses which are uncommon in this country and their presence is of particular advantage in the training of doctors. Many other teaching hospitals, including Charing Cross, are in a similar position and stand to lose. Yet I can see no exemption for hospitals in this position.
  I turn finally to the notion embodied in Clause 13 that the NHS needs protection against the private sector. This is straight from "Alice Through the Looking Glass". Does the Minister expect us to believe that the NHS, backed by the resources of the Government and the taxpayer and controlling 99 per cent. of hospital beds, is threatened by the

  251
  minuscule private sector, supported by post-tax income and with only 1 per cent. of the beds? Given the disparity and the size of the sectors, I suggest that the private sector may need protection from the public sector.
  If we suppose that the viability of the NHS is threatened by the private sector, the Government do not seem alive to a much wider problem, which is that the private sector in this country may not tempt doctors away—they may be tempted away by other countries. It seems singularly short-sighted of the Government to say that they must protect the NHS from the private sector in this country when there may be an accelerated emigration of doctors from this country resulting in their loss from both the private and public sectors.
  This clause raises an important point of principle in a mixed economy. Goods and services are provided by both the public and the private sector and the existence of two sources of supply give the consumer choice and, by offering competition, improves quality.
  If we are to accept that goods and services provided by the public sector are to be protected from competition from the private sector, that is no longer the language of the mixed economy but rather of the State monopoly. There are various other goods and services to which the principle could be extended. Education is a clear example, but the State is in competition with the private sector in the production of motor cars and aeroplanes and, if this principle were established, it would be rapidly extended. It concerns me greatly.
  We should be increasing the resources available to health care and not trying to hold up one sector in the hope that the other will grow a little faster. We should be encouraging both to grow. Hon. Members opposite will say that private patients' schemes can continue, but many would like to move to the elimination of private health care in its entirety and the attraction of private patients schemes is diminished by some of the proposals in the Bill.
  We must stop looking at this rather narrow problem facing the National Health Service and concentrate on increasing its efficiency, creating additional resources and redistributing resources
  252
  from one sector to another. The House should be doing that rather than having to debate this peripheral and irrelevant Bill.
  The Bill is not a cure for the long-term problems of health care in Great Britain. It is a short-term "fix" to raise the sagging spirits of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. George Thompson: Plainly, this is largely an English debate. So far as I can see, unless I need a new pair of NHS spectacles, there is not one Scottish Tory Member present who is prepared to mount the barricades with his English colleagues to defend the bastions of privilege. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on enticing a couple of them into the House momentarily to listen to her speech. I hope that they benefited from what they heard. Perhaps they would be ashamed to tell their constituents that they had supported these bastions of privilege. We shall watch to see how they vote on the Bill.
  It is not surprising that this is largely an English occasion. The vast majority of pay beds are in England. On the rare occasions when I say anything about England, it is usually the Health Service which drives me to it. The position in England is incredible. I think that members of the English medical profession should make educational visits to Scotland. Indeed, that also applies to English Tory Members of Parliament. They would see that things are done in Scotland in a much less socially divisive way than in England. When Scotland eventually attains self-Government, it will no doubt become an interesting country for people to see what we do, in the same way as at present they seem to go to France and Germany.
  Frankly, if I were a member of the common folk of England—I am a member of the common folk of Scotland—I should be on the rampage. I should be up in arms against the socially divisive effects of the English medical system, and, indeed, of the English educational system. The people of England need to develop a greater sense of themselves as a single community where teachers, doctors, and all the rest would be devoted to the service of that community.

  253
  When I hear of the pickings which are available in the South-East of England, I have a wry smile at the thought of the patron saints, if they still are, of the medical profession—Cosmas and Damian —because Greek and Russian Christians call these patron saints of the medical profesion the holy moneyless ones. I commend the patron saints of the medical profesion to Harley Street and other such places.
  The Bill, so far as it affects Scotland, is creating a sledge hammer to crack an ever diminishing nut. I understand why that should be so. The Bill has to tackle the situation in England. That is of first importance. But it is not unreasonable that it should contain provisions dealing with Scotland as well.
  Pay beds in the Scottish Health Service have been falling steadily in numbers over the years. That is why this is a diminishing nut. Reference to Schedule 2 will show that. I am satisfied that, given time, pay beds in NHS hospitals in Scotland will disappear altogether. However, it does not seem unreasonable to help them on their way out, which is what the Bill will do.
  There is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of some people in Scotland about the effects of the Bill. I had a letter passed to me this morning from someone who appeared to think that the Bill would abolish private practice. As the Secretary of State said, that is not so. The Bill seeks to separate private practice from the National Health Service. I am proud to say that the Scottish National Party supports that aim and the Bill.
  We envisage a separate private sector in Scotland for those who feel that they want to pay twice for their health care. That is, in effect, what they are doing. If they want to spend their money in that way—only a small proportion of Scottish people would want to pay twice for a particular service—that is fair enough. Let them do so, but outside the National Health Service.
  The Health Service in Scotland is very good. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that the NHS is an excellent service and that it has been of great benefit to ordinary people in this country. By that, I mean all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Scottish Health Service will continue to be very
  254
  good and will so improve that no one will feel the necessity to spend money on private health care.
  I should like to point out, as I have pointed out in the House on other occasions, the strong sense of commitment to the people of Scotland, irrespective of social class, by the vast majority of workers in the Health Service. I particularly commend that aspect to English Members.
  The Bill continues the principle of allowing consultants to practise partly in the NHS and partly in the private sector. Clearly, if there is to be a private sector in Scotland—I repeat, if people want it, let them have it—it will be essential for consultants to be able to practise in both the private sector and the NHS. There would not be enough work for consultants to practise full time in the private sector as there would not be enough custom for them.
  I happily commend Clause 6 and the aim of bringing in common waiting lists and preventing queue jumping, if indeed that disgraceful custom obtains. As we have had ample evidence of its existence. clearly it must be stopped.
  My hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill in its application to Scotland. We hope that it will help to create in England a Health Service and medical profession as a whole committed to the service of the whole community of England.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: I should be less than honest if I did not voice my grave concern about the probable effects of phasing out pay beds, which is what the Government seek to do. I know that my views will not be echoed by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, although some have told me privately that they agree with me. [HON. MEMBERS:" "Name them"] I cannot name them, because they told me privately. How-ever, I ask my hon. Friends to realise that I hold my views with the same sincerity as they hold theirs. Therefore, I ask them to hear me out so that they can consider what I have to say.
  Politics has been defined as the art of the possible. I wonder whether what we are about to do is possible. As a rule, doctors will generally perform only on

  255
  their own terms. We have heard of tremendous opposition to this measure by the medical profession. There have been strikes in the Oxford area. Consultants and doctors have told me that if this measure goes through, they will leave the NHS and emigrate. To where will they emigrate? They will emigrate to EEC countries where there is free movement of medical consultants and doctors. They will emigrate to the United States, Canada and Australia. They have decided that their sons, who are training to be qualified doctors, will also emigrate. We shall lose them from our medical service. That will inevitably result in a lowering of morale in the medical service in this country. There has also been opposition by NALGO in Kent, Wigan. Broxtowe, Havant and Warwickshire.
  Is this idea possible? Politics, I repeat, is the art of the possible. The House will recall that in the 1930s the United States tried to enforce prohibition. Politics was the art of the possible, but that proved impossible. Years later, with their tails between their legs, the United States Government had to withdraw prohibition.
  I am wondering whether the phasing out of pay beds will be possible in view of the enormous opposition which has been mounted by the medical profession.
  I should like to refer to the tragic example of Sweden which had socialised medicine of a kind for 200 years. In 1955 the Swedish Government put through a Bill on compulsory health insurance which worked well for both patients and doctors. But in 1960 private rooms within general hospitals were discontinued and patients lost their freedom to choose their hospital or their surgeon.
  From then on things went from bad to worse. I would refer my hon. friends to an article in the Bulletin, the journal of the American College of Surgeons, by Philip Sandblom, M.D. "The Tragic Development of Socialised Medicine in Sweden". My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have already read it. My hon. Friends are concerned about waiting lists. The abolition of pay beds will not do away with waiting lists. As the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out, in the years 1966 to 1969 pay beds were reduced
  256
  by 25 per cent., but waiting lists grew by 4 per cent. There is, furthermore, no shortage of beds at the present time in the National Health Service hospitals. Waiting lists result from something quite different—they result from a shortage of staff.
  So what do we do? We shall cut off our nose to spite our face by driving many of the already small number of doctors in the NHS hospitals out of those hospitals into private hospitals of their own. This will make waiting lists longer because of the time it takes doctors to travel to and from the private hospitals. If we have completely socialised medicine, that is a different matter, but we are not going to do that. The two have run, and are to run, side by side and, therefore, I say we should keep the doctors in the hospitals.
  In other countries the trend is to allow a consultant to engage in State and private medicine only if he limits his private medical activities to the place where he has his State patients. This keeps the doctors in the hospitals and ensures their maximum efficiency and availability.
  Mr. Ovenden: My hon. Friend said that this system ensures maximum efficiency for doctors and ensures that they are available. I draw his attention to the evidence given to the Select Committee which pointed to the absence of consultants from ward rounds, from clinics and from operating sessions because they were tending to the needs of private patients. The picture is not as rosy as he tries to paint it.
  Mr. Tuck: I do not agree. I know of one surgeon in Watford who tells me that when he has seen all his private patients and before going home he goes back to the NHS patients to see whether they are all right. He cares for the two typs of patients side by side. I will come to another example in my own case later.
  If we reverse the process and do not allow doctors to have their private practice at the same place as the National Health Service practice, the effect on emergency cover, supervision of junior staff and the length of waiting lists is not very hard to predict. If doctors have to travel for an hour a day to see their private patients, the loss to the Health Service, according to the British Medical

  257
  Association, would be the equivalent of 500 full-time consultants every year.
  In my own case I had to go into hospital privately. The alternative would have been to wait for two years on my back, and my constituency would have suffered. I could have queue-jumped but I preferred not to take somebody's bed in the National Health Service; I preferred to pay.
  One of the post-operative procedures I underwent was to have bobbles removed. The bobbles had been applied in order to contain the fat while the operation was healing. Professor Charnley was the surgeon involved in this delicate procedure. During it an emergency arose involving a National Health Service patient. The surgeon said "Mr. Tuck, do not move; I must put a sheet over you. Nothing will happen to you." He went out and returned in 10 minutes, having attended to the emergency. If he had had to go 10 miles to a hospital, where would that surgeon have been when the emergency occurred? He would not have been available to take care of it. There is a further point to which I would draw my hon. Friend's attention
  If we do away with private practice in NHS hospitals, we shall create two separate medical services. This will result in the development of two different standards of medical care. We do not want a double standard in medical care, similar to our experience in education with the independent schools system. But that is what we shall get.
  This has been brought out very forcefully by Lord Taylor of Harlow in World Medicine for March 1976. I strongly recommend my hon. Friends to read it. My friends on the Front Bench have already read it. In 1945 Lord Taylor was Labour MP for Barnet; in 1948 he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Herbert Morrison; in 1964 he was Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and he looked after health affairs in the Lords. In 1962 he settled the doctors' strike in Saskatchewan by putting forward a plan agreed by both parties. His views, therefore, are entitled to serious consideration.
  He pointed out that the National Health Service was introduced by a post-
  258
  war Labour Government, but that Government undertook to allow private practice within the National Health Service and, in return, the doctors undertook to co-operate in the NHS. Abolition of private practice therefore would be a breach of that undertaking.
  Another matter for consideration is queue-jumping. This is not confined to private patients. It also happens in the National Health Service as I outlined in a previous question to my right hon. Friend in this debate. We shall not stop queue-jumping by abolishing private practice in the NHS hospitals.
  My hon. Friends idea of stopping queue jumping by abolishing pay beds reminds me of the man who returned home one day to find his wife on the sofa in a sexual embrace with his best friend. He was very disconsolate for two weeks but after two weeks he brightened up. Someone asked him whether he had found the solution to his problem. He said "Yes, I have sold the sofa" If my hon. friends sell the sofa, it will not stop the queue-jumping. If we try to stop it by phasing out the NHS private beds, we shall merely be tipping the baby out with the bath water. As to my hon. Friend's concern about private patients engaging hospital facilities, they already pay substantially for their hospital facilities through taxation in the usual way, just like any other citizen. Another factor which should not be ignored is that many occupationally based private insurance schemes are in existence, often with premiums paid by an employer, enabling the insured and their families to choose their consultant, to choose privacy if they require it, and to be treated at a convenient time. Four and a half million people use private medicine, of whom 2½ million people are insured with BUPA, PPP and other such organisations. This is a sizeable number, ranging from directors to shipyard workers. What is to happen to them? They cannot be ignored.
  It must also be remembered that many people wish to choose the surgeon who is to operate on them. I wanted and got Professor Charnley to carry out my operations because my previous operation had not succeeded. Conversely, the surgeon likes to be chosen for his own self. He

  259
  develops a reputation nationally and some-times internationally. Another most important factor is that of time. A person may be compelled by his calling, profession or business to have an operation at a particular time of the year. All of these objectives can be secured by having private beds in the hospitals.
  But when all this has been said, I acknowledge that the present system of pay beds is wrong. It is wrong because it means that wealth can buy privilege within a public service. At £260 a week, only millionaires, Arabs and those who can pay large insurance premiums can afford such privacy. There can be no justification for this whatsoever. Therefore, I urge upon my right hon. and hon. Friends the view that all those who want privacy on either amenity or medical grounds should be able to have it. Some people enjoy a large ward. Others are made miserable by it. There may be public or private reasons for wanting privacy. Therefore, privacy should be brought within the range of everyone. But this means, surely, that the charge for privacy should be kept within the means of the average man in the street. However, the person who has privacy must have the same treatment, food and nursing care as the National Health Service patient. Therefore, I agree with Lord Taylor when he says:
  "…reduce the price of private beds substantially—perhaps to £20 a week "—
  and increase their number up to a quarter of all beds so that those who want privacy can have it and so that they have an option to choose their surgeons and the time of their operations if they so wish. We could do this by compulsory insurance, as was done in Sweden in 1955.
  Finally, let me quote some words of someone who was a very deep thinker in the earlier part of this century. He said:
  "Suppose I am an enforced patient in a public ward. What chance have I of that tranquility of mind which is essential to recovery? The right to purchase privacy should be the privilege of us all."
  I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends know who said that. It was Aneurin Bevan.
  260
  At first, I was inclined to the view that I should vote against the Government on their consultative document. However, I acknowledge that there have since been concessions. Therefore, I shall not vote against the Government tonight. What I do will depend upon whether I am convinced by what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has to say in winding up the debate. I shall not vote against the Government. But if this Bill reaches a Standing Committee, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends seriously to consider in Committee what I have said today, and I pray that reason and common sense will prevail.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Many are well qualified to list the detriments to the practice of medicine and to the National Health Service which would be caused by the separation of private practice from the hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made an admirable speech about them to which I listened with the greatest interest. I also listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), who told us a great deal about the system in Scotland, except that it had the effect of sending all the best Scottish doctors south to became consultants here—a process which I have no doubt would be terminated if his party achieved independence for Scotland.
  I shall not take up any of the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) in his very interesting speech. It was courageous up to a point, though it was clear from what he said that, if private practice were separated from the hospital service, in his own case he would have had that sheet over him for about two hours, and its cover might have been extended. We should all have been very sorry about that.
  I can offer no expert assessment of these detriments. My opposition to the Bill is based on two considerations of the widest generality of which the first is that of personal freedom.
  The Bill circumscribes how people may offer their services and how other people may buy them. Legislation which does that needs more justification than I have heard for this Bill. The Secretary of State described the proposition in exactly

  261
  the words that I have used. He said that the objection to it was that it limited the freedom of people to offer their services and that of others to buy them. But, having correctly so defined the subject, he went on to offer us the sole justification for it that many people were outraged by the existence of private practice in places dedicated to a free public service.
  Dedicated by whom? Nearly all of these hospitals were dedicated by their founders and those who nurtured them to secure establishment and in some cases international fame to the private practice of medicine—free in some cases, but always private. They were swept into the Government's maw together with all the endowments of public-spirited benefactors and the accumulated resources of a multitude of voluntary workers. It is those privately created institutions and standards which no Government could ever have created about which this Government and Ministers on the Front Bench now are exuding this sanctimonious exclusivism.
  My second objection in principle is the antithesis of the reason which the Minister gave for ending it. He is an equalitarian, and today he voiced the sentiments of an equalitarian Government—
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Egalitarian.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I call it "equalitarian". It depends whether one likes to use words which come directly from the Latin or prefers them to have been Gallicised on the way.
  I do not take the view, as the Government do, that success in the battles of life is of little account, that the rewards of success should be limited to a few peripheral luxuries like champagne and night clubs, and that all things that matter from education to medical services should be equally shared out, and, in a process amiably called "positive discrimination", sometimes unequally shared out in a ratio inversely related to attainment.
  Accordingly, the change that I want to see is that which I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Watford describing —that is to say, the bringing of privacy into the range of every active citizen and the abondonment of the absurd and unjust rule introduced from the beginning of this service which proceeds on the assumption
  262
  that pay beds should be paid for as though the occupant were not himself a taxpayer with the standard entitlement which that should confer upon him.
  The charge for pay beds should clearly be the extra cost which is occasioned by the patient choosing separate accommodation, with the privacy and possibly the more agreeable food that that entails. I can see no reason why people who have earned money by honest work in any capacity in life should not choose to spend it in that way rather than upon some of the expenditures which may appeal to other people. There is a great deal of humbug and hypocrisy about this, especially amongst some of the leaders of the Labour movement, who never hesitate in their own cases to do what is sometimes called queue-jumping and also to obtain privacy for themselves.
  Why not be honest about it and admit that certain kinds of people—they tend to be those in more intellectual occupations, though not exclusively so—value privacy more than others? There are those who prefer to be in a public ward. It is matey, cheerful and provides company. There are others for whom privacy is equally important, and that includes nearly all the leaders of the Labour Party when, unfortunately, illness strikes them.
  Let us be honest and sensible about this. Let us say that the right course is to diminish what might be termed the exclusivism of this by making it much more widely available through being fair and saying "You are a taxpayer. You have paid for three-quarters of this. But you must pay for the extra quarter which you want as an optional extra" Then the whole of this foolish argument we have heard, which is embodied in this Bill, will fall to the ground.
  That is why I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting against this Bill tonight, apparently in company with the Liberal Party, but not in company with my compatriots from Scotland. The Scottish National Party has two voices and it is with the voice of the Left that it has spoken tonight. I am sorry about that, but nevertheless we shall get a close run.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Dunlop: Whatever may be the arguments for or against

  263
  the treatment of private patients in National Health Service institutions, there can be no justification for controlling and rationing the provision of medical care and facilities on a free and voluntary basis when no public money is involved. I refer to Part III of the Bill which is the part to which the Ulster Unionists have most antipathy.
  I was intrigued by the claim of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), speaking on behalf of the Scottish National Party, that there was a superiority in the Health Service in Scotland compared with the rest of Great Britain. I might be forgiven if I mention that we boast about the Health Service in Northern Ireland, which compares very favourably in many aspects with those here on the mainland.
  I would refer particularly to the hospital in my own area—the Mid-Ulster Hospital situated in Magherafelt. It is one of the small acute hospitals which is on the list for eventual demotion. There is a long-term scheme for the building of four large area hospitals in Northern Ireland to the detriment of these small acute hospitals which are doing a tremendous service.
  This is a phase of the Health Service in Northern Ireland about which we have grave misgivings. It is interesting to note that the Mid-Ulster Hospital was the first hospital to have an intensive care unit, first not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe. This intensive care unit has meant the difference between life and death for many people in the context of the violence of Northern Ireland. Many of the victims of IRA savagery in South Derry, East Tyrone and the whole area around Lough Neagh, which is serviced by this hospital, owe their lives to the skill, care and devotion of those who man the intensive care unit of the Mid-Ulster Hospital.
  This Bill is a Great Britain measure. At the moment it applies only to the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland is excluded. This is one of the anomalies which occur in this House of Commons. Time and again we have heard Front Bench spokesmen, particularly from the Northern Ireland Office, reiterating that Northern Ireland is part and parcel of the United Kingdom and that it is
  264
  governed on the same principle and basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. Yet there is this anomaly that when a Bill that will eventually affect Northern Ireland comes to the Floor of the House of Commons, we do not have an opportunity to consider and debate and perhaps amend it. We have to await the Government's good time until they introduce an Order in Council ratifying the legislation and making it applicable to Northern Ireland. However, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, an Order in Council cannot be amended or changed. We are helpless in that respect.
  I record that this opportunity is denied us. That is why I have briefly intervened in this debate on behalf of my fellow Ulster Unionists. We must record our opposition at this stage, to this Bill, particularly to Part II. We shall oppose it and we intend to oppose it tonight.
  It should be borne in mind that at present facilities for private care outside National Health Service hospitals in Northern Ireland are much more limited than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. I was intrigued by the brief mention which the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made about Northern Ireland. He mentioned the startling figure that of the 1,000 beds to be phased out he would allocate 200 to Northern Ireland. This gave me a tremendous lift. I think that the rest of my fellow Ulster Members will be greatly heartened, because if this proportion of 20 per cent. is in the mind of the Conservative Opposition and is to be applied possibly by a future Administration, whether in the near or distant future, it will be interesting to see whether this ratio is applied to all important measures accorded to Northern Ireland.
  Despite the massive sins of the last Conservative Government against the decent majority of the people in Northern Ireland, this gives us some little cause for encouragement. We look forward not only with interest and encouragement but with zest to see how a Conservative Government will treat the people of Northern Ireland.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: In our election manifesto of October 1974 the Government said they intended to phase out pay beds from National Health

  265
  Service hospitals. What we have today, after a very long wait and series of intense and vitriolic discussions and negotiations, is a shoddy compromise—a compromise which turns the Bill into a series of inept attempts to phase out pay beds. It will not achieve that objective.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government had made several concessions. This is not true. They are not concessions: they are surrenders. What we have before us tonight is a series of successive surrenders on the part of the Government to the combined opposition of the doctors led by the ubiquitous Lord Goodman. This Bill was intended to be an attack upon vested interest, privilege, the power of money and class barriers. Instead it serves in effect to maintain the present system and goes even further by legislating to guarantee the existence of private medicine.
  The Bill provides that only 1,000 beds are to be phased out within the first six months after it receives the Royal Assent. Yet these 1,000 beds are surplus to requirements and would go anyway. This is the first compromise. Also, the deadline for the total disappearance of pay beds from National Health Service hospitals has disappeared from the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) quoted Lord Goodman from the Daily Telegraph. Let us quote him again. In a speech to the doctors he said:
  "But this is not a Bill to phase out pay beds."
  This is, of course, the architect of the Bill speaking.
  "It will not achieve that in my lifetime and in some places will never achieve it at all."
  The Daily Telegraph adds cryptically:
  "Lord Goodman is 62."
  He may live a very long time and still pay beds will not have been phased out from National Health Service hospitals. It was not right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, to suggest that Lord Goodman overstated his case. Lord Goodman was telling the truth. Unfortunately, this is not a Bill which will lead to the phasing out of pay beds or their total disappearance.
  There is also a compromise in the ceiling on private hospital development. There is one in the preservation of private practice. In the same edition of the
  266
  Daily Telegraph, Lord Goodman was quoted as saying:
  "The Bill procures the safeguarding of private medicine to a very large extent"
  It is not our job as a Labour Government, as members of a Socialist party, to legislate to preserve private practice. I have never considered it to be one of our functions to guarantee the existence of private practice.
  The whole notion of private medicine is abhorrent and distasteful in a civilised society. I do not necessarily expect the Government to commit themselves to abolishing private practice. I would not be so naive or optimistic. But I certainly do not expect my Government to legislate to preserve and guarantee the existence of private medicine and private practice, as the Bill does. Our job, if we have one at all, is to challenge and attack the power of privilege and wealth and of vested interests. We are not doing that in this shoddy and tatty little Bill.
  In another compromise, the Bill gives private patients access to scarce NHS resources and the Secretary of State's powers are severely clipped. This is not, as my right hon. Friend's predecessor said in a debate earlier this year, fulfilling the work started by Nye Bevan. It is reneging on that work. This is not our Bill. It is Lord Goodman's Bill. Who elected him? Who gives Lord Goodman the authority that he arrogates to himself virtually to draft such legislation as the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act or this Bill?
  This latter-day, would-be poor man's Kissinger now trots around the Health Service establishment trying for deals, yet repudiated by everyone with whom he has had dealings—whether the consultants, the junior doctors, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. This would-be philosopher king has arrogated to himself far too much and the present Secretary of State has blandly and blithely accepted in the Bill far too many of his proposals and those of the doctors.
  Pay beds are anathema to those of us who believe in the principles underlying the National Health Service. It was founded on the principle that medical care should be available to all and should be free at the point of use, that access to that medical care should be on the

  267
  grounds of medical priority alone and not of ability to pay. Pay beds and private medicine in general are a clear affront to that principle.
  There have been several references today to criticisms, to which I would not attach a great deal of importance, of queue-jumping. Yet no one has shown that private beds in NHS hospitals do not lead to and encourage queue-jumping. Why else would they exist? It is not for the privacy or the extra consultants. They exist to enable people to climb over the backs of those who are sick but poorer than those with the wherewithal to buy privilege in health.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) illustrated this clearly when he said that he would have had to wait two years for his operation but that by paying he could get it done immediately. He then said, as if to excuse it "But the consultant treating me suddenly had an emergency to attend to and rushed off to the hospital to do it." The consultant should have been treating that emergency in the first place instead of treating and feather-bedding private patients.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: If my hon. Friend wants private practice phased out altogether, I can understand his argument, but Nye Bevan said that the two would run side by side. If the two are to run side by side, why should not the surgeon, instead of going to a private hospital 10 miles away, where he is unavailable, be available at the NHS hospital?
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend should listen. I said that I wanted the abolition of all private practice. I said so unequivocally.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: That is dierent, then.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, that is different, then.
  I was talking about queue-jumping. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) failed manifestly to deal with this point: if the system is not designed for queue-jumping, why have the consultants consistently refused the suggestion by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for common waiting lists? If the object is not queue-jumping and
  268
  they will not accept common waiting lists, what is the object of pay beds in NHS hospitals?
  The Daily Mail, the unthinking man's newspaper, described in its edition of 26th April, under the fascinating heading "How to be middle class and still win" how to get private medicine. After the headings "Frontline: Hospital" and "This lesson we can all learn from the doctor", it said:
  "After all, to choose to go by taxi does not harm anyone waiting in the bus queue."
  I like the social snobbery in the distinction for a start. But the point is that these people are not "going by taxi". They are stopping the bus before it reaches the queue, filling it up and paying the bus driver to drive past the queue. That is what is happening with pay beds in NHS hospitals.
  Moreover, pay beds are parasitic. Even the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford mentioned some of the abuses of private practice on the National Health Service. The minority of doctors who have been engaged in industrial action have shown their vested interests. The real case against the retention of pay beds in NHS hospitals has been put by them in the broadsheet issued by, I think, the British Medical Association and the dentists. I refer to page 2. They give no reasons in the previous page why pay beds should not be abolished. They give only facts and figures which are suspect.
  Then they get to the reasons.
  "Legislation threatens independence of profession".
  That is their first reason. The next is:
  "Government action which disturbs the earning potential of consultants".
  That is their priority of reasons—first, independence; second, earning potential. Yet they constantly have the humbug and hypocrisy to pretend to be talking about the welfare of the patients.
  They ask:
  "Why do consultants bother with private practice?"
  Their answer is:
  "It allows the doctor to produce a higher standard of medicine because he can devote as long as he likes to a consultation instead of the 5–10 minutes in NHS clinics."
  So they admit that there are different standards of medicine—a higher standard

  269
  for those who can afford to pay than is given, for example, to my constituents, to pensioners, to single-parent families and the unemployed, who cannot.
  Is there any hon. Member, even on that side of the House, where they are used to defending privilege and vested interests, who can honestly say that he wants a medical system which will give—as the consultants themselves say in this broadsheet— "a higher standard of medicine" for those who can pay as opposed to those who cannot? That is the consultant's own phrase—not mine, not the Government's, not my right hon. Friend's.
  Another reason that the consultants give is:
  "More time to think about and discuss difficult problems"
  Another is:
  "There is a close doctor/patient relationship which is to the mutual benefit of both parties."
  Everything is better for the private patient on the basis of ability to pay, not medical need or priority.
  We then had from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford a reference to freedom of choice. It is this freedom that we are supposed to be disturbing or taking away. This phrase "freedom of choice" is always used by the reactionary to defend vested interests. The choice is only for those who have the ability to pay. First, the choice does not exist for the 1,500,000 unemployed. They have no choice—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Whose fault is that?"1 It does not matter whose fault it is. The unemployed exist and they cannot choose to take advantage of private medicine.
  This choice does not exist for one-parent families, for those living on poverty incomes—whatever Government are to blame for their situation. They do not have any choice. The widow with 10 children in my constituency has no choice. She has not the economic wherewithal to buy herself privilege in medical treatment. So let us get rid of this idea of choice.
  But what about the freedom? Who has this so-called "freedom"? The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made this quite clear when he said that pay-beds enabled the specialists
  "to preserve for themselves the freedom to practise outside the full-time salaried service."
  270
  —[Official Report, 5th May 1975, Vol. 891, c. 1086.]
  So, the freedom we are talking about today is not the freedom of individual patients, but the freedom of consultants and specialists to practise outside the full-time salaried service. It is the doctors' freedom and earning capacity which is the issue behind all this. That has been made clear by their bad drafting of the piece of paper which has been shoved through the letter box of every M.P. It is the doctors' freedom and the doctors' money, not all the humbug we have heard today about patients' freedom which is at issue. Why should the doctors have freedom to move outside a full-time salaried service? What is so special about them? Miners do not have that freedom —and I do not consider them to be slaves —university teachers do not have it, and neither do railwaymen—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What rubbish!
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: I was a university teacher and I changed universities at will.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Surely we can have some peace and quiet in the Chamber. If hon. Members wish to speak, they can do so only if the hon. Member gives way. Let us have some semblance of peace.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Conservative attitude has rubbed off on the doctors' action. They have all been affected by some disease of irresponsibility. This issue is a matter of principle, and for that reason it is a matter for Parliament. We can argue about its effects on the National Health Service and whether it is good or bad in terms of what money comes in or goes out, but that is not at issue. We are told that it will cost £50 million, and I am prepared to pay £50 million for an issue of principle. It is for Parliament to decide and not for a Royal Commission. We should have stuck to the original principles and not kowtowed to the pressure of the doctors and the Lord Goodmans.
  This is a disappointing Bill. I shall vote for it, tonight, but I shall do so reluctantly. I shall vote for it only because I cannot join the party of privilege, class warfare, and vested interest in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What a sickly man.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Send for a doctor then.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I call for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard a request to send for a doctor, but I think I shall have to send for the Serjeant at Arms.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My right hon. Friend should take a lesson from what is happening in hospitals thoughout the country.
  If we do not clear up this issue decisvely tonight, we shall cause people to take direct action. If Parliament cannot be seen to be effective in abolishing pay beds from the National Halth Service, we shall encourage and give sustenance to ancillary workers and other hospital workers who will seek to achieve that objective by industrial and direct action. Perhaps that may be a good thing.
  It is time that Parliament did today what it set out to do in terms of principle instead of fudging the edges with tawdry compromises. What we must have but do not have in the Bill is the courage of our convictions, the belief that our values, principles and morals, are not only different from those of the Conservatives, but are better and preferable. We must have the guts to enforce them and to mould society in our image. That is why we are here and we have the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: There speaks Joe Stalin!
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If we do not use that opportunity, we shall be condemned and rightly so. I shall support the Bill tonight, but unless it is substantially altered to ensure that our commitment to phase out pay beds is honoured, I shall find it difficult to support the Government at Report stage or Third Reading.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: Hon. Members will have noted the great contrast between the speech by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)
  272
  and the speech made earlier by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck). It was interesting because the hon. Member for Watford speaks with great knowledge and experience on medical matters whereas his hon. Friend, with all the cant and humbug with which Left-wing Socialists are so marked, speaks, I suspect, with very little experience. The hon. Member for Ormskirk says that freedom of choice is the voice of the reactionary. I hope he will tell that to the housewives and others in his constituency and see how they react to that sort of reactionary sentiment.
  I congratulate the new Secretary of State on his appointment. I remember very well taking over from him in June 1970 at the Department of Health and Social Security. I wish him well in office—for a short period, of course—as he has great responsibilities to discharge.
  The Secretary of State is in an unusual position in that he has introduced a Bill for the drafting of which he had no responsibility. He has no recent past of this subject, and he can approach it with a fresh mind. He has the opportunity to heal the wounds, and restore the confidence of the distinguished and dedicated medical profession. He has a big responsibility to listen and consult, and he was recommended to do that in a letter from Lord Goodman in The Times this morning. It seems to summarise the opportunities and responsibilities before the new Secretary of State. Lord Goodman said:
  "The new Secretary of State has a grave and even terrifying responsibility to restore tranquillity to a profession which traditionally wishes to get en with its job. But he also has an historic opportunity. What he says and how he says it will to a considerable extent determine the matter. He must convey to the doctors that he understands their feeling that the profession cannot be restricted to State employment and retain the independence of action and judgment towards their patients about which the struggle is largely concerned."
  Those are wise words which could well form the motto for the Secretary of State.
  It was encouraging to hear him say that he would approach the Bill with an open mind. I beg him not to worry about the wrath of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) or that of his hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk but to try to heal the ills which

  273
  have been all too apparent over recent years.
  It was rather shocking to hear the right hon. Member for Blackburn, so soon back into her Back Bench form, telling the Government Front Bench and the House of Commons "Do not alter the Bill or else. It was all cut and dried before the Bill came here" Those are surprising sentiments in an old parliamentarian, but they show the difficulties with which the Secretary of State will have to deal.
  I declare an interest as the governor of one of our provident associations. I say at once that the Bill is welcome in so far as it bears the marks of a compromise after the bitter conflicts which have characterised the past few years. Goodman is better than no Goodman. The Health Service Board is better than no board. Phasing out over a period is better than phasing out all at once. In so far as there are concessions, I welcome the Bill. I add my tribute to Lord Goodman, to the Independent Hospital Group, to the medical negotiators and to all those who have worked so hard to try to bring about this compromise, including the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
  In spite of that tribute this is still, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said, a bad Bill. I shall vote against it. I shall do so not so much for the Bill itself but for the wider issues involved. This is not really a Bill about 4,000 pay beds in the National Health Service, only 1 per cent of the total. There are wider, deeper and much more fundamental issues which concern my colleagues and myself.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford said, this is primarily a Bill which, in our judgment, wiil be bad for the future health and strength of the National Health Service and its patients. At a time when the NHS is crying out for more money, the result of the Bill will be to deny it about £40 million each year in terms of the revenue from private patients. That revenue will be lost at a time when the shortages of skilled medical manpower, especially, are as acute as ever. There is at least the risk that the NHS will
  274
  lose the services of some part-time consultants either by their going private or deciding to emigrate. The two scarcest commodities of all, namely, skilled medical manpower and money, will be still shorter as a result of the Bill. The Government are gambling with the future of the NHS and the needs of patients for the sake of Socialist dogma.
  There is another, wider issue over-shadowing the Bill, namely, the freedom of the doctor to practice without undue political interference, to use his medical skills in ways which he thinks right in the interests of his patients, and not have the long arm of the State coming between him and his patients. There is the fear of one monopoly employer. These fears are real and genuine. It is no good the Secretary of State putting them on one side as he did this afternoon. It is no good him saying that the points that are put forward by the Campaign for the Independence of Medicine are merely debating points. They are genuine fears and the right hon. Gentleman must take them seriously.
  There are those who want private medicine to be abolished. We had the evidence only a moment ago in the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who is no longer in his place. We have had the evidence time after time at Labour Party conferences. They have expressed the view repeatedly that private practice should be abolished. We have the evidence of what the Government are doing in education in terms of the direct-grant school. There is the threat to independent schools. The Government are using exactly the same arguments in this sector. There are genuine fears which largely explain the strong feeling in the profession and the highly unusual agreement that there is within it. That helps to explain why the junior doctors, who are not directly involved in these matters, are solidly behind their seniors in the battle they are putting up.
  We are concerned with professional people who feel that their professional freedom is being undermined, that politics are being put before patients. But there is another wider issue, namely, the possible effect that the Bill may have on medical manpower within the National Health Service. The Secretary of State, in his opening speech, dismissed that

  275
  possible effect lightly, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford took it seriously. Indeed, it was one of the main arguments which he used in that part of his speech.
  We must recognise that medicine is international. The reputation of British medical schools is such that a British trained doctor can go to almost any part of the world and command a good job. That is very valuable for our country, but it demonstrates that if medical people feel that the conditions in which they are working are hostile to their professional standards and high professional ethics they can take those standards and ethics elsewhere. That is a serious matter which we must take into account.
  There is also the question of foreigners coming into the NHS as patients. That is all bound up with our medical reputation. The Secretary of State mentioned it briefly in his opening remarks. What is the position under the Bill? I do not want to go into detail, but it seems that either we are forced into having one law for the British and a more favourable law for the foreigner, or we are to impose on the foreigner conditions which will make it almost certain that he will go elsewhere. It seems that the Government have put themselves in a ridiculous position.
  I hope that the Minister of State will shed a little light on the mystery which now surrounds the negotiations which the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, was having in various countries, principally Middle East countries, about the conditions under which foreigners can come here for medical attention. We need to know far more about the discussions that have taken place with all Governments and about the commitments that have been made. Till we have that knowledge we cannot judge effectively whether the suspicion that some of us have that there will be one law for the British and another for the foreign private patient will be proved to be accurate.
  My final point refers to the licensing system. Licensing for quality, yes. There is much to be said for tidying up the present, rather untidy, arrangements. Licensing for quantity is an entirely different matter, with a sinister ring about it.
  276
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to this issue. It seems that we are now seeing a doctrine developed in the Bill, which means that we can have a private hospital as long as it does not do better than the NHS, that we can give a choice to patients as long as the standards are the same, but that if the private sector excels it will be at risk. A doctor who succeeds in satisfying his patients is in danger of being put out of business by a jealous NHS. He must be mediocre to survive. That is what the licensing clauses in the Bill look like, and they will need a great deal of probing in Committee.
  This is a Bill with an unhappy past. It is somewhat better than were the original proposals the Government put forward, but it is still a Bill which is bad for the NHS, bad for the patient, bad for the medical profession, and it should be thrown out tonight.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I feel better qualified to speak in the debate on the Bill than I did when I spoke in the general National Health Service debate last year. Twice this year I have had to take advantage of NHS resources, once myself taking advantag of the specialty offered at the University of Wales Hospital, which I so strongly attacked in my last contribution to the debate on the health service. My family were also able to take advantage of the NHS when I became for, happily, a short period of labour an auxiliary midwife in the maternity unit of our local hospital. There is nowhere better for reflection on health care priorities than the hospital waiting room, the general practitioner's surgery, or the first stage room in the maternity unit.
  As one who pays for health care through the tax system, wants his family to have the best service available within the NHS and wants the same care for everyone in the United Kingdom, I find the arguments advanced by the Conservatives in support of NHS pay beds and in support of private practice totally unconvincing. We were given a fore-taste of Conservative thinking in the document prepared by the Campaign for Independence in Medicine, which gave reasons for consultants wanting to practise privately. None of the four reasons given stands up to scrutiny.

  277
  The document refers first to the amount of time devoted to consultation in a NHS clinic as being five to 10 minutes. The time devoted to consultation should be governed only by the medical need of the case, and consultants should be at least sufficiently qualified to take a medical decision about the seriousness of each case.
  The second reason given is that there is more time available in private practice for the consultant to think about and discuss difficult problems. Difficult cases which occur in NHS practice must surely require the same amount of time. The third reason is that the doctor-patient relationship is closer in private practice, but that cannot be true. The fourth reason given in support of private practice is freedom and independence from State control.
  Is the British Medical Association proposing to revive its advisory panel report of 1970 on Health Service financing which proposed a reduction of 50 per cent. in the finance taxation of the NHS and the imposition of an extensive range of charges to finance the remaining 50 per cent. privately through insurance schemes or through a compulsory State insurance scheme? What was paticularly reprehensible in that document was the proposal that the tax-financed half of the Health Service should cover the services which have had a low priority within the NHS—the geriatric, chronic, mentally ill and mentally subnormal services.
  The BMA and other organisations linked in the Campaign for Independence in Medicine, if they do not want to revive the proposals in that 1970 report, at least want us to believe that there is a booming private medical sector for which there is massive demand. The demand for private medicine can speak for itself. Only 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom population take any part in private practice, whereas when the NHS came into being the figure was well over 50 per cent. About 2,250,000 people throughout Britain are covered by private medical insurance. There is no indication that the demand for private medicine is growing, apart from the point of view of the Conservatives on these Benches and the Conservative consultants.
  It may be argued that I am biased because I represent a Welsh constituency. In my constituency there is only one
  278
  pay bed. There are only 60 in the whole NHS in Wales and all are substantially under-utilised, as is evidenced by the occupancy rate. The health authorities which cover a substantial section of the Welsh population in South Glamorgan, Mid-Glamorgan and West Glamorgan have only 12 pay beds among them and our major teaching hospital has none.
  I welcome the proposal to establish a Welsh Committee of the Health Services Board as an important concession. With devolution I hope that it will not be long before not only the 13 beds which the Secretary of State for Wales proposes but the remaining pay beds in Wales are phased out. I pressed the Secretary of State to do this last year at the time of the industrial dispute on the pay beds issue at Morriston Hospital. Now that this question is to be referred to the Welsh Committee, I hope that that Committee will take an early decision to phase out all the pay beds in the NHS in Wales.
  I do not believe that the Welsh Committee of the Health Services Board will find a demand in Wales for the setting up of private hospitals. Although the board is charged in the Bill with having regard to alternative facilities in the private sector, it is clear that the 60 under-utilised pay beds in the NHS in Wales do not even meet the minimum viability figure of 75 which is given in the Bill for a private hospital. I confidently expect, therefore, that no authorisation for any private development will be made by the Welsh Committee of the Health Services Board when it is set up.
  Even if this House is not prepared or able to phase out private practice altogether, the Welsh Assembly one day will do so. Although there is no substantial demand for private practice in Wales, I am concerned about the effect of private provision more generally throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in England and the South-East of England.
  The whole argument about pay beds and private medicine has side-tracked us from the far more important and intractable problem of inequality of distribution of resources within the NHS. There is a regional disparity of resources and provision within the NHS. These inequalities were inherited from the private sector. The stock of manpower and capital which the NHS inherited from

  279
  the private sector was unequally distributed geographically. The old National Health Insurance Scheme left the distribution of consultants virtually unchanged between the two world wars.
  The initial allocation of NHS resources in 1948 exactly reflected the inequality and imbalances before the setting up of the NHS, and the subsequent distributions of manpower and finance have preserved these inequalities. Important comparisons have been drawn within England between, for example, the Oxford and Sheffield regions. That study showed that the Newcastle region had twice as many gynaecologists per female as did Sheffield. The disparity was even higher when the statistics were adjusted according to sex. Birmingham had twice as many whole-time equivalent consultants as Sheffield; Liverpool had twice as many psychiatrists as Manchester; and children in Oxford had twice as many tonsil operations as did children in Sheffield.
  These disparities cannot merely reflect the demographic differences in the population. In Wales there is a 30 per cent. higher rate of entitlement to sickness benefit per man at risk. That is not reflected in the extent of the health care provided. Dick Crossman pointed out in 1969 that regional inequalities were the single most difficult problem faced by the NHS. We should be talking tonight about these regional inequalities inherited from the private sector.
  I am concerned that these inequalities are likely to be accentuated by an extension of the private sector, particularly in South-East England. My concern is that in this area there should not be a return to pre-NHS days when health care was treated as a commodity, not as a service. It is clear that on the Opposition Benches tonight a substantial proportion of hon. Members still think that health care is a commodity within the market system and not a service. I am concerned that this inequality should not become greater with an expanding private sector in South-East England.
  It is extremely important that the Health Services Board should have regard to regional equality of provision according to indicators of need as well as the geographical provision in the private sector in any given area. I do not want the attempts made in the interim
  280
  report of the Resource Allocation Working Party to be undermined by the transfer of private health care resources into private practice in South-East England. I do not want the trend towards transferring resources to less favoured areas and the deprived areas in North-East England to be reversed by an extension of private practice as a result of the Bill.
  The debate has again tended to polarise itself into an individualist versus collectivist conflict, and I hope it will lead us to take a more fundamental view of health care provision. Conservative spokesmen still seem to argue that an individualist's demand for health care is limitless and, therefore, his right to spend whatever proportion of his financial resources he wishes to spend on health care is limitless. But demands made by the individual and his family are not limitless: they are governed by the total amount of resources available within the community for health care, as for any other service.
  The debate on public expenditure should have taught the Conservatives that resources are limited and that therefore, priorities must be decided. When deciding priorities in health care we must look at the private sector as well as the public sector. We must allocate resources in the interests, not of 4 per cent. of the population, but of all the population. For all of us who put money aside through the taxation system, as Michael Cooper said, it represents a pooling of risks, and a transfer of purchasing power from the fit to the sick, from the rich to the poor, from the wage earner to the young and retired. A transfer of financial resources is an essential part of the system.
  Health care is a service, not a commodity. It is a service which we all need and which must be freely and equally available to us all. My party welcomes the Bill and its aim to abolish private medicine in Wales.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mrs.Renée Short: The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who opened the debate for the Opposision—it seems many hours ago—went through the easy process which Tories now speaking on the National Health Service always do of making genuflections towards Nye Bevan. But those of

  281
  us on this side of the House who knew him, his following, charisma and support in the Labour Party and the trade union movement, find that hard to swallow, because members of the Tory Party hated him and everything he stood for. The language which they used is perhaps not heard today, but he was opposed throughout the introduction of the National Health Service Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, the Tories who voted against him throughout every stage of that Bill now are great advocators of everything that he then said.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) accuses us of hating. We do not hate our political opponents. The first political speech I ever made was in the open market place at Ebbw Vale and Nye Bevan was there. It was an alarming experience.
  Mrs. Short: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman experienced that baptism of fire and that he survived it.
  The Government are committed to introducing a Bill to abolish private practice. It is extraordinary to hear the Opposition say that in 1946 certain things were said and certain commitments made to the medical profession to persuade it to go along with the National Health Service and to say that such arrangements cannot be altered. Do we not change in 30 years? Must we do the same things and never progress? We cannot accept that. A clear undertaking was given in the Queen's Speech last November that we should introduce legislation on this subject. Those who have opposed us have given no cogent reasons for going back on our commitment.
  Many of the old myths of private practice have been rehearsed today. Many of those myths are superficial and they indicate that some people do not understand how hospitals are organised, how doctors work and organise their work, what private practice means to patients and to all those working in the NHS—not just doctors, but nurses, technicians, porters and kitchen staff—all of whom are indispensable in hospitals today. All those workers have strong views about the existence of private practice and the presence
  282
  of private patients on their wards. There is much evidence of this.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr, Tuck), perpetuated the myth about the choice of consultant. No patient chooses his consultant. He is not equipped with the medical knowledge to do so. His general practitioner chooses the consultant and the hospital in which the patient will be treated. Choice does not exist for the patient. He is entirely guided by his general practitioner.
  The consultants cry about freedom. Some consultants, but by no means all, have freedom and carry out private practice and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, they earn considerable amounts of money apart from their National Health Service salaries. To carry out private practice, a consultant sacrifices two-elevenths of his National Health Service salary and of his merit award. He sacrifices about £1,600 of his salary and in return he may do as much private work as he can or wants to do. There is no limit.
  Consultants at the top of the salary scale and receiving top merit awards are not badly paid by any standards. They earn between £18,000 and £19,000 a year, which is not bad going for anyone. They sacrifice a small amount of their salary, but they are able to earn considerable sums outside the National Health Service.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Would it interest the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), to hear that a consultant left a Basingstoke hospital where he was earning £8,000 a year to go to Canada to earn £20,000 with lower tax rates?
  Mrs. Short: That consultant was obviosuly not quite at the top of the salary scale and did not have a merit award. I am talking about those on the top scale who do private work. By any standards they should be satisfied.
  There is opportunity for a considerable amount of income tax evasion. Evidence on this was presented to the Select Committee on Expenditure by a consultant who said that private patients often handed money over in cash instead of by cheque and that payment by cheque when required was higher than it would be by cash. For some consultants and private

  283
  insurance organisations it is a heyday. Those are the organisations and individuals who make a lot of money out of private practice.
  The abuse of the National Health Service has not been much ventilated during the debate. I shall tell the House some of the things that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford did not report. The admission of private patients can be facilitated within the NHS by a private consultation first and then admission to a National Health Service bed. Or it can take place by admission first into a private bed and then a transfer to a National Health Service bed after two or three days. If that is not queue-jumping, I do not know what is.
  Private patients are also able to use staff in a hospital without any payment. This is where the use of National Health Service hospital resources occurs. For example, junior hospital doctors are used to care for private patients on the hospital premises or, even more unacceptably, in the private clinic or nursing home where the consultant sees his private patients. We have evidence of junior hospital doctors being removed from the hospital where they are employed to assist the consultant or to do work for him as a substitute in the private nursing home without additional payment from the consultant.
  Diagnostic services, such as path lab facilities for examining specimens and X-ray facilities are used without additional payment by the private patient, partly because it is difficult to monitor their use and perhaps because many staff would be needed to do it. NHS equipment, including anaesthetic gases and sterilised equipment, is used in private nursing homes and so on. Certain consultants fail to do their ward rounds and out-patient clinics and operating sessions, for all of which they are paid by the NHS. The work is left to junior hospital doctors.
  We had evidence from a consultant that, although we are told that urgent cases are always admitted to hospital when the need arises, some cancer patients were told that they would have to wait six weeks or so for an NHS bed but that they could be in the next day
  284
  if they were prepared to pay. They did so. I can think of nothing more urgent than a cancer case, except perhaps an elderly person in his or her eighties or nineties suffering from a cataract. We had evidence of such people being kept on the waiting list for 18 months or more.
  Let us not have so much humbug about the queue-jumping and use of NHS resources, which we are told does not happen. It does. We must make sure that the Bill is strong enough to deal with such abuses. I agree with hon. Members who have said that the Bill needs to be strengthened in Committee.
  The junior hospital doctors gave a great deal of important evidence to the Expenditure Committee four years ago. The Committee was shocked to find that they worked 102 hours a week before they could claim overtime pay, and that part of their difficulties certainly arose from the additional burdens placed on them by their seniors, on whom they relied for promotion.
  Many of them are not in a position to stand up to the consultants and to refuse to do the additional work. It may well have been the attitude of the consultants and the burdens that they put on their juniors that compelled many juniors to emigrate some years ago. But many doctors are returning because they find that after all the NHS is a more congenial atmosphere to work in and that there are other advantages to living in Britain.
  The junior hospital doctors will be our consultants in a very short time. According to evidence given at the end of March to a BMA forum of junior doctors, we are producing about 3,000 qualified doctors from our medical schools each year, thanks to the expansion brought about by the present Government and the previous Labour Government, whereas we need only about 2,000 to replace those who die or retire. It looks as though at last we shall have enough doctors in the NHS to fill many of the vacancies in the less attractive specialities where there are not pickings for private work or which happen to be in the less salubrious parts of the British Isles and not in the South-East. This may well create a completely different climate for those working in the NHS. I hope that it does.

  285
  The threat of mass emigration which we heard from the Opposition Benches is used by doctors to try to persuade us that if we go through with the phasing out of private practice, we shall be in a bad way. We take that threat with a few pinches of salt. I do not believe that that will happen. Many of the countries that have been willing to pinch our doctors—I use that word because they came over here recruiting some years ago —have now tightened up their immigration laws. The plum jobs—certainly in Canada and the United States, where the high salaries were available—are now going to their own people, and they are less likely to accept immigrants from Britain.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does the hon. Lady concede that the problem is not only that consultants will emigrate but that junior hospital doctors on the threshold of becoming consultants will give up their consultancy and become general practitioners, with an overall loss to the hospital doctor service of trained graduates?
  Mrs. Short: I shall come to that in a moment, but I want to be as brief as possible.
  The existence of public and private sectors leads inevitably to a two-tier system. What I said about admission to hospital and waiting lists is an indication of the existence of the two-tier system. That is unacceptable, and it is time it was ended.
  I shall say nothing about Lord Good-man's package, because that has been dealt with by several other hon. Members.
  I am very concerned that only 1,000 private beds are to go within the first specified period. We must have an indication from my hon. Friend the Minister of the time scale he foresees for the removal of the rest of the private beds. A board is to be set up. I should prefer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with the matter. Why must we have another body to deal with something that is really the Government's responsibility? I should prefer the board not to be set up, but it is part of the package deal to soften up the consultants.
  The only way in which we can deal with the problem is to separate the
  286
  private beds from the NHS completely. Private clinics must be licensed by the Minister, as abortion clinics are, if they are to continue, and then by the planning authority before permission to build is granted. That would concentrate everybody's mind.
  The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said that the Expenditure Committee in 1972 suggested that private practice should be eliminated.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The minority said that.
  Mrs. Short: Exactly. That was the part of the Committee that felt as I did, the Labour Members of the Committee. We were in some conflict with the Conservative Members. We said that to establish a clearer division between the public and private sectors as a means towards reducing abuses arising from the overlap of these sectors, consultants should be encouraged to make a more definite choice of where they wanted to work—full time in the NHS eventually or in the private sector. We added:
  "where private beds are held in a ratio to N.H.S. beds of more than 1:20 by any consultant, he should he limited to a maximum of 5 N.H.S. sessions per week."
  In other words, his NHS work should be phased out if he wanted to do private work. We continued:
  "consultant contracts should he revised to a 10 session basic contract with extra payments for being on call and available and for doing out-of-hours emergency work, thereby providing a financial incentive for doing N.H.S. work and an opportunity to supplement income without going outside the N.H.S."
  We also said that full-time consultants should receive at once a pro raw share of merit awards, and that increasingly merit wards should be concentrated exclusively on those who worked full time within the National Health Service. We therefore made provision for the gradual change from part-time to full-time National Health Service work. I think that that would be acceptable to the majority of consultants as more than half the consultants work full time in the National Health Service hospitals.
  With the improvement in pay that the Government have introduced both for consultants and for junior hospital doctors, and in the overtime pay of junior hospital doctors, doctors are in a very

  287
  much better position now than they were some years ago.
  I hope that we shall be able to strengthen the Bill in Committee so that private practice is removed. After all, private practice is really an anachronism, a hangover from the last century. The way in which many consultants work within hospitals, doing private work, organising themselves into "firms", is again an anachronism, because increasingly medical practice, particularly surgical practice, is teamwork.
  It is no longer a matter of the consultant, the great man, coming down and doing his operations on his own. It is concentrated, highly technical and technologically skilled teamwork that is required now, with many complicated and new processes. Therefore the present system is an anachronism, and I hope that we shall be able to end it very soon.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: There are many reasons why I object to the Bill, but perhaps the reason that comes uppermost in my mind is that there is not a line, not a word not a syllable, anywhere in it which will improve health care for sick people. This is at a time when the standards of such care have declined very drastically, and patently and obviously on the slide for still further decline. It is a national scandal that Parliament, instead of turning its mind to halting this disastrous trend, should instead be debating the spiteful and damaging measure now before the House.
  Last June, in an Adjournment debate, I raised the question of the falling standards of medical care in the West Mid-lands. I aid how disastrous this was for cancer patients in that area, and I gave many examples. I spoke of the trouble faced by accident victims in the West Midlands and of the very severe troubles of the eye hospital patients. I spoke also of the patients in the children's hospital who were also experiencing great difficulties.
  The position of all these people today is no better than it was when I raised their plight in the House. In some respects it is even worse. But what do the Government do about it? They intro-
  288
  duce a Bill which, far from alleviating the situation, actually makes it worse. The Government remind me of a doctor who, faced with a sick person, prescribes paraquat instead of Paracetamol. Whatever is wrong with the National Health Service, it can by no stretch of the imagination be diagnosed as the presence of private patients in National Health Service hospitals.
  I was very interested to hear what the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said about the instances where desperately sick people had been denied entry to hospitals because private patients had taken precedence. I should like to look at these examples very carefully indeed, because I have visited many hospitals and asked specific questions in this regard. There is no one on this side of the House in my party who would support a system which would deny care for desperately sick people because rich people with minor complaints had taken the beds. Let us have that absolutely clear. It is no part of our beliefs. Of course, if the private patients were as sick as or sicker than the NHS patients, the question surely would not arise, even under the Bill.
  A great deal of nonsense has been talked about queue-jumping. I have tried to find out all I could about this, and my experience is that where queue-jumping exists it is for the non-essential and non-urgent hospital care. Hon. Members who need hospital care that can wait tend to have that care in the recess, or at a time when they can conveniently fit it in with their duties.
  Not very long ago a Minister of the Crown in this Government unfortunately fell sick and went to hospital as an NHS patient. I should be very surprised if he went into a general ward and simply had exactly the same care as any other patient, because a Minister of the Crown has specific duties and needs to be able to carry them out as soon as he is well enough to do so. He needs to be able to read his papers and to go through his boxes. I do not blame him at all if he wants a private room.
  What I object to strongly is that such a man uses political weight and influence instead of honestly paying for what he is getting, particularly when he is in receipt of a far bigger salary than many

  289
  who would be competing for this care in the National Health Service. It seems to me to be far more honest to pay one's way and to contribute to the benefits one is getting than simply to say "I am who I am and I therefore must be given priority. You must not only let me in when I wish to come in but you must give me a private room."
  Pay beds have always been available for those who did not pay when no other beds were available in the hospital. It is perfectly true, as many hon. Members have said, that there is no shortage of beds in the NHS today. In fact, we have heard examples in this very debate of one hospital which will simply have to lock away the beds which will no longer be available, as a result of this Bill, to private patients. Those beds will not be filled. They will be empty.
  It is a great shame that things said in debate in the House so rarely change the minds of people in the Division Lobby It is a shame that more people are not here to listen to the debate. If they were, and if they had heard the trenchant points made by my hon. Friends, I cannot see how they could troop into the Lobby in support of the Bill this evening.
  If the Bill is enacted, great and lasting harm will be done to the NHS. We have heard of the commuting consultant. I was appalled that the Secretary of State brushed him aside as being no problem. It was suggested that it did not matter and that there was no problem. Of course, it has been said, he would be able to do just about as much work, when made to commute from his private hospital to the NHS hospital, as he does at the moment.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State has often tried to get through the rush hour at any particular time in London, but it seems to me ludicrous to suppose that a doctor who is forced by the Bill to work in one hospital here and in another hospital several miles away will be able to undertake his work for the ordinary NHS patients as he does at present when he can have his patients all under one roof. But is not only that he will have less time for his ordinary patients. He will certainly, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) pointed out, have less time and be less available
  290
  to deal with emergencies as they crop up. He will also have less time for teaching. Teaching is an important function of the work of these medical personnel. I am appalled that we should be considering cutting down the time which such people have available for this extremely important work.
  The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who would seem to be more at home in the Kremlin than in West. minster, made great fun of freedom of choice. He implied that this was a reactionary goal. That is not the case at all. The British people support freedom of choice, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that. The patient's freedom of choice to enter a local NHS hospital is a freedom which we should preserve. When a person chooses to go into hospital as a private patient, he often chooses his consultant. He is permitted to do so when he goes in as a private patient. Why should he not do so?
  It seems to me extraordinary that a Labour Government object so strongly to people spending their money in the way they choose after they have made their proper and full contribution to rates and taxes which in turn go to support services for the benefit of others. Apparently it is considered proper for people to spend their money on drink or bingo but, on the other hand, it is considered sinful if a person wants to spend his money on looking after himself and his family. That seems to me to be an extra-ordinary attitude to adopt.
  Labour Members might consider the fact that not all BUPA members and supporters of private insurance schemes are wealthy people. Many people would rather spend their hard-earned money on subscriptions to BUPA so that they are given medical care when they require it rather than spend that money on drink or bingo. In a free country why should they not have this choice?
  I should like to hear more about the oil sheikhs who are supposed to be coming to this country for medical treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It is all very well for Labour Members to sneer, but the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), speaking as a Former Secretary of State for Social Services, made it clear that oil sheikhs and

  291
  other people from abroad would be permitted to come to this country as private patients. Where are such people covered in the Bill? I wonder whether the right hon. Lady, or the present incumbent of her former office, understand how deeply British people resent the fact that people should be permitted to come here from abroad to enjoy facilities which are not available to the ordinary indigenous hard-working, tax-paying Britisher. I presume that in Committee we shall hear a great deal more about the medical treatment of oil sheikhs.
  We must not fool ourselves. We must realise that the National Health Service and the country needs the money which these foreign visitors who use the National Health Service are able and ready to pay. These people often need medical care which is not available in their own country. The NHS will be much poorer if we are denied that money. I do not object to their coming to this country. I object to the fact that the ordinary Britisher is not able to take advantage of similar facilities.
  The cost of getting rid of private patient care has been disputed. However, we have heard a great deal of detail about how the phasing out of private patients will hamper the work of hospitals in different areas. That is certainly the case in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, to which private patients contribute a good deal. A cancer consultant said to me only recently that the hospital will be denied in his specialty the money provided by former patients. A denial of that money will be sadly felt by future cancer patients.
  The fact that this legislation will result in a falling off in standards and in patient care is unanswerable and is certainly unforgivable. The consultant who cares a great deal about his patients is worried about the situation. He will be harried by extra travel. But there is more. The Bill represents a serious breach of agreed working conditions for consultants. It is a breach which the Government would not tolerate for one moment if a private employer tried to inflict it on a trade unionist.
  I grant the fact that the Labour Government care very little about pleasing
  292
  or even playing fair with professional people, but surely even this Government can see the dangers of antagonising those who are so greatly needed that the NHS would collapse without them and, secondly, who can get a job almost anywhere they choose outside Britain with far better pay and conditions than those obtaining here.
  In the West Midlands alone we have lost so many top surgeons and consultants —many of them young—that we cannot afford to lose even one more if standards of care in some specialties are to be even half sound. The Government know that that is so because they have been told it time and again. There has been completely unanimous, reasoned opposition to the Bill by all bodies representing senior clinical staff, administrative staff, nurses and the junior hospital doctors. All those people have objected strongly to the Bill.
  Instead of listening to those people. who are experts, the Government listen to anarchist agitators. such as the young telephonist at Westminster Hospital with no experience whatever of the medical profession or to Mrs. Esther Brookstone, COHSE branch secretary at Charing Cross Hospital, who is known as "the angel with the saw-edged bed pan". Instead of listening to people who can give their knowledge and experience to the Government, the Government prefer to listen to agitators of that kind.
  I hope to have a chance to move many amendments to the Bill, if I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee. There are many more aspects of the Bill which are a cause for concern.
  Let me deal briefly with the subject of the licensing of private patient hospitals. No mandate has ever been given for that. Indeed, it will put further administrative burdens on suffering tax payers and also will charge them for curtailing their freedom. There is also the question whether the Bill may not be forcing down the size of private hospitals too far for them to be economic. Lord Goodman has described the Bill as quite unnecessary. It is a Bill that offends in its unfairness, gravely worries in the harm that it will inflict, and appals in its vicious attack on personal freedom.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I have listened to virtually every contribution since the debate started, and I must be the only Member who regards this issue as unimportant. I do not believe that the retention or abolition of private medicine will either substantially improve the National Health Service or worsen it. Indeed, I wish that the time spent discussing this Bill today had been used to discuss the relatively declining standards in the NHS.
  It is difficult to compare health services in various nations, but there are one or two common criteria. We can study a nation's life expectancy or its infant mortality rate. In the European league, there is no doubt that since the early 1950s the United Kingdom has declined relative to the rest of Europe. As somebody who is relatively young, I can remember living under no other system than the NHS, and arguments about what happened in 1946 and all the rest of it are academic to me.
  In retrospect, it appears that the National Health Service was set up on a premise which events have proved to be somewhat questionable. It appears that at the time people believed that by providing better care, demand would be reduced. It appears, however, that the planners of that time forgot the effects of time. I am now just over 30 years old. It is possible that at 40 I might catch tuberculosis. The NHS would quite probably cure me of that. At 50 I might have a coronary. At 60 I might have a stroke. At 70 I might be in welfare housing and receiving welfare meals. One could argue that it would be cheaper if I passed away at 40. I have a vested interest. I hope that at the age of 40 I shall survive the initial hurdle.
  However, this indicates that curing one medical problem does not basically reduce the level of demand. The demand for medicine is open ended and will never be totally satisfied. If one has that situation, at least in some of the less essential aspects of medicine quite clearly one has a perpetual waiting list, and in such a situation it is my clear view that someone will have a vested interest in doing some queue-jumping.
  I have been amazed when listening to so many Opposition Members pretending
  294
  that queue-jumping does not exist, or at least, does not exist in their areas although it might exist somewhere else. Some say that in their experience of politics and of meeting members of the medical profession they have never come across a single case. I know that if one speaks to one's friends and acquaintances one must know of occasions when this happens.
  I appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck). It was interesting that he said that he was a case who had jumped the queue. He said that he had been told that he would have to wait for two years if he went for attention through the NHS but by going to Wigan—I never realised that Wigan was one of these special areas—he had special attention from a consultant.
  The serious point about that story is that presumably there are people in the hon. Member's constituency who have the same ailment that he has but who have to wait for two years for attention. That is where the fallacy lies. If one abolished private medicine, no doubt one could make the hon. Member for Watford wait the due X months, but to what would one reduce the average waiting list for the hon. Member's constituents who had similar ailments? It is an impossible calculation. I rather suspect, however, that one would make everyone wait for 23 months as opposed to the 24 months that has been mentioned.
  The main scandal of queue-jumping is the use that doctors make of it. I know that some people with non-fatal illnesses can receive attention and jump the queue by approaching the right medical man at the right time with the right amount of money. Therefore, queue-jumping is a scandal. Certainly some hon. Members are being naive if they do not think that majority of their constituents think that it is a scandal. That is why I welcome the part of the Bill that refers to joint waiting lists.
  I am a little cynical about politics, but my doubts about some sections of the medical profession in this country were increased when the profession refused the suggestion made some months ago. It was turned down flat. One hon. Member has said that he is looking forward to serving on the Committee. I do not

  295
  know whether I am quite in that category but if a Liberal Member is a member of the Committee, the idea of the joint waiting lists will receive support from the Liberal Party.
  I am not against people paying twice for medicine, or against private practice but I believe that a great deal of the appeal of pay beds to certain groups will be reduced if an effective system of joint waiting lists is introduced.
  I have managed to acquire some figures in relation to another section of the Bill for which I have great sympathy. I speak of the South-West, for obvious reasons. I know the area better than I know most other areas. In fact, it is the only area that I really know. The South-West had 214 pay beds at the end of December 1974. There has been a slight reduction since then. However, the interesting figure in the chart made available to me is that the average occupancy of those beds is only 88.
  One can add up the figures, and the document says that people want to reduce the number of pay beds by another 50. It will not do anyone any great harm to reduce the number of pay beds by another 50 in the South-West. Unless anyone convinces me that the South-West is unique in that respect, certainly in Committee my support would be given to the removal of 920 or 1,000 pay beds, whatever the total is.
  I cannot support the Committee of Five. It appears that the Government are making the same great mistake, as did the Conservative Party. When sometimes the Government have been in a little trouble trying to defend themselves on health issues, they have been able to say "It was you who introduced the bureaucracy that is costing so much", and with justification. However, I am afraid that the Government are now treading down the same weary path.
  How will a board of five men succeed in getting through £250,000 a year? It is not bad going for five men. Perhaps they want a neutral chairman. However, for me the stumbling block in supporting this legislation is this provision.
  I shall not now argue against some licensing of medicine. Hon. Members are again being naïve if they do not realise that the Government need at least
  296
  some potential control over the expansion of private medicine. I could imagine an enormous growth of private medicine in a single town or area that would totally destroy the equilibrium of existing medicine. I can also understand some of the cynicism felt towards regulation from outside. This matter needs to be looked at carefully and in detail. The duty of Opposition Members, of whom I am one, is to see whether the regulations are being introduced by the Government genuinely to make sure that they have the powers if they are needed.
  I come back to the figure of £250,000. In my constituency a young man commutes at weekly intervals from St. Austell to London for dialysis treatment. I think that I am insane to commute from St. Austell to London each week, but at least when I get here I am paid. I volunteered for the job. This young man did not volunteer for uncomfortable treatment that he receives or such a journey. The sum of £250,000 could provide dialysis treatment for about 250 people.
  On behalf of my colleagues, I say that we shall do something rather different from what the Liberal Party has ever done previously. On previous occasions we have said that we would vote for a Second Reading in the hope that a Bill would be improved and then we would support it on Third Reading. On this occasion, it will be the other way round. We shall not vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but if the Bill is improved, particularly in the areas that I have outlined—the increase in bureaucracy—I assure the Government that they might get some support at other times.
  Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for a party and intimating which way Liberal Members will vote. The only criticism of the Bill that he has made so far relates to the proposal to have an independent committee of five to supervise the licensing and to look at any quantity licensing. Does he not recognise that the reason for establishing this independent board is solely that the medical profession would not accept anything less, and that the Government have made a concession to the profession in that regard?
  Mr. Penhaligon: That may be so, but following to that aspect of the medical

  297
  profession is costing £250,000. I recollect that much of the bureaucracy in the medical profession was requested by the profession itself.
  It is one of the duties of Governments to ensure that bureaucracies are kept down, and this is the aspect of the Bill about which I am particularly concerned.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I hope the medical profession will take note of the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), particularly in regard to common waiting lists, which is a matter requiring urgent consideration and which is included in the Bill.
  In regard to what he said about a constituent having to commute from the West Country to London for renal dialysis, I have recently taken up a case of a patient who has to commute for treatment and I understand that the problem is that the hospital in his locality will not put him on a kidney machine because it fears that infective hepatitis might result. I do not understand how they get this idea, which is complete nonsense, but that appears to be where the problem lies.
  I was rather pleased that I did not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) because she strains my chivalry to a great extent. I have followed her many times in health debates in the House and in Committee, and although she usually brings considerable compassion to the debates, she seemed to have left it outside today. She made no mention of the good things that are happening in Birmingham. I was sorry that she did not refer to the Birmingham Accident Hospital and what it has done for this specialty, but as an example for the rest of the country.
  Mrs. Knight: I did not go into detail because I have gone into so much detail before and many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate.
  Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Lady must not tempt me to follow her too closely.
  A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about the effect the Bill will have on NHS patients in hospital. I am very fortunate to have excellent liaison with the Central Middlesex Hospital in my constituency—one of the finest in
  298
  Europe. It has 750 beds and the gastro-enterologist, Sir Francis Avery-Jones, is one of the greatest in this country and has an international reputation. Only eight of the beds are reserved for all private patients so his department would not command many. But Sir Francis' first-class service to NHS patients always had the highest priority and did not prevent his doing private work at the London Clinic.
  The Bill is not against private practice. It merely takes it out of the NHS—off the NHS's back in some cases—and into a separate sector where it can develop as it wishes with help from those who have enough money to support it.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new post. I have participated in most health debates since 1959 under many Ministers. I extend a special welcome to my right hon Friend because he and I served in the same Department for two years from 1968 and I had a good deal to do with him at that time. He brings to these matters a mind and understanding which will mean nothing but good for the NHS. I hope that he will enjoy his stay as Secretary of State.
  There have been some virulent attacks on my right hon. Friend's predecessor and I very much welcome the Secretary of State's opening comments about her. No Minister in my time in this House has done more for the NHS than my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I know of no other Minister who could have got the share of the gross national product devoted to the NHS increased from 4·9 per cent. to 5·4 per cent.—an extra £750 million—in the current economic climate.
  I remember the days when a person speaking to a general practitioner would get the impression that Nye Bevan was the devil incarnate. Everybody now recognises his worth. It will not be many years before the medical profession realises how much my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has done for it.
  Let us put the Bill into perspective. There are nearly 500,000 NHS beds and we intend to phase out, by agreement under Schedule 2 of the Bill, about 1,000. This is a negligible percentage of all the beds. We realise that once the Bill is

  299
  on the statute book, there will still be the wide areas of concern with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and others have been concerned over the past two years and they, and the House, will continue this involvement.
  In the debate, everybody has been talking about the doctors and there have been few mentions of the professions supplementary to medicine, and other NHS employees. There are 450,000 ancillary workers without whom nobody would be able to get hospital treatment.
  The total amount contributed by private practice, including prescription charges, welfare foods, teeth and spectacles, represents 3¾ per cent. of the total budget—just under £160 million in 1974/75. It is a false dawn to think that if only one adds to this sector one solves the major problem.
  The Opposition are wrong to give the impression that by finding an odd £5 million or £10 million there may not be a need for a massive programme to increase real resources for the NHS whichever Government is in power. When the Opposition talk of raising an extra £25 million by prescription charges, they give people the illusion that the problem can be solved by this sort of action. In fact, that would only be touching at the corners and leaving the real problem unresolved.
  It is significant that the one section of the profession which is opposed to the Bill is the Royal College of Surgeons—not the physicians, the obstetricians or the pediatricians. Everybody has been thinking in terms of surgery and the dramatic surgical operation, but thousands of patients do not have surgery. They have the kind of treatment which we are all so grateful to see provided in our hospitals. However, there is still this concentration on a small group of surgeons with the dramatic operations which can save lives at the last minute. It throws out of focus the attention the House should be giving to the NHS.
  Doctors have opposed every step forward. The BMA opposed Lloyd-George's "fourpence for ninepence" Act of 1911. Under Charles Hill, the BMA had a referendum and most members did not want to go into the NHS. Nearly every
  300
  step taken to produce better standards for ordinary people has been opposed by the profession.
  Medico-politicians are terrible. Our doctors, consultants and general practitioners are the best in the world, but once the trained clinicians start entering the world of politics, they make as much of a mess as I would if I put up a brass plate and tried to perform an operation on the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had a similar problem. Small numbers of doctors engaged in medico-politics and did so without a proper background in politics. Their background is in medicine. Consequently they get themselves into a mess time after time. Fortunately, after four or five years they usually accept that the Government were right in the first place and drop their opposition.
  Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that this Bill is concerned with cash—the extra amount that a consultant with an A-merit award might get for a bit of private practice. But there are other matters which give cash advantages. Involved in the whole question of part-time appointment are tax advantages. There are tax advantages in having some private practice and some State practice. There is an insurance interest as well—BUPA, the Private Patients' Plan and others who organise groups who pay so much a week to have the advantage of private facilities. This is a vested interest which has been mounting a massive campaign in the Press day after day supposedly for the benefit of patients care, including private patients.
  No one appears to have said very much about amenity beds, which will remain. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has promised to increase the numbers of amenity beds. The campaign in the Press has been mounted on behalf of the insurance industry which has a nice commercial concern. In my view, no one should make a profit out of illness or the treatment of illness. The labourer is worthy of his hire. A good doctor is worthy of his payment. But the idea of a commercial concern, whether to provide private beds or a locum service for family doctors by people on the periphery of the NHS, and making a profit is immoral.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On other occasions in my hearing the hon. Gentleman, with great force, has said that the country needs more resources in health care. If private clinics or private insurance will bring more resources into health care, why does he condemn that practice?
  Mr. Pavitt: I have tried already to explain that, and I dispute the right hon. Gentleman's figures. Recently he and I debated at a meeting of the Royal College of Physicians. On that occasion, I differed from his figures. I accept the figures given by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech of £3 million or £4 million in the first year. But, even taking the maximum of £40 million out of the total of £4,500 million, we are looking at a sector which cannot possibly do the job that we need. We divert people from the real intention because eventually we must reach a climate of opinion where they say "This is our Health Service and we are prepared to pay for it."
  The Health Service is not free. Everybody pays for it. The average taxpayer pays about £120 per year towards the Health Service. I refer here to the analogy put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) about people having a taxi and a better ride. I think that is better put if we consider that we have paid for the bus, but only those who are prepared to pay twice should ride and the others must wait until the next one arrives.
  I should like to echo what my right hon. Friend said about the junior hospital doctors. I can claim to do that, because at one time mine was the only voice raised in this House on behalf of the junior hospital doctors when the BMA was trying to eliminate them from consultations with the Government. In my view, Dr. Piggott and Kathleen Bradley did one of the greatest and most courageous jobs I have ever seen for a group of people who had been dispossessed for so long. However, in their present campaign I believe that the junior hospital doctors are entirely misguided. They should be paying attention to what the Minister of State has been discussing for more than 12 months—namely, a whole new career structure for doctors.
  Under the 1973 Act, we are trying to achieve a medical faculty which is completely comprehensive. We want a service
  302
  where doctors are not divided between one group and another or one section and another. I fear that the junior hospital doctors, instead of looking to a sensible structure, are being deluded into following the wrong course. At the moment, the system is that a doctor will get the plum at the end if he is lucky, but in the meantime he must be a dogs-body and do all the dirty work, so to speak, until he gets past the senior registrar stage. The junior hospital doctors should be concentrating on the restructuring of the service and taking heed of the suggestions which have been made in that direction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, in a colourful speech, put his reservations, which I share, in an extremely forceful way. I am not such a forceful or colourful speaker as is my hon. Friend. However, I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to my Early-Day Motion No. 339. Many of my hon. Friends feel that the Government, in good faith, have accepted a compromise which takes them too far. As chairman of the Back-Bench Health Group I say that we reserve the right in Committee to go into this matter and to amend the Bill, because Parliament must decide this issue. Most of the Members who signed that motion are members of the Back-Bench Health Group. We are not being critical or destructive. We are seeking to be as helpful as possible. However, we shall pay great attention to all these matters in the Bill in Committee and at Report stage.
  Lord Goodman has done the NHS a great disservice. His idea of having tran-quillity by appeasement has never yet worked in any sphere. It certainly will not work in this one.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) is a deceptive speaker. He is so full of sweet reason that one almost wishes he were on the Front Bench. Knowing him personally, I sometimes think the Front Bench would be greatly strengthened by his presence. On health matters he has an inner strength. Whilst not having the passion of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), there is a consistency in his demeanour

  303
  and attitude on health matters which I would enjoy better if I could argue with him over a longer period. He is capable of conviction, but he has not convinced me this evening. He has gone up the wrong path altogether.
  I welcome the Secretary of State for Social Services, to the Front Bench in his new capacity. I have known him for a long time and have come to respect his judgment and his even balance of views. These are the qualities which will be required of him, not only regarding this Bill but regarding so much legislation in health and social service matters. I wish him well in the tasks that confront him. We are fortunate to have a person who has such a readiness to remain a democrat and to listen to all points of view within the House and outside it. It is absolutely right that he should listen to outside views. I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South in saying that ultimately Parliament will decide.
  I am involved in the service. I sit on a regional health authority in that much-criticised area of the South East which is said to be so rich. I accept that the provision in the South East over the years has probably been greater than in some other regions. That is not what this Bill is about. It is for the Secretary of State to put those situations right. I am not speaking for my region alone. I am concerned with the health provision for all the people of this country. This must be evened out and put right.
  This is a ridiculous Bill. It is a monstrous insult to Parliament, to the medical profession and to all those people who use the Health Service. It is an irrelevance and a very costly one. We might argue that £20 million or £40 million is not a very great sum, but it is a cost. I wish we were directing our energies to those things which matter. If only Parliament had an understanding of what the people of this country want Parliament to do. Parliament should concern itself with what is happening in this country and with the economic problems that we face. Parliament should concern itself with the health provisions which are needed and should be voting money for them, rather than trying to tidy up this problem. I know that it is a problem of the pay beds and
  304
  the private sector working within the National Health Service, but this is a piece of spiteful legislation. It has nothing to do with better medical care. It is born out of a new, vicious attitude which has developed in what used to be great reforming party. There are Government supporters who sit below the Gangway who still belong to that great tradition, but there are others among them who are no longer the proper inheritors of the traditions of the party which Keir Hardy brought into this House.
  The new Secretary of State should have the honesty and the guts to consign this Bill to the bonfire. If he goes through with it, he will not only ruin his own promising career but do irreparable harm to the health care that we all seek to provide for the public.
  What is the purpose of this Bill, with its 23 clauses? We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that the object is
  "…to separate from NHS hospitals accommodation and facilities used for the private practice of medicine and to introduce new powers of control over private hospital building".
  For what? To safeguard the NHS.
  That is a cruelly misleading statement, and it is also a joke in the worst possible taste. To safeguard the NHS? This Bill? To safeguard it from what? From the emergence of a second health service—a private health service. But unfortunately that is just what the Bill will create. It will create a monster out of this fiddling little Bill. It will drive people out of the National Health Service into the private health service which it will create. It will cause some of our most able medical men and women to desert the NHS for purely private practice. This is the danger which Aneurin Bevan sought to avoid in his original introduction of the NHS in 1948.
  I can see that the Secretary of State is prepared for this eventuality. He intends to take powers in the Bill to prevent the private health service emerging and, therefore, he will take new powers of control. We may think of him as a benevolent man who is even in his balance. But here we see the emergence of Big Brother. We are beginning to see what life in Socialist Britain will be like.
  There are no fewer than eight clauses in the Bill designed to effect this new

  305
  area of State control over the freedom of people to provide better health care for themselves. But what is so wrong about that? The Minister seeks to take the absolute power of veto against the private provision of medical care outside the NHS. He will appoint inspectors with powers of entry to investigate all private hospitals, nursing homes and clinics. His inspectors would be better occupied looking at some of the hospitals provided by the NHS already which are a disgrace to his Department and to our nation.
  I know of hospitals which would never get past the scrutiny of his inspectors working to the standards required by this Bill. Let them look in my area of the South-East Thames Regional Hospital Authority at the South Darenth Hospital at Dartford, built more than 100 years ago to the design of a prison. Let them meet the patients there who are living in conditions which would never get past what is required in this Bill of the private sector. Let them look at the Royal Sea Bathing Hospital at Margate. Let them spend a day looking at the 600-bed acute hospital at Orpington, as I did last Friday. Such a hospital would not be allowed to be built under this Bill, yet it has been sitting there since 1916. It would not pass the planning regulations of this Bill. The Department would refuse to give such a hospital a licence because it would be regarded not as a hospital hut as a hutted camp not fit for use as a hospital, where patients are kept in old Army huts built in 1916 for the 1914–18 War.
  As I say, I spent a day there last Friday. I have no criticism of the health and medical care provided in that hospital, because I think that it is remarkable. Morale is marvellous amongst all the staff, from the consultants down to pupil and student nurses, and also amongst the patients. There is a very good atmosphere there. People get better there. It has a very high standard in medical provision. People like going there because it is a good hospital inside if one can ignore how awful it looks. We should be spending our money giving the medical profession the best tools to do their job, and providing them with the proper buildings to replace these crumbling asbestos huts I have been talking about.
  306
  We have heard talk this afternoon about queue jumping and about the fact that waiting lists are unfair to the non-paying patient. I do not accept that we should allow such abuse to continue —not for a moment. I do not think anyone would accept queue jumping by paying a fee. I certainly do not. At present private beds represent some 1 per cent. of all the beds in our NHS hospitals and they should be used when required for non-private-paying patients. They are not all used, or taken up, as hon. Members from various regions and parts of the country have said. As far as waiting lists are concerned no one should ever have to wait for an emergency operation.
  What saddens me is that I have to waste time on a Bill of this nature. There is much more important work to be done in the Health Service today—work which is so worth while and satisfying; but this Government will do nothing to improve health care for anyone.
  I believe that the Bill will have a positively harmful effect. It will deny the use of NHS services to people who are entitled to them. What does the Minister mean when he talks of a "private" patient? Is a person registered as an NHS patient, who also wants to pay extra for a private room, no longer on the NHS and suddenly regarded as a private patient? Is that person's national health insurance contributions over many years to be disregarded because he or she chooses to provide himself or herself with a little extra aid towards recovery, namely privacy, and at very high personal cost to himself or herself?
  There is in this Bill a complete denial of the individual's right to have a say about the treatment he should get. He should have a say about wanting privacy if he thinks it will help his recovery. He should be allowed to pay for this because probably he has insured himself for many years. He should equally have a say about the hospital, the surgeon and the physician, the location of the consultations and the timing and availability of access for his family to visit him. These are individual human rights. They are not to be ignored. We cannot ignore them as we consider the problems which face us in this Bill. Not even this Left-inclined Government can ignore them. I

  307
  refuse to allow them to go on trampling down on our basic freedoms.
  I do not think that this Bill is a pay bed Bill. That is not what I am fighting for. I am fighting against a Government who seem to have gone mad and who have decided to break up the NHS, to destroy the morale of all those who work in it and to ruin the service they provide. The doctors, nurses, and all the other workers in our hospitals, are not fighting for pay beds. They are asking for the Government to come to their senses and to stop interfering with our system of providing good medical care to the sick and injured.
  I was with the Bromley Area Health Authority last week. There are some 2,900 beds available in that area serving a population of 300,000 people. There are precisely 33 pay beds in that area. I visited two hospitals—one in Farnborough and one in Orpington. At Farnborough there were 592 beds available in the public wards and the average number occupied out of 592 was 372. Of 570 beds at Orpington, 413 were occupied. Another 33 beds in that area on top of a total of 2,900 will make no difference to the service available. There is plenty of room in the general wards, but what is needed is not another room or two but more lavatories and bath-rooms, operating theatres and new equipment, to bring the hospitals up to 1976 standards.
  There are plenty of private rooms available already, which were not being used, in the hospitals that I saw for patients whose recovery depends on privacy. I am referring not to private pay beds or to amenity beds but to beds provided for medical reasons when privacy is an essential part of recovery. At Farnborough there is an excellent infectious diseases unit where every patient is in an air-conditioned private room. There are 17 such rooms available for anyone who needs that treatment—nothing to do with pay beds—but only 12 were occupied. At this hospital there is also an excellent new psychiatric wing with many private rooms for patients, most of which were empty when I visited it.
  The danger of the Bill is that it will make us lose sight of the things which really matter. We should not be fussy
  308
  about 1 per cent. of beds in an area where they need a new district general hospital, a more modern operating theatre, new X-ray equipment and better nurses' accommodation.
  About 32 per cent. of those who die this year in the Bromley area will die from heart disease. Anyone who is lucky enough in those circumstances to get into the intensive care unit will have a very good chance of survival. The equipment is excellent—modern and very expensive. No expense has been spared. The nursing staff are highly trained specialists. The unit is an open ward, full of life-saving equipment, which is more important than privacy when fighting for one's life.
  Privacy is not always the best cure, of course. Children's wards are very happy places because children are gregarious and like talking to each other. They are also wonderful in having no class consciousness. One of the secrets of geriatric nursing is to get old people interested in life and in meeting other old people. That is half the battle. The day rooms in a geriatric ward are jolly places, not lonely.
  We should not make such a thing about private beds. They fit naturally and without difficulty into a vast National Health Service. They do not harm the service or anyone else. If they did, I should support the Minister in removing such harm.
  There is so much that is good in the Health Service but there is also much that is still wrong. One of its major weaknesses is that it is still too much of a State service, too dependent on centralised administrators and Government policy directives. It should be allowed to get on with its job of caring for and curing the public. Instead of trying to clamp down on a tiny area of intiative, individualism and investment, we should be finding ways to improve medical care and enlarging the opportunity of the individual to play a bigger part in maintaining and improving his own health.
  The Government are going in the wrong direction with this Bill. They should change direction while there is still time, or at least abandon the Bill and offer the choice and chance to the Royal Commission to report impartially.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Ovenden: I should like to see the same sort of improvements in the quality of service in the National Health Service as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) but I suspect that they will be difficult to achieve in the light of the public expenditure review and totally impossible in the light of the Conservative Party's dedication to massive cuts in public expenditure. I want to get back to the issue of private medicine in the NHS. This is basically a simple issue—the issue of privilege. It is unfortunate that, throughout this debate, Conservative Members have refused to understand the difference between envy and our objecting to privilege. Every time we object to privilege, they accuse us of being envious. I suspect that there is some gap in their political education which makes it impossible for them to grasp the simplicity of this point.
  But despite the attempts to confuse and complicate this discussion by Conservative Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who succeeded only in confusing himself, the issue is basically simple. It is whether a small section of the community should continue to receive special treatment in NHS hospitals at the expense and to the detriment of their fellow citizens.
  We have to decide whether medical need or the size of the individual's bank balance determines the priority for medical treatment. Conservatives talk as though medical treatment can be dealt with in the same way as buying a bag of potatoes, a car, or a fur coat. Those who can afford to can buy the best, and those who cannot have to make do with second best. One cannot treat medicine and good health in this way, yet that is what we are doing at present. Private medicine within the Health Service means dual standards, and tackling that is long overdue.
  Conservatives ask why we have managed to put up with this for 30 years. I do not know why it has taken so long, I am only happy that we now have a Government who want to tackle the problem. The Government will be bitterly opposed by those whose vested interests will be threatened, not only the private patients and the part-time consultants,
  310
  but the insurance companies to whom private medicine is big and very profitable business. Despite these voices, the principle of the Bill will be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Health Service staff and the millions of people who deplore the scandalous abuse which private practice represents.
  A system which forces the majority of people to wait for hospital treatment while others are allowed to buy their way to the front of the queue is indefensible and a denial of the central principle on which the Health Service was established. Maybe when it was established it was necessary to accept second best and to compromise. But I suggest to my hon. Friends that the time has come when we can finish with that compromise and carry the principles of the Health Service one step forward.
  What ethics exist in a system where sick people can wait for a bed for months unless they can pay, in which case they can receive immediate treatment? The majority of decent people regard that position as scandalous. The aim of the Bill must be to see as speedily as possible that all hospital beds are available to all patients and that our priorities are based on medical need alone. In achieving that the Bill has certain serious weaknesses which I hope we may remedy at a later stage. But it is a step in the right direction.
  The advocates of private medicine have done their case enormous harm by their wild exaggerations of its benefits. Private medicine benefits very few. It does not benefit the majority of patients and Health Service staff. It does not even benefit the majority of consultants, because only a slight minority actually indulge in private medicine. Very few people have anything to lose from the elimination of private medicine from the Health Service.
  My objection to private medicine stems basically from my objections to queue-jumping, and there has been no convincing denial from the Conservatives that queue-jumping takes place. If that was not one of the main reasons for private medicine, I cannot think of another. If patients were able to go into Health Service beds without long delays I suspect that the demand for private medicine would be even less than it is, and the

  311
  occupancy of private beds would be even smaller than it is now.
  My objections stem not only from that but from the fact that the system leads to other objectionable features. First, it brings about a distortion in the allocation of resources in the National Health Service. The powerful position which is enjoyed by the part-time consultant in the process of determining priorities has led inevitably to a system in which emphasis is placed on the areas where the opportunities to make profit out of private medicine are best.
  It is no coincidence that the Cinderella areas of the National Health Service are the areas in which the scope for private practice is the least. Additionally, the system of private medicine within the NHS ensures that there is a concentration of consultants in the areas where private practice is most profitable. That leads to a distortion in the allocation of skills throughout the Health Service. It also leads to many consultants using their time on operations where their skills are not really demanded. They spend their time and energies on private operations which could well be carried out by junior staff while junior staff are left to carry out some of the major operations on NHS patients.
  Private medicine is held out by many of its supporters as making a financial contribution to the Health Service. As my hon. Friends have already said, the amount it raises is insignificant in terms of the total Health Service budget. But, more important than that, we should apply the stringent test of whether the occupiers of pay beds pay their fair share of costs if they are not to be considered a burden on the NHS. The fees paid should be sufficient to finance the provision of alternative beds.
  It is necessary to examine the cost of providing a modern hospital and to establish the figure that a patient should pay for the rent of a bed. I believe that at the last estimate the figure was about £45 a week. However, the fees for private patients include only a notional sum for rent.
  I suggest that private practice is not even paying its way. It is not making a proper contribution to the NHS. One of
  312
  our main concerns should be to ensure the most efficient use of resources within the service. Pay beds represent an inefficient use of resources because the occupancy rate is low. I understand that there is a large regional variation, but the average occupancy rate for a private pay bed is about 60 per cent. while the National Health Service occupancy rate is 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. I suggest that private pay beds are a grossly inefficient use of resources. They are deplorable when viewed in the light of the long waiting lists in many areas.
  I believe that we can have a more efficient Health Service which will offer better care to meet the needs of patients if we abolish pay beds. We could have a system whereby consultants pay proper and fair attention to NHS patients. I am sorry that the lack of time prevents my going into this matter in detail.
  I refer the House to the report of the Select Committee which considered this subject. It pointed to the neglect of health service work which arises as a result of consultants dealing in private medicine. It provided figures illustrating the small number of emergencies dealt with by consultants. It is evident that private medicine means that Health Service patients do not get their fair share of NHS resources or consultant time.
  9.3 p.m.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I suppose that I should not have been surprised that most of the contributions from Labour Members centred with varying degrees of envy in attacking private practice. I mean envy, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden). The abolition of privileges is of value only if as a result it confers some sort of benefit on the rest of society. That is the point that the Opposition make. It is envy if there is merely a will to destroy things for the sake of destroying them.
  There has been little from Labour Members as to how the Bill can help the NHS in any way. It is the NHS that 98 per cent. of patients will use. It is not surprising that we have heard little about the Bill helping the NHS because it will do virtually nothing to help the care of patients in the service. Indeed, there are great risks that it will do much harm.

  313
  Like my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I wish we could have discussed instead the immense problems of the NHS and the care of patients. It is the standard of patient care, which has been falling steadily in recent years, which concerns me most. We have heard virtually nothing from the Government benches about the care of patients. Anyone who wants to know why the medical profession feels so bitterly misunderstood and frustrated has only to read the intolerant and inaccurate speech made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I ask the House, who speaks the greater truth? Do she and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) speak it when they say that there is no room for compromise over the Bill, or does the Secretary of State speak it when he says that he is prepared to enter the Committee stage of the Bill with an open mind? Time and events will show who speaks the greater truth.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new office and on the moderation with which he spoke today. He will know that many people, including those of us who oppose him bitterly over the Bill, hope sincerely that he will reintroduce peace or, as Lord Goodman said in his letter in The Times today, "tranquillity" into the National Health Service. With that in mind we can almost, but not quite, forgive the Secretary of State for his apparent lack of knowledge which showed up in some of his statements today.
  Does the Secretary of State really put the cost so low? The figures that were given by his predecessor are quite different. We have figures—the Secretary of State may correct them subsequently —which point to very different levels. My figures show that the expected revenue income for 1976–77 from the regional hospital boards and acute general hospitals is just over £19 million, from provincial teaching hospitals nearly £3 million and from London teaching and undergraduate hospitals just over £11 million. We assume in a full year that there will be a loss from those hospitals alone of nearly £33 million. In addition, there is over £400,000 from Wales, nearly £2 million from Scotland and just over £1 million from Northern
  314
  Ireland. That gives a total of just over £37 million in a full year. The Secretary of State, with all his resources, may correct us and say that those figures are wrong. They certainly bear no relation to the figures which he gave us today.
  Does the Secretary of State believe that the waiting lists will be reduced? We heard from the letter written by the Department to the surgeon, Mr. Nigel Harris, that we can expect no reduction in waiting list time as a result of the Bill. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) was right when he said that waiting lists were contributed to by faulty administration and shortage of staff. The Minister of State conceded that many times when we questioned him about it.
  There are 11,000 beds empty every day because of shortage of staff. Of the 70,000 to 80,000 beds which are empty because of patient turnover, at least 11,000 are empty because of shortage of staff and resources. Some are in new units which cannot be opened because of shortage of staff. With this in mind was the right hon. Gentleman surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton said that an empty private wing had been closed? I have information about another wing in which 24 private beds have been withdrawn and the room has been made available for use by the administration. Those beds will not come back into patient care and be available for patients in the NHS. We shall find it very difficult to convert the withdrawal of pay beds into extra facilities for NHS patients.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his predecessor was incorrect when she said consultants had rejected the common waiting list? I was astonished to hear her say this and to hear her faithful henchman, the hon. Member for Ormskirk, support her, not knowing the facts. In December 1974 the BMA wrote to the DHSS giving the names of members who intended to examine the problem with representatives from the Department. That offer was never taken up and yet the right hon. Member for Blackburn says that the suggestion was opposed and rejected by the medical profession. Words such as those fed the anxiety and opposition of the medical professions over what she was doing.
  Does the Secretary of State mean that the phasing out of pay beds will increase

  315
  the number of consultants? That is an extraordinary thing to say. Does he not realise that there are already several hundred empty consultant posts? Only this week the Minister of State listed them and said that 197 had been vacant for more than a year and that in 120 cases the appointments committee had been unable to find a suitable candidate. I know of many cases where jobs have been advertised and where the field has either been negligible and no appointment has been made, or so poor that there was no choice, as it lay between one or two people at the most. In the Chamber recently I quoted a London hospital which had 26 applicants for a desirable surgical post, but 24 of them came from overseas and, for obvious reasons, were not strong runners for the appointment. I cannot see where all the extra consultant posts will come from.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton told us of the case of a consultant who wanted to become full time but there was no money available. If he has not already done so, the Secretary of State will soon learn that there are many doctors who would like to become full time but cannot do so because there is no money.
  I cannot see that the phasing out of pay beds will increase the availability of consultants in the NHS. Far from improving the situation for consultant posts in the National Health Service, the Bill will probably make it worse. Little increase in emigration is needed to bring some specialties to a complete stop in some areas of the country. I am sure that the Secretary of State could confirm that.
  I was interested in the details of the Bill given by the Secretary of State. This is not the time to go into detail because there will be ample opportunity in Committee. But it was helpful to us for the Secretary of State to go into so much detail. I was particularly interested in his remarks about notification and the conveying of approval to local planning authorities. I hope that he will undertake to speak about industrial blacking of buildings in the same robust terms he used when speaking of industrial strife within the Health Service as a whole. I hope that he will stand up and say those
  316
  words when people behind the scenes try to stop the building of an approved project. We welcome what he said about industrial strife generally. We have been saying that for some time, but the previous Secretary of State said not a single word of that kind. We have used such words many times. Tension and friction in the service would have been reduced if she had openly come out against the petty industrial action taken against patients over meals and patient care.
  Sadly, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is already building up some disappointment and anxiety, not because he has failed dramatically to change his policies—we should not have expected that of him—but because he could so easily have delayed the Bill for a little while. He could have given himself a little more time to have a proper look at it, and not just a weekend. That went down very badly in the health world. His remarks were not understood or appreciated. I understand that he brought the Bill forward by a few days—
  Mr. Ennals indicated dissent.
  Dr. Vaughan: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman shake his head. The rumour has been going around—
  Mr. Ennals: I did not bring the Bill forward at all. I brought it out on the day originally planned.
  Dr. Vaughan:I am reassured that at least we can scotch that rumour.
  The right hon. Gentleman might have taken the bold and imaginative step—dare I suggest this after the earlier discussions?—of referring the Bill to the Royal Commission. His argument against that is not very strong. The Royal Commission has completely changed the position of the manifesto that we hear quoted so very often.
  The right hon. Gentleman could have allowed a little more consultation to take place. He told us today that there had been a great deal of consultation. His predecessor said the same. A good deal of consultation took place in the last few days, but in many people's minds it was not proper consultation of the kind they would have expected. When a little did occur, the term "consult" far too often became "insult", in the experience

  317
  of those people. A very nasty taste was left in their mouths.
  Viewing the Bill, one must ask the fundamental question, why should people who are not normally inclined to industrial action—the doctors, dentists, so many of the nurses and the hospital administrators—all be so opposed to the Bill? Why should whole-time and research staff, who will never engage in private practice, and do not want to, unite with their colleagues in opposing the Bill?
  There are two major reasons, which have been touched on in the debate. First, whatever the Secretary of State says, the profession still believes that there will be a loss of personal freedom both for patients and for its members. It believes that the Bill will lead to genuine, serious damage to care of patients. It may be wrong, but that is what it believes.
  Secondly, the profession sees the Bill —and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can argue against this—resulting in an extravagant and damaging loss of income at a time when money is desperately needed in the NHS. I should like to explain a little more the idea of loss of freedom. I begin by quoting the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, one of our most senior colleges, who said after the Queen's Speech in November:
  "There is no doubt that doctors, almost without exception, believe the independence of the profession and the freedom of patients to be in very great peril."
  He said that they saw
  "Parliament allowing every element of Independent medicine to be removed from NHS hospitals and its replacement outside the NHS frustrated by licensing restrictions."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) had that in mind when making some of his remarks. The President added,
  "If this occurred the State would then have a stranglehold upon independent medicine."
  This is the fear, whether we agree with it or not, which lies behind the medical opposition to the Bill.
  I was astonished, listening to the right hon. Lady earlier this evening, when she was talking about how the medical profession feels and thinks, because that is
  318
  not the medical profession I meet. I should like to refer to a remarkable article by Lord Taylor, who is a doctor and a Socialist peer. I recommend the article to anybody who has not yet read it. He says that
  "one of the difficulties of health service planning is to make the laity understand the importance of medical care."
  He adds that they find it very difficult indeed to judge the quality of medicine. They can see the quantity but not the quality. To many people, certainly to most Labour Party Members, a doctor is a doctor, and that is that. That is certainly the unenlightened view of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who spoke earlier.
  Lord Taylor also says that
  "doctors doing clinical medicine are nature's self-employed; they seem to need the stimulus of self-employment if they are to do their best work."
  These are very serious words from some-body who has spent most of his life within the health profession. Lord Taylor says further that
  "clinical medicine is a tough and difficult profession.…Decisions must be swift and brave.…If the 'tidier-uppers' were to win the day and build in controls to the practice of medicine the victim would be medicine itself.…Wherever this has been done, the result has been mediocrity."
  If we want to benefit from experiences in other parts of the world, we should abandon this Bill tonight, because every country that has followed this line has ended up in disaster.
  Mrs Renée Short: Where?
  Dr. Vaughan: I am coming to it. Sweden is one example. The hon. Member for Watford talked about it. Not a single medical advance of any importance has come out of Soviet medicine.
  Mrs. Short: Then why do we send patients to the Soviet Union?
  Dr. Vaughan: What I have said is true. But more relevant is the experience in Sweden which, as has been pointed out, phased out its private beds in 1960. Swedish medicine was the pride of Sweden, and looked upon by other countries in the world as having a remarkable standard. It has since gone into a decline and fallen into mediocrity. Any hon. Members who doubt this can go there and see for themselves.

  319
  This is why we have great anxiety about the Bill, When speaking about what appeared to them to be the advantages of the Bill, hon. Members do not seem to have considered the long-term consequences that their proposals will have on the care of patients. The doctors' anxieties are based on Labour Party statements. They are based on the statements coming from the trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North referred to that. The Labour Party wishes to see a totally State service, regardless of any sacrifice in medical standards. The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that that is what he wants to see.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No.
  Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Member said so himself.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to paraphrase what I said, let him try to get it correct. I said that should like to see the abolition of private medicine, and I do not go back on that. I did not say that this would lead to a reduction in standards in the National Health Service. I believe that it would increase the standard of the quality of care.
  Dr. Vaughan: I take that point. I do not think that the hon. Member realises the consequences of what he is proposing. The medical profession is looking now for assurances that, having been trained to take initiatives, doctors will not be restrained from putting into practice the highest services to medicine. This is the assurance that it is seeking. The statements from the Labour Party, the Goodman proposals and the statements of the former Prime Minister have done nothing to remove that anxiety. This is the reality of the situation. Hon. Members opposite may not like to hear it.
  I believe that the emigration figures are two years out of date. All the figures I have obtained from individual places suggest that emigration has shot up in recent months. In a year or two when we get the figures, we shall be wringing our hands in distress. It is a national disgrace that because we can-not fill the gap in this country, we are required to take doctors from countries where they are greatly needed.
  320
  Fears have been expressed about the loss of freedom. There is also the fear that money is being lost at a time when it is desperately needed for the NHS. We feel that this Bill is irrelevant to the main problems of the NHS.
  There is deep resentment about this matter. We heard the other day about one hospital where staff are washing bandages by hand and re-using them to effect economies. I know another hospital whose administrators have been told to cut their budget by £500,000. They assure me that this must result in a cut in services. A directive has just been issued as a result of the appalling muddle over junior doctors. The cost of paying the extra salaries must come out of existing budgets. That will mean a cut in services.
  The loss of a sum of £40 million—we believe that figure to be correct—means that we are losing money that could be used to pay for the whole upgrading of the services for the mentally ill. That sum would cover the full cost of hospital treatment for 100,000 acutely ill patients. It would provide the NHS with 140 EMI brain scanners. It would build five 300-bed nucleus hospitals. It could create over 2,000 places in medical schools. That is what we are losing. It could pay for the training, right through to qualification, of over 1,000 doctors. Further-more, that money could restore almost a quarter of the cuts imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the social service budget for 1978. This is why so many people feel resentment over the Government's actions.
  I was a member of the Expenditure Sub-Committee which sat under the enlightened guidance of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). She knows that we found no supporting evidence whatever of serious or widespread abuse. We heard submissions from junior hospital doctors, but we had no supporting evidence.
  Mrs. Renée Short: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote from the Report, he must quote correctly. There was broad evidence from doctors, nurses, consultants, junior hospital doctors, and also from the hospital unions, all to the same effect. The hon. Gentleman obviously

  321
  has forgotten the details of the Report and should re-read it.
  Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Lady's memory is faulty. Isolated examples were given to us, but they were not substantiated.
  Mrs. Renée Short: That is not so. Many examples were given.
  Dr. Vaughan: I was a member of that Select Committee, as was the hon. Lady.
  There is a widespread belief that, in the long term, this legislation will achieve exactly the opposite to what the Government intend. We know that it will do nothing to cut waiting lists. We know that it is unlikely to increase the number of beds available to patients.
  I have an uncomfortable suspicion that the Secretary of State for Social Services believes that he has only to get this Bill out of the way in order to achieve peace and quiet in the NHS. I hope that he is right, but that may not prove to be the case. The passage of the Bill could be just the beginning. Staffs may become more awkward rather than less so. I may be wrong, but from what I hear they could well become more difficult. We ask those in this House who have said that they believe in the preservation of individual and professional freedom, those who, like the Leader of the Liberal Party, have suggested that this matter should be put to the Royal Commission, and those who have spoken passionately about the need to improve the NHS as a whole, to join us in opposing the Bill. We believe it to be totally misconceived and out of keeping with the real needs of the NHS. That is why I ask hon. Members to vote against the Bill tonight.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): Ever since the creation of the National Health Service, doctors in Britain have attached great importance to their right to practise both within the framework of the NHS and outside. The general practitioner has always been able to treat NHS patients and private patients. The hospital consultant has always had the option to practise part time for the NHS and to retain the right to practise privately. This right has never been
  322
  challenged by the present Government over the last two years and this Bill specifically prevents the introduction of an exclusively whole-time work force.
  The profession has been assured that legislation over pay beds will reiterate these guarantees, and this Bill has reiterated the guarantees about the right to practise privately. Whatever views we in the House may take about the encouragement of whole-time commitment to the NHS—which I make no secret is something I would wish to see freely entered into by doctors—if the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) has any evidence of consultants who wish to become whole time but are prevented from doing so by their employing authorities, I hope that he will give me chapter and verse about them, because I should be only too happy to look into the matter. However, the NHS, over its long history now, has undoubtedly gained from the public spirited work by many consultants who have devoted long hours to the NHS and who have given considerable value for money to the NHS. That should be put firmly on record.
  However, the controversy over the place of private practice within the NHS has a long history. It was argued over when the Act went through the House. Private practice was controversial even before that time when it took place in private hospitals prior to the introduction of the NHS. The controversy has been building up steadily now for a decade or more.
  The extraordinary part about the speeches of Opposition Members, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), has been the almost complete absence of any understanding of how controversial this issue has become within the NHS. The most worrying aspect of the controversy has been the way in which it has split the traditional partnership between health care workers in hospitals. It has become for some of them a deeply divisive issue in which some nurses, doctors, porters and technicians find themselves at loggerheads. The issue has been taken as the basis of industrial action by individual health workers since May 1974, though from differing view-points.

  323
  This controversy has gone on for a very considerable length of time. It first came into discussion in the House in the report of the Expenditure Committee, which has been referred to often in the debate, back in 1971. But it was controversial before then. People ask "What will the Bill do for the NHS?" What I hope it will do will be to bring peace to the Health Service. It has not helped the NHS to have had a period of industrial action, from both sides, which has resulted in a considerable lengthening of waiting lists and waiting time. It has not helped patient care to have ill feeling within the NHS over this period. It has not improved standards of care to have this controversy.
  The hon. Member for Reading, South claimed that this Bill has been motivated by political spite. I totally reject that view. Those hon. Members and those who have worked in the NHS who feel strongly about this issue have used every democratic means at their disposal to get a commitment from an incoming Government, a manifesto commitment, to make a change in the arrangements. In a democracy, that is a perfectly legitimate way of making a change in society. It would be an appalling situation if such a change, democratically arrived at, and a decision made by an incoming Government after two years of consultation, could not be introduced merely because of the virulent opposition of some members of the medical profession.
  Doctors are not unanimous on this issue, though the percentage in favour of the abolition of private practice would be very small, even among those committed whole time to the NHS. However, a sizeable percentage see positive merit in the separation of private practice from the NHS, or are prepared to accept separation providing there are adequate safe-guards. The Bill provides those safe-guards. This is not the abolition of private practice by the back door. Radical reform often requires compromise and no one should be ashamed to admit it.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before the Minister leaves the question—which I did not attempt to blur—of the resentment felt by some people working in the NHS, will he recognise that there
  324
  has to be a difference in one's reaction to resentment based upon real detriment to the NHS, its patients or employees and resentment which is based on jealousy of privilege and other similar arguments we have heard from below the Gangway opposite today? What are the real advantages to National Health Service patients of phasing out pay beds?
  Dr. Owen: I reject totally and absolutely the right hon. Member's suggestion that our view that private practice should be separated from the National Health Service is based on envy or political spite. It is based on a philosophical belief, challenged by the Opposition throughout the discussions on the original creation of the NHS, that the basis of the Health Service and health care should be medical need and not ability to pay. That has been a controversial issue between the parties for a long time.
  In a free, democratic society, it is a difficult principle to establish completely and that is why the private sector exists. It is a safety valve to the system. The question is whether that sector should exist within the NHS.
  The genius of Nye Bevan was that he recognised in 1946 that he had to make a compromise. We hear eulogies from the Opposition about Nye Bevan. They quote the speeches he made in 1946 and 1947, but omit to mention his view on pay beds, published in the book "In Place of Fear" in 1952. He made clear that he thought pay beds would eventually have to go because of the abuse factor.
  I had the privilege to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-burn (Mrs. Castle) for two years. It may take time for her contribution to the NHS to be appreciated, but it was real and it will be long standing.
  Many thousands of people in the NHS will not laugh in the ridiculous manner in which some hon. Members opposite are now laughing. While my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State, nurses received justice at long last in their pay scales, with 60 per cent. pay increases for many nurses. We also kept faith with the doctors' pay claim and they received a 35 per cent. increase in April 1975.
  In December last year, my right hon. Friend hammered out what she openly

  325
  described to the House as a compromise. She made what she called a reasonable compromise because, like all of us, she saw that the dispute of the time was damaging the NHS.
  The proposals presented to the House on 15th December were a compromise which upheld certain basic fundamental principles—first, that the separation of private practice should take place, but also that the medical profession should have a guaranteed right to practise and that the separation should be supervised by an independent board.
  Many people in the profession did not believe that the Bill would enact the December proposals. However, the House can see that we have been faithful and honourable in presenting in legislative form the proposals put before the House in December. We now look for a similar honouring of the arrangements hammered out in December on behalf of the medical profession.
  I think that the profession will recognise that, as both it and the Government compromised in December, the compromise must be maintained and upheld by both sides.
  I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford that those proposals are now subject to legislative scrutiny in the House. Legislation is made here. That is why we condemn industrial action by either side in the Health Service and why I gladly say that we do not approve of any abuse of the planning system which is meant to be impartial and objective in its application to private hospitals.
  The issue before the House is whether we should give the Bill a Second Reading. believe that the Bill offers a prospect of ending the divisions and the damage within the Health Service.
  Considerable play has been made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with the reduction in income to the NHS resulting from the separation of pay beds. A suggestion has been made that the loss of income could amount to £40 million. That is a grossly exaggerated estimate. Without this Bill, in a full year, taking account of the 30 per cent. increase in pay bed charges operative from 1st April 1976, income from pay beds is expected at most to be no more than
  326
  £23 million in England. That is based on estimates of £18 million for 1975–76.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to an answer in November last year. At that time income from pay beds in 1973–74 was given as £14·3 million and an estimate of £26 million was given for 1975–76. That was only an estimate. The outturn appears to be less, for reasons which are difficult to estimate in advance, because it depends on occupancy and other factors.
  If the Bill is passed, as the Financial Memorandum shows, the initial loss of income in the current year is expected to be between £3 million and £4 million. Again, it is difficult to estimate because it depends on occupancy. It will become a bigger loss in future years as pay beds are phased out, depending on the rate at which they are recommended to be phased out.
  The money available to the NHS has been increased in advance to take account of this expected loss of income. The public expenditure programme for the NHS was fully compensated for this change last spring when, on 5th May, my right hon. Friend announced that the Government had decided that appropriate funds would be made available so that the revenue allocations of health authorities would not be affected in consequence of the phasing out of pay beds. The record that this extra money has been made available is in the recent White Paper on Public Expenditure, page 94, paragraph 5, and the figure covering this and other matters is shown in the tables on page 142 as plus £26 million for 1976–77 and plus £51 million for 1977–78.
  The NHS has already received additional money to cover a specific Government commitment and policy. Because the Government believe that the Bill is necessary for the NHS, they decided to cover the cost. The resources available to the NHS are not affected. Nothing will have to be given up. Those pay beds, operating theatres, facilities and staff, which are of value to the NHS, will be retained. To the extent that private patients opt for the NHS, they will continue to make use of these or similar facilities. To the extent that they do not, the facilities will be an addition to the NHS. Some of those facilities are extremely valuable.

  327
  The Charing Cross Hospital has 40 private beds. The capital cost of providing them at current prices would be £1·8 million. The Royal Free Hospital has 36 beds, the capital cost of which would be about £1·4 million. These are modern hospitals. St. Thomas's Hospital has about 48 private beds, the estimated cost of which would be about £2·6 million.
  There are many other parts of the country where private beds will eventually be made available in brand new, modem hospitals which will be a considerable addition to the Health Service. I totally reject the suggestion that this policy will mean an absolute drain on the NHS.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck), whose sincerity on this issue I respect, argued that politics is the art of the possible. He asked whether this proposal was possible against the views of the medical profession. I do not think that can be the only factor. The views of the medical profession are important, but so are the views of many other people in this country.
  My hon. Friend said that there was a distinction between waiting lists based on medical need and waiting lists which allowed some people to jump the queue purely on the ability to pay. My hon. Friend made a great point about privacy and rightly quoted Aneurin Bevan who introduced the concept of privacy into the NHS through amenity beds. That point has constantly been reiterated.
  As far as possible, without taking a single room which might be used by a patient who is ill and needs it, it is right for the NHS to provide privacy. It is right, too, as far as possible, for the NHS to give more attention to people being able to choose their time of admission. One of the greatest problems about private medicine is in giving people the right to choose the doctors who will conduct a particular and maybe highly specialised, or perhaps not very specialised, operation. There has to be a rationing of scarce medical skills.
  The most serious and difficult operations are often carried out by the most experienced doctors. If all their time is pre-empted by private money, it will mean that a doctor's skills could be
  328
  totally taken up by doing operations which demand less than his own skills. It is unrealistic, because the private sector is small. Were the private sector bigger that degree of distortion of medical skills would be very great.
  We cannot give within the National Health Service the right to every patient to choose the doctor of his choice to do the actual operation. With the help of his general practitioner, the patient can choose the consultant who will supervise it. But the former would be a certain recipe for distorting scarce skills in the NHS and would fundamentally under-mine the principles on which the NHS was established.
  The Scottish nationalists support the Bill. They drew attention, as did many of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies, to the fact that this is not a divisive issue in Scotland. The NHS in Scotland has provided a very good service for the Scottish people without a very large number of private beds. Opposition Members totally omitted any reference to the fact that this is not a divisive issue in certain parts of the United Kingdom. This needs to be given attention.
  The hon. Member for Reading, South said that the doctors had never rejected common waiting lists. He ought to know that at the British Medical Association Annual Representative Meeting, held in Leeds in 1975, a motion in the name of East Kent:
  "That this Meeting rejects any proposal for a common waiting list for admission to public and private wards in the NHS"
  was accepted. I quote from the British Medical Journal:
  "Dr. Astley…said his Committee had no sympathy for the common waiting list: in its view, pay beds were part of a mixed economy. Britain was after all, still a capitalist country and the committee would refuse to have anything to do with common waiting lists."
  It was a great mistake that the medical profession did not take common waiting lists seriously. The Liberal Party, the Scottish nationalists, the Welsh nationalists and my hon. Friends all welcomed the provision in the Bill for the independent board to report within six months on the possibility and feasibility of introducing common waiting lists for those pay beds remaining in the NHS during the period of phase-out.

  329
  There were two main points on which hon. Members opposite wanted greater reassurance. One was consultation. Amongst those hon. Members who have come in late, there is no doubt some anxiety about individual pay beds in individual constituencies. This is related to the schedule.
  We have never made any secret of the fact that we want continuing consultation on the schedule. This consultation will go on during the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend said earlier that he would like the list in the schedule to be an agreed list if possible. He said he was therefore inviting the profession and the Independent Hospitals Group to consult him to see whether it could be mutually agreed which 1,000 beds were to be withdrawn In doing this, we should, of course, want to take account of local representations. He said that he also intended to invite the Committee considering this Bill to accept a motion which would enable the committee's discussion of the schedule to be taken towards the end of the Committee's deliberations. Then, if an agreed schedule can be brought forward, my right hon. Friend will be able to table it in substitution of that now in the Bill. This offers the prospect of considerable consultation with the profession
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: But the letter from Mr. Nodder to the area health authorities spoke about consultation continuing even after Royal Assent. Will the Government now undertake to introduce a power into the Bill to amend the schedule by order after the Bill is passed?
  Dr. Owen: We do not need that power, because the schedule refers to the area health authority, and the consultations continuing afterwards, if they were necessary, would be at the level of the individual hospital. The 1,000 beds are in the discretion of the Secretary of State who has already got that discretionary power. His discretionary power ceases once the 1,000 beds are out, and this then becomes a matter for the independent board. Flexibility is there if it is necessary, though I hope that it will not be necessary. One other way of considering it is by looking at group designations which would allow continued flexibility on this point.
  330
  As for Northern Ireland, one of the most interesting features was the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), who made it clear, as I understood him, that the main criticism of the Ulster Unionists was not against Part I and Part II of the Bill but against Part III. He was under no illusion that the Bill and the discussions leading up to the Bill had excluded Northern Ireland, and he made a strong plea that this should not happen again.
  At no time have the Government contemplated the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. This was made clear in the statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on 15th December. The practice in Health Service matters, which was criticised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, is for the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services to consult the appropriate bodies in Northern Ireland about the application in the Province of measures introduced or proposals made for Great Britain and there-after to legislate separately for the Province.
  Much was made of the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at a meeting. That was a meeting about the Royal Commission. It was not a meeting about pay beds legislation. That was the genus of that meeting.
  The more that one looks at these questions, the more one sees that there is a greater understanding of the problems, not surprisingly perhaps, amongst Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who were rather alarmed at the prospect that they would be expected under a Conservative Administration to give up 200 beds. As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, the fear was that one-fifth of the total number of beds would be foisted on to Northern Ireland and that that seemed a strange way of rewarding Northern Ireland's share of the population of the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Dealing with the Part III objections raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, it has to be borne in mind that a medical journal such as Lancet was able to say that what is surprising is the high upper limit on the number of beds in projected private acute hospitals above which limit the board must grant

  331
  authorisation before planning permission can be sought. The limit is 100 or more beds in Greater London and 75 or more elsewhere. Most of the criticisms from the Lancet and from others is that the Government have been too generous on this measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn seemed to suggest that she thought she had been too generous on it. But it was an attempt to get a solution of the problem which was necessary.
  As regards the cost of the independent board, we reach the most extraordinary situation. I hope that all members of the Liberal Party will read the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). It was an extraordinary speech. He said that he was in favour of the Bill in almost all its aspects. He was in favour of phasing out. He did not object to the licensing provisions though he would wish to look at them. He thought that the Government were acting fairly and honourably. What the Liberal Party objects to is the fact that there is to be an independent body at the cost of too high a bureaucracy. In other words, the Liberal Party, which committed itself before the election to phasing out pay beds and which has vaccilated on this issue over the past year or so, is now committed under the most extraordinary terms to voting against the Second Reading of this Bill on the basis that there is an independent board.
  When I challenged the hon. Gentleman about this, on the basis that the only reason that the Government had given up the powers from the Secretary of State to the independent board was the adamant insistence of the medical profession that this was necessary and that it was absolutely vital to getting any form of agreement, he accused us of kow towing to the medical profession. So now, the official spokesman for the Liberal Party and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) are reserving their position about the Bill on Third Reading because they do not think that it is tough enough. That is an extraordinary reason.
  I do not know what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will do today. He and I share the same local
  332
  newspaper. To find out what the Liberal Party is doing, one has to read what it says in local newspapers, because it varies in different parts of the country. The House will wish to know that the hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Conservative Party and some doctors seem to think that the Government's decision to phase out pay beds in National Health Service hospitals is a cut-and-dried case of Socialist wickedness."
  He went on:
  "It is nothing of the sort. It is one thing for people to insure themselves privately against ill-health and to use private hospitals and doctors. It is quite another that all these facilities should be made available below cost price in National Health Service hospitals. There is nothing very Socialist about wishing to draw a clear line between public and private medicine. It is time the doctors realized that they cannot have their cake and eat it."
  It is time that the Members of the Liberal Party realised that they cannot have their cake and eat it.
  More serious issues lie behind the Bill. The necessity for it is a belief on this side of the House that it has become necessary to try to seek a solution to this problem. It is the divisive nature of this issue in the Health Service which raises its importance and which has meant that Ministers and the House have had to spend such a long time upon it. The medical profession plays an important role in the National Health Service and no one should lightly discount the fact that its members dislike many parts of this legislation.
  But there is nothing in the Bill which challenges the fundamentals of professional freedom. No profession—law, medicine or teaching—can isolate itself from the community it serves. Any profession is right to champion and to fight for fundamental freedoms, but there are grave dangers in being seen by society to be the champions of a narrow professional self-interest.
  In 1946, when the representatives of the medical profession opposed the creation of the National Health Service, much was made of the supposed challenge to professional and clinical freedom. The profession's rhetoric proved to be false and the challenge illusory then. Exactly the same mistakes are being made by the profession's spokesmen today and surprisingly similar language is being used.

  333
  The responsible interpretation of fundamental freedoms is an important issue. George Bernard Shaw once wrote:
  "Freedom incurs responsibility. That is why so many men fear it."
  The medical profession, no less than the House, has a responsibility to ensure that the predominant pattern of health care in this country remains firmly based on judgments about an individual patient's medical need, not on a patient's ability to pay. That is an ethical responsibility
  which I believe society wishes the medical profession to champion and not to challenge.
  I recommend the Bill to the House in the hope that it will bring peace to the Health Service, strengthen it and end this divisive issue.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 269.

  Division No. 111.

  AYES

  10.0 p.m

  Abse, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Allaun, Frank

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Archer, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Judd, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Eadie, Alex

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Edge, Geoff

  Kelley, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Kerr, Russell

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  English, Michael

  Kinnock Nell

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ennals, David

  Lambie, David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bates, Alf

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lamond, James

  Bean, R. E.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lalham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lee, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Elon & Slough)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Flannery, Martin

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Litterick, Tom

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ford, Ben

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bradley, Tom

  Forrester, John

  Luard, Evan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Buchanan, Richard

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McElhone, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  George, Bruce

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Campbell, Ian

  Golding, John

  Macintosh, John P.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cant, R. B.

  Gourlay, Harry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Graham, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carter, Ray

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Madden, Max

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Grant, John (Isllington C)

  Magee, Bryan

  Cartwright, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marquand, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Hatton, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Horam, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Mendelson, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Huckfield, Les

  Millan, Bruce

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molloy, William

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Moyle, Roland

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Deakins, Eric

  Janner, Greville

  Newens, Stanley

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Noble, Mike

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Oakes, Gordon

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Ogden, Eric

  Dempsey, James

  John Brynmor

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Orbach, Maurice

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ovenden, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Owen, Dr David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ward, Michael

  Padley, Walter

  Sillars, James

  Watkins, David

  Park, George

  Silverman, Julius

  Watkinson, John

  Parker, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Weetch, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Small, William

  Weitzman, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Welibeloved, James

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Snape, Peter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Perry, Ernest

  Spriggs, Leslie

  White, James (Pollok)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Stallard, A. W.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Whitlock, William

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Stoddart, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Swain, Thomas

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Roper, John

  Thompson, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Rose, Paul B.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Woof, Robert

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Sandelson, Neville

  Tinn, James

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tomney, Frank

  Selby, Harry

  Torney, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyre)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Costain, A. P.

  Hall, Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Alison, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Crouch, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Arnold, Tom

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hannam, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Baker, Kenneth

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Banks, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Beith, A. J.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Dunlop, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Benyon, W.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Biffen, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hordern, Peter

  Blaker, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Body, Richard

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fell, Anthony

  Hunt, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Hurd, Douglas

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Britten, Leon

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  James, David

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Forman, Nigel

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Jessel, Toby

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fox, Marcus

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Freud, Clement

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Buck, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Burden, F. A.

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Kilfedder, James

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Carson, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Channon, Paul

  Goodhart, Philip

  Knox, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lamont, Norman

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lane, David

  Clark, William(Croydon S)

  Gorst, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Clegg, Walter

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Cockcroft, John

  Grand, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Gray, Hamish

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Cope, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cordie, John H.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Luce, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Loveridge, John

  Corrie, John

  Grylls, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  336

  337

  McCrindle, Robert

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  McCusker, H.

  Penhaligon, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Percival, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacGregor, John

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Madel, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Stokes, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Marten, Nell

  Raison, Timothy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Mather, Carol

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Maude, Angus

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P.(Hendon S)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Trotter, Neville

  Miller, Hal (Bromagrove)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Moate, Roger

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Viggers, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wakeham, John

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wells, John

  Mudd, David

  Shepherd, Colin

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Heave, Airey

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Slivester, Fred

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Neubert, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Newton, Tony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton,

  Normanton, Tom

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Younger, Hon George

  Nott, John

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Pardoe, John

  Spence, John

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Commital of Bills).

  HEALTH SERVICES (MONEY)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the use or acquisition by private patients and others of facilities and supplies available under the National Health
  Service Acts 1946 to 1973 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1973 and to control hospital building outside the National Health Service, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

  The House Divided: Ayes 286, Noes 264.

  Division No. 112.

  AYES

  10.16 p.m.]

  Abse, Leo

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allaun, Frank

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Anderson, Donald

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Archer, Peter

  Boardman, H.

  Carter, Ray

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ashley, Jack

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cartwright, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyden, James (Bleb Auck)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bradley, Tom

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Coleman, Donald

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Buchan, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Conian, Bernard

  Bates, Alf

  Butler, Mrs Joyce(Wood Green)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Bean, R. E.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Campbell, Ian

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cryer, Bob

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Rooker, J. W.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roper, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock Neil

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C)

  Lambie, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds W)

  Lamond, James

  Selby, Harry

  Delargy, Hugh

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Litterick, Tom

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sillars, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silverman, Julius

  Eadie, Alex

  Luard, Evan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Edge, Geoff

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Small, William

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Snape, Peter

  English, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ennals, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Strang, Gavin

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Magee, Bryan

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Thompson, George

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Tinn, James

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tomney, Frank

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  George, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Golding, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Gould, Bryan

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Graham, Ted

  Molloy, William

  Ward, Michael

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkins, David

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkinson, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Weetch, Ken

  Hardy, Peter

  Moyle, Roland

  Weitzman, David

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Newens, Stanley

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Noble, Mike

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hatton, Frank

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, James (Pollok)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Horam, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Ovenden, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Owen, Dr David

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Huckfield, Les

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Park, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parker, John

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parry, Robert

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Pendry, Tom

  Woodall, Alec

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Perry, Ernest

  Woof, Robert

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Price, William (Rugby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  John, Brynmor

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Tom

  Baker, Kenneth

  Alison, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Banks, Robert

  340

  341

  Beith, A. J.

  Grand, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gray, Hamlsh

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Benyon, W.

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Biffen, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Neave, Airey

  Blaker, Peter

  Hail-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neubert, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Newton, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nott, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pardoe, John

  Britian, Leon

  Heath, Rt don Edward

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Penhalligon, David

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Percival, Ian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Buck, Anthony

  Hordern, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Budgen, Nick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Burden, F. A.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Raison, Timothy

  Carley, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hunt, John

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carson, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Channon, Paul

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Clegg, Walter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cockcroft, John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Jopling, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cope, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cope, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cordle, John H.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Corrie, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Critchley Julian

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lane, David

  Shepherd, Colin

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shersby, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Silvester, Fred

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dunlop, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Luce, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Elliott, Sir William

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Spence, John

  Emery, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Eyre, Reginald

  McCusker, H.

  Stainton, Keith

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Macfariane, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Falrgrieve, Russell

  MacGregor, John

  Stanley, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Model, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mather, Carol

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Maude, Angus

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fry, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Mawby, Ray

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Viggers, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Wakeham, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gorst, John

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Gow, tan (Eastbourne)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Walters, Dennis

  342

  343

  Warren, Kenneth

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wells, John

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Younger, Hon George

  Mr. Cecil Parkisnon

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ARMED FORCES BILL
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Brynmor John be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and that Mr. James Wellbeloved be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  EARTH TREMORS (STOKE-ON-TRENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: The purpose of this debate is to explain the damage and distress caused by continuing earth tremors in Stoke-on-Trent, to object to a crazy decision to pull out experts and equipment investigating the causes before the work is completed, and to outline proposals which will help people in the city and in many other areas in Britain.
  In the past 10 months there have been over 90 tremors in Stoke-on-Trent. Naturally, those of high magnitude cause the greatest concern, but the continuance of many minor tremors gives rise to fears of future major ones. The anxiety of the residents is understandable. Homes have been rocked, walls have been split, chimney pots and roof tiles have been shaken to the ground. That is the visible damage, but people are also speculating on posisble damage to the foundations of their homes, damage which may not be visible.
  It is a serious situation requiring urgent attention. People are entitled to know the causes and what steps, if any, can be taken to avoid further tremors. They are also entitled to know who or what is responsible for them. They are entitled not only to peace of mind, but to the fullest possible information to assist them with claims for compensation.
  Since last August a research programme has been carried out under a skilled working party which included representatives from the local authorities, the NCB, Keele and Durham Universities, the Institute of Geological Sciences, the
  346
  Department of Energy, and also a representative of the Department of the Environment. Equipment was set up which established a full seismometer network, and it has provided valuable interim data. Nevertheless, much work remains to be done, and it is imperative that the equipment should continue to operate in the area until definitive results have been established.
  This brings me to the curious role played by the Department of the Environment. The Department was asked to give financial support to this vital project, and after I had written to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), he told me on 22nd December last year that he would "look sympathetically" at the request and treat it "urgently".
  Perhaps he had a miserable Christmas or an unhappy New Year, but by March he was writing to say that he was accepting the advice of the Institute of Geological Sciences to pull out the equipment in mid-May—in a couple of weeks' time. He added, however, that he would be willing to reappraise the position rapidly if the situation ever changed sufficiently radically.
  The then Secretary of State made an odd statement in his letter. He said that he was bound to accept the advice of the Institute. But he was bound to do no such thing. He was perfectly free to disregard any advice and to make his own decisions on matters of this kind. In any case, he was faced with conflicting advice, because the conference of interested parties which included the Institute of Geological Sciences, as well as seismological, geological and mining experts —stated explicitly that more data would have to be obtained before firm conclusions could be drawn as to the main causes of the tremors.
  Quite apart from that, I believe that the Secretary of State had a responsibility, not shared by the institute, to consider the social problems faced by people who suffer damage to their homes and property. Those problems cannot be solved by an automatic acceptance of advice from a geological institute. However, in a later letter the Secretary of State said that the equipment might be made available for a period of some extra months.

  347
  Since then there have been two developments. The new Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), has examined the problem and found it possible to take advantage of the availability of equipment and to continue monitoring until October. I wish to record my warm appreciation of my right hon. Friend for meeting me to discuss these problems within hours of taking on his heavy departmental responsibilities and for extending the deadline to October.
  I must add, however, that it is woefully inadequate. What I require tonight is a specific commitment that the Government will support and finance the investigations for as long as they are necessary—probably for two or three years. The cost is a mere £16,000 a year—infinitesimal to the Government, but crucial to the research.
  The second development—and I am delighted to see present for this debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment—is that there have been more tremors since the former Secretary of State rejected my request. In his letter of 23rd March the former Secretary of State quoted the working party as commenting on the substantial decline in the incidence of tremors. It was revealed at the conference in Stoke-on-Trent on 15th April that the tremors had now become more frequent again, having reached a peak of 12 per week in mid-March.
  The implications are clear. Tremors are continuing to occur and more damage may be caused. While there is no cause for panic, there is cause for concern. If the Department rejects my request tonight, I must ask the Minister to ponder this possibility: supposing there is a major earth tremor and a gas main is fractured and people are injured or killed—where will the Department stand then? What will it say?
  I must tell my right hon. Friend that I know where I shall stand and what I shall say. That is why I am asking for a specific and categorical commitment tonight that the equipment will stay for as long as it is required. If it does not, I am afraid that the Department and I are due for a long, hard, relentless,
  348
  grinding battle and there is no question whatever of my withdrawing. If it takes 1,000 Questions and more, 1,000 Questions will be asked. If it takes more, more will be done.
  I have great confidence in my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I want to place on record that I believe this conflict will not be necessary, and I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's reply in the hope that he will find some solution to the problem that is acceptable to the people of Stoke-on-Trent. I have great faith in him that a solution will be found.
  I wish to remind the Minister of the words of the working party in its report less than two weeks ago:
  "…to terminate the investigation now would be a waste of valuable effort and prevent the determination of factors responsible for the tremors which caused so much public fear and concern… "
  The working party added this interesting opinion:
  "…continuation of the investigation will yield useful scientific data of importance to the public at large, and to science and industry.…
  My final proposal to my right hon. Friend is that the Government should go much further than completing the investigation in Stoke-on-Trent. They should use the splendid organisation now set up in that city as the headquarters of a national monitoring network which would gather vital information for the future. The present investigations will yield material of national interest and importance. It would be helping not only Stoke-on-Trent but the whole country if the Government could develop and expand this ideal centre for a national seismological network. It is ideal because it has developed skills and organisation, it is in the centre of Britain, it covers a mining area, it has Keele University nearby, and it has the abundant good will of the scientists, the councillors and the people.
  I refer not only to Stoke-on-Trent but to the whole of North Staffordshire—as I see my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) present in the Chamber. I am delighted to be able to compliment him on achieving his new office as Under-Secretary of

  349
  State for Employment. He is also interested in this problem and was active in the matter before he took office.
  The Government cannot only help to solve the problems of Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire but benefit the whole country if they grasp this opportunity.
  10.42 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I should like at the outset to express appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the restrained way in which he put the case for his constituents, which I know causes him great concern for very obvious reasons. I should like to deal with each of the points he has raised. I thank my hon. Friend, too, for his confidence in the Secretary of State and myself. That confidence is well founded.
  We hope—and I shall outline the reasons shortly—to stay with our advisers and with the equipment in the neighbourhood of Stoke-on-Trent until we have solved the problem of the cause of these difficult earth tremors. I agree entirely that my hon. Friend's constituents, and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), are perfectly entitled to have what information and reassurance can be provided. The difficulty at present is that the cause of these earth tremors is not known.
  I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it will not be possible to give the reassurance that he wants for his constituents until the cause has been found. What I can give is an assurance that we shall take every possible step to find that cause, and we shall call upon all the best scientific and engineering evidence and advice that is available to bring that about.
  In this case we are urgently examining the proposals of the Institute for Geological Sciences for a more broadly based study covering a wider area. This is to serve national purposes, but we shall very much hope that bringing that about will also serve the local purposes that my hon. Friend has in mind arising out of experiences at Stoke-on-Trent.
  I think that my hon. Friend was possibly a little hard on the former Secretary of State for the Environment, my
  350
  right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was acting upon the advice available to him in the Department. I have looked at the advice on which my right hon. Friend acted and I understand the reasons for his first reply to my hon. Friend. We have now changed the emphasis of that reply, mainly because of the increased incidence of earth tremors.
  The tremors started to cause concern in 1975. In the autumn of that year and the early part of 1976 there was a drop in the number of tremors. The first tremors, which caused chimneys to fall, were quite severe, but their frequency and severity decreased and there was a belief, which led my right hon. Friend to reply to my hon. Friend as he did, that the problem was probably a passing phenomenon and that whatever had caused it had been pacified. That belief proved to be unfounded when there was further disturbance.
  Between September 1975 and March 1976 nearly 90 tremors were recorded, though most of them were too small to be discerned by the inhabitants of Stoke-on-Trent. Six tremors were severe enough to be felt, particularly the two on 9th and 13th April.
  The second wave of tremors was not as severe as the first, but the fact that there was a second wave was sufficient to convince the Government's advisors and the new Secretary of State that our original expectations were not being realised and that we needed to do more. The IGS therefore changed its priorities.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the work that Stoke-on-Trent wishes to do in the next two or three years at a cost of about £16,000 a year. In the last few days we have received new proposals—my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on them now, but I think they will form the basis of our decision—to establish a wider network of evaluation involving equipment for a much longer time than we first thought would be necessary. This equipment would be based at Stoke-on-Trent in the first instance, but would not form the national network for which my hon. Friend was asking.
  Stoke-on-Trent will be the focal point at the inception of the new approach. The assurance my hon. Friend wanted—

  351
  and which I am happy to give—was that this new equipment and new approach, involving several Government Departments and based on the advice of the IGS and others, would remain in Stoke-on-Trent until we have found the cause of these tremors. That is the most important assurance that I can give to my hon. Friends and their constituents on what I know is a matter of concern for them.
  My hon. Friend referred to the fears of his constituents in the event of a gas main being fractured. That is a new point. I understand that gas mains have not so far been fractured as a result of earth tremors. Nevertheless, as it is a new point, I undertake to look into the matter and to write to him when I have taken advice about it. I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, as no gas main was fractured in the earlier tremors, which were more severe than the second wave, our information was that this was not a high risk. However, I agree that it is a risk which should not be taken. Therefore, I undertake to make further inquiries in order to reassure him on that point.
  352
  I think that I have now covered all the points made by my hon. Friend. As the Minister responsible, I shall be readily available to my hon. Friend at any time if he wishes to come and see me, and I shall keep him fully informed about our information on this matter. I am sure that, under the new arrangements that I have announced, we shall have sufficient expertise and equipment located in Stoke-on-Trent to ensure that we find the cause of this trouble. The equipment and expertise will be made available in Stoke-on-Trent until the cause is found. I recognise that is the only real assurance that can be given to people in that area.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will find this reply more satisfactory than earlier correspondence. I hope, too, that he will understand the reasons for the earlier correspondence. There was a dip in the incidence, but when the second wave came we realised that what he was saying was right and that we should act accordingly. I hope that we shall do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  AFRICA
  AFRICA
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  NORTH-WEST ENGLAND
  NORTH-WEST ENGLAND
  WALES TUC
  WALES TUC
  GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (OUTSIDE PAYMENTS)
  GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (OUTSIDE PAYMENTS)
  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
  PRIVATE MEDICAL TREATMENT
  PRIVATE MEDICAL TREATMENT
EMPLOYMENT
  Slate Quarrymen (Lung Diseases)
  Slate Quarrymen (Lung Diseases)
  Temporary Employment Subsidy (Scotland)
  Temporary Employment Subsidy (Scotland)
  Ramsgate (Jobcentre)
  Ramsgate (Jobcentre)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Food Surpluses
  Food Surpluses
  Seed Royalties
  Seed Royalties
  Sugar (European Community Negotiations)
  Sugar (European Community Negotiations)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministerial Advisers
  Ministerial Advisers
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLICATION)
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLICATION)
ENVIRONMENT
  Civil Service College (London)
  Civil Service College (London)
  Voluntary Organisations (Vehicles)
  Voluntary Organisations (Vehicles)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Identification (Criminal Cases)
  Identification (Criminal Cases)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Metrication Board
  Metrication Board
  Price Commission Referrals
  Price Commission Referrals
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
SCOTLAND
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
TRADE
  Patents (European Convention)
  Patents (European Convention)
WALES
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Doctors (National Health Service)
  Doctors (National Health Service)
  Doctors (Emigration)
  Doctors (Emigration)
  Chronically Sick Mental Patients
  Chronically Sick Mental Patients
  Child Interim Benefit
  Child Interim Benefit
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Health Authorities (Staff Elections)
  Health Authorities (Staff Elections)
  Royal College of Nursing
  Royal College of Nursing
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Royal College of Midwives
  Royal College of Midwives
  National Health Service Income
  National Health Service Income
  Pharmacists (Representations)
  Pharmacists (Representations)
  Health Authorities (Staff Representatives)
  Health Authorities (Staff Representatives)
  Mental Patients (Suicides)
  Mental Patients (Suicides)
  Young Offenders (Accommodation)
  Young Offenders (Accommodation)
  School Nurses and Tuberculosis Visitors
  School Nurses and Tuberculosis Visitors
  Doctors (Merit Award Scheme)
  Doctors (Merit Award Scheme)
  Unemployed Elderly Workers (Benefits)
  Unemployed Elderly Workers (Benefits)
  Hospital Advisory Service
  Hospital Advisory Service
  Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential, Philadelphia
  Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential, Philadelphia
  Psycho-Surgery Operations
  Psycho-Surgery Operations
  Supplementary Pensions
  Supplementary Pensions
  Foster Parents (Payment)
  Foster Parents (Payment)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chemists and Dispensing Centres (Bristol)
  Chemists and Dispensing Centres (Bristol)
  Consultants (Contracts)
  Consultants (Contracts)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Disregards
  Disregards
  Swine Influenza Vaccine
  Swine Influenza Vaccine
  Family Fund
  Family Fund
  Private Medical Treatment
  Private Medical Treatment
  Proprietary Drugs (Prescription)
  Proprietary Drugs (Prescription)
  Whitley Council Machinery
  Whitley Council Machinery
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Accommodation)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Accommodation)
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Abortion
  Abortion
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Education Costs
  Education Costs
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
DEFENCE
  Retired Personnel (Employment)
  Retired Personnel (Employment)
  Equipment (South African Contract)
  Equipment (South African Contract)
  Arms Contracts
  Arms Contracts
  Flying Accidents
  Flying Accidents
  HMS "Bulwark"
  HMS "Bulwark"
  "Sub-Contract QA25" (Brochure)
  "Sub-Contract QA25" (Brochure)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Policy
  Aid Policy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Lord Morris—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LORDS DEFENCE STUDY GROUP MEETING
2.37 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 the Leader of the House whether he will arrange for Members of the House to be notified of a meeting on 28th April under the auspices of the Lords Defence Study Group at which a prominent NATO official is to address the Group.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, notice of this meeting has been posted in the Prince's Chamber since early in the
2
month. No doubt my noble friend's Question today will serve as a further reminder.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the reason why I put down the Question on the Order Paper is that it was decided by some of my colleagues in the Group to approach the Whips of the several Parties to ascertain whether a notice could be placed on the Whip, since a similar procedure is adopted in another place? It was because of their refusal that I was bound to take this action in order to advertise the meeting that is about to take place. Is my noble friend aware that the formation of the Committee was endorsed, if not by every Member of your Lordships' House at any rate by the Leaders of the respective Parties and also by some of the Cross-Benchers? If a group is to be formed, surely its purpose is to be constructive and active, and it is impossible to be so unless the meetings are advertised. I am grateful to my noble friend for advertising the meeting—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I have to be long in order to make this subject known to everybody. Is my noble friend aware that I am grateful to him for having advertised that the meeting is to take place tomorrow at 5 o'clock in

3
Room 4B and that it is open not only to members of the Group—that is not the intention—but to all Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in the subject of defence?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the whole House will be in entire agreement with everything that my noble friend has said.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, speaking as a member of the Group concerned, is the noble Lord aware that we are extremely grateful to him and to the Government for giving us this free publicity?

CHARITY SHOPS: RATING
2.41 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: 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 introduce amending legislation to ease the heavy rate burden now borne by gift shops organised for charities by voluntary workers.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, it is the Government's firm intention to end this anomaly and the necessary legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that what she has said is great news for thousands of voluntary workers in the gift shops of this country? Will she do what she can to persuade her Government to speed up the introduction of this very necessary reform, because the existing situation has meant that many men and women have been working not for the charity they wanted to support but for the rates?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with a little legislative luck the Government hope to introduce this legislation this Session.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, can this legislation be included in the Finance Bill, or is there any reason against that?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I understand that the legislation will be by way of amending legislation to the General Rate Act 1967.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while I recognise that this legislation will give much satisfaction, is the noble Baroness aware that it would give even more satisfaction were it to some extent retrospective?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the question of when it will start—it could not be retrospective before this rate year—will have to be discussed on the Bill. I would remind the noble Lord that many harsh things are said about retrospection, both here and in another place.

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUNDS
2.43 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the consultations with interested organis- ations as to how the Licensing Compensation Funds referred to in Recommendation 15.23 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing should be disposed of.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are at present obtaining the views of the compensation authorities and other bodies directly involved in the operation of the Funds. They have been invited to submit their views to my right honourable friend by 30th April of this year.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the reply he has given. Would be ensure that, after that meeting is held, action is taken as speedily as possible?—because, as it now stands, the position really is absurd.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will certainly convey my noble friend's remarks to my right honourable friend, but I would point out that, since this matter was raised a few months ago, we have proceeded with some alacrity.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Morning Advertiser—the trade paper of the Licensed Victuallers' Association—are some- what unhappy that this subject has been discussed in your Lordships' House and are very keen that the money should remain with them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of that, but, as has been pointed out on previous occasions, this is a matter that must be resolved by the people concerned.

BRITISH AIRWAYS INTEGRATION
2.44 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: 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 the integration into British Airways of BOAC and BEA has reached a sufficient stage to warrant public satisfaction.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government consider that British Airways are pressing ahead with the integration of the airline as rapidly as can be expected, but much remains to be done.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that good Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the air travelling public are getting heartily sick of these threats of strikes at peak holiday traffic times, such as Easter? Will he accept that it is not so much people being fearful of not getting away as being frightened by the fact that there may be a strike when they want to come back on schedule? Will the noble Lord do every- thing he can to encourage management, trade union leaders and workers in the air business to settle their squabbles and return British Airways to the presentation of a solid and prosperous front to the highly competitive world of international air transport?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that everyone working with, or in conjunction with, British Airways must realise that the world does not have to travel with their airline.

BARONY OF AMPTHILL
2.46 p.m.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report from the Committee for Privileges be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report from the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.—(Lord Wilberforce.)
Viscount BOYD of MERTON: My Lords, I confess that I have grave anxiety about the Motion just moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I am not happy that this House should advise Her Majesty to issue a Writ of Summons in a case where serious doubts exist and where there is a readily available method of resolving them. I will briefly give the House my reasons. The verdict of the original jury 50 years ago which meant in effect that Mr. Geoffrey Russell was not the son of the third Lord Ampthill was set aside by a majority verdict of the House of Lords on the basis of a technical rule of evidence which has since been reversed by Statute. I imagine that if a similar case arose today the verdict of the jury would stand.
Secondly, there is the question of blood tests. I realise that under the Legitimacy Declaration Act of 1858 declarations of legitimacy as in this case are binding on everyone, including the Crown, unless obtained by fraud or collusion. If there is doubt, as there is in this case, whether or not there was a fraud it seems that it could now be settled one way or the other by blood tests. Other noble Lords are far better qualified than I am to speak with authority on blood tests. As the House knows, Mr. Geoffrey Russell, having agreed to a comparison of blood tests, changed his mind. Wide publicity has been given to the suggestion that the tests taken of the blood of the third Lord Ampthill are unreliable, yet no chance was given by the Committee to the doctors concerned to give evidence before them. It is of course true that had they done so it might have involved the Committee in adjudicating between possibly conflicting evidence, but this dilemma could have been overcome by the appointment of medical experts chosen by the Committee or the Solicitor General to advise the Committee.

7
It was stated by counsel for Mr. Geoffrey Russell that the tests on the third Lord Ampthill were in doubt because they were not carried out in strict conformity with current Home Office regulations, but these regulations did not exist when the tests were made. Much information to refute the allegations that the blood tests were unreliable was given in the correspondence between the parties but no opportunity was given for this to be considered by the Committee, and this at a time when medical science can now determine paternity with a high degree of precision. I wish that even at this late hour Mr. Geoffrey Russell could be invited to agree to a comparison of the blood tests by independent medical experts, who should be required at the same time to satisfy themselves as to the reliability of the tests on the third Lord Ampthill. If the tests on the third Lord Ampthill were then found to be unreliable, or, if reliable, comparison showed that Mr. Geoffrey Russell could not be ruled out as his son, then no one could object to this Motion or fail to approve it. But if the tests showed that Mr. Geoffrey Russell could not have been the son of the third Lord Ampthill then the propriety and the justice of Mr. John Russell's petition would be shown. Here I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, averred in his opinion that one of the persons upon whom the declaration of legitimacy is binding is Geoffrey Russell himself, and any attempt by him to throw doubt upon that declaration would therefore be wrong. This shows a strange and to me wholly unsatisfactory position in which this House finds itself today. I wish that this Motion could be adjourned for further consideration.
2.51 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, in the first place, I had better say that I have no personal interest at all in this case, not having been known to any of this family until the last few days. My interest has been taken up solely by the fact that I am a physician who has been interested in medical genetics for a very long time; in fact, I gave a paper on the subject when I was still a student. I entirely agree with the legal view that there must be an end to litigation, and that in this country the
8
end to litigation is a judgment by the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity. I entirely agree with what has been said, that to dispute a decision of the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity might hold the law in less esteem, or even do it discredit. I share the belief of most fair-minded persons that that would be a disaster. I hold this point of view even to the extent of agreeing, albeit somewhat reluctantly, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who said—these are not his exact words—that in law there can be distressing cases where justice and truth are in conflict, but it is the duty of the lawyers to see that justice is done. Of course, the noble and learned Lord was using the word "justice" in the strictly legal sense, and not in the sense that most of us normally use it.
My Lords, I find it more difficult to agree with the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, which has just been quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton—and here we have to come to personalities—that even if Geoffrey were quite certain that he was not the son of the third Lord Ampthill, he not only need not disclose it, which I accept, but he had a duty to conceal it because of the decree of legitimacy. That I find difficult. Nevertheless, I share the view of the Committee for Privileges that the Act of 1858 pertaining to decree of legitimacy must hold and be binding on all persons including the Crown, unless certain exceptions can be made. Again, there must be a point of finality in the legal process.
If the noble and learned Law Lords are going to insist on the letter of the law, as is their right and duty, then I presume so can I. In the first place, I am not presuming to doubt, or even to call into question, a decision of the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity. I am calling into question certain statements in the reports of the Committee for Privileges, which comprised nine members, five of whom are not lawyers, let alone Law Lords. We are called upon to accept the Committee's reports, and our only real obligation is to decide what advice we, as the House of Lords, are going to give to the Queen in this extremely difficult case. It would be to the discredit not only of the law perhaps, but to

9
the whole House, if people like myself were so muzzled by the various statements and warnings that have been given as to be unable to debate the report of the Committee whose duty it was to report to us.
The first point is that we are not examining a judgment of the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity, and therefore we are not bound by what is said by anyone who argues that litigation must come to an end, and so on. Point two is that the House of Lords is clearly allowed to come to its decision irrespective of other legislation. Here, I am on a difficult legal point. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the reports put before noble and learned Lords, and it seems to me clear that this House has a right to come to its own conclusions, irrespective of other legislation. This was rapidly thrown aside as being irrelevant—exactly why I was unable to clarify to myself. I almost felt that the appropriate word might have been "inconvenient" instead of "irrelevant"; but that would be very naughty of me, and I hope that will be immediately ruled out. I do not see that this is irrelevant at all. If in fact it is laid down by Statute, even if we think it is a silly old Statute and the sooner we repeal it the better, nevertheless in the letter of the law we are bound by that Statute and have the right to set aside any other legislation, including, of course, the declaration of legitimacy, if we think it right to do so. If I am wrong on these points of course I ought to be put right.
These two contentions seem to conflict with each other. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, tells us that when justice and truth conflict, he is on the side of justice. But these two contentions contradict each other, and I am left in the dark as to whether we should follow the absolute rules of legitimacy, or whether we should follow the absolute rule that this House has a right to make its own decisions.
My Lords, I now want to say something very shortly about blood tests. In my capacity as a rather amateur medical geneticist, I have for very many years been interested in blood tests. I know they are held to be irrelevant because if the first premise is accepted, that there is no escape whatever from the decree of legitimacy even if everyone in the
10
country were to know it was wrong, then blood groups and any other kind of evidence is irrelevant. But if my dilemma over the other two points is real, then, surely, the only sensible course is to examine the only evidence which can completely settle this case, evidence which is at present withheld from us.
I will not go into all the details of blood tests, but I will tell your Lordships, in case you do not already know, that in certain circumstances it is quite possible to say with absolute assurance that this man could not have been the son of that man. It is never absolutely possible to say that this man must have been the son of that man; but it is possible to say he could not have been. In this case, we come to an end of the litigation, because if it were proved by the blood groups that Geoffrey could not possibly have been the son of the third Lord Ampthill, one assumes he would acknowledge the situation. On the other hand, if it were proved he could have been the son, even though it was not proved he was the son, then John would immediately withdraw his Petition.
As to the question of blood group tests being unreliable, I was upset by the Press report, which apparently emanated from the Committee, that the blood group tests might be unreliable. In the hands of experts, blood groups—which can, of course, be repeated by two or three different experts—are utterly reliable. The suggestion was made that the blood said to be from the late Lord Ampthill might not have been his blood; it might have been mixed up with somebody else's in hospital; it was not taken for the specific purpose of blood tests. But this can be virtually proved by the evidence, were we allowed to look at the evidence. For one thing, the blood tests were done on two totally different occasions and came out to be the same. For another thing, they proved that the person whose blood tests these were was compatible with being the brother of his various siblings and the father of his two children by his third wife, Adeline. So it goes a very long way to refute the very idea that there is something unreliable and that some mistake has been made.
Finally, when we have heard all these difficult arguments, do not let us forget that we are here to advise the Queen on a

11
question of succession and legitimacy. We can, if we like, sheepishly sit down and accept the extraordinary story put before us, when the only crucial evidence is being withheld from us and judged irrelevant; we could, I suppose, adjourn, or we could perhaps invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to withdraw his Motion for the time being until further evidence of a more definitive nature can be received.
3.3 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I intervene very briefly because I have been somewhat disturbed by the remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is of course entirely within the capacity of this House to reject the Report from the Committee for Privileges before us, and no doubt those who are in opposition to it considered whether or not they would in fact propose a suitable Motion for this purpose. As it is, I understand, they are merely asking for the debate to be adjourned. It is within our power to do so. But, my Lords, it is the long experience of your Lordships' House that it is not reasonable or practical—it is the practicality that concerns me—for us to rejudge something that has been explored in very great detail by a Select Committee. I would not suggest that there are not occasions when we should overthrow a Report of a Select Committee, and indeed I have known this, especially when the Select Committee has been divided. But in this case, for those of us who have read—and most of us probably have not had the time—the extraordinarily eloquent and learned advice given to the Select Committee by the Law Lords, which the Select Committee accepted and which I hope your Lordships will accept, it is almost impossible to attempt to debate this subject.
I do not accept that it is right in this case to take the phrase, that there can be a "conflict between justice and truth", which is used in a general sense in, I think, Lord Wilberforce's speech, and imply that in this particular issue there is a conflict between justice and truth. Nor do I find convincing the arguments so eloquently just deployed on the blood tests, having read the arguments in great detail as to why it would be inappropriate in this case to rely on the blood tests.
12
Therefore, my intervention is only to say to your Lordships that at some point finality must be achieved. I think, therefore, it would be unwise for us to prolong the agony. It has been an agony for the Russell family on both sides. We should now decide to accept this Report and advise Her Majesty accordingly. I have been aware of and interested in this case and must confess to a friendship with Geoffrey Russell. I did not, therefore, serve on the Committee for Privileges, but I have read all the evidence since; I am entirely satisfied that the advice we are now given is the right advice and that we should accept it at the earliest possible moment. It may well be that one or two of your Lordships would like further legal opinion, and if one or more of the noble and learned Law Lords would like to give some further argument I am sure it may set at rest the minds of some of your Lordships. But I am satisfied, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Report.
3.7 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I must say that I much regret that this Motion moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has been opposed, and I hope that it will not be pressed to a Division. My noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton has, I think, suggested that this debate should be adjourned. I cannot myself see that that would serve any useful purpose at all. What would happen then I do not know. Nor do I know what it is envisaged should happen if this Report is rejected, because the Committee for Privileges appointed by this House has conducted the most thorough and careful investigation into both Petitions before it. So I see no useful purpose to be served either by adjourning or by rejecting. Is it suggested that the Committee for Privileges should sit again? There is no proposal that an Instruction should be given to them. We of this House have appointed a Committee for Privileges to go into these matters in great detail and in great thoroughness. It is a task that we sitting as a House cannot possibly perform of our own. They have spent many days hearing able counsel put forward every possible argument on both sides and they have reached a unanimous decision.

13
My Lords, I have read the opinions of my noble and learned friends and I have read them very critically. If I dissented from them in any respect, I can assure your Lordships—and I think your Lordships know me well enough to know—I would not hesitate to express my dissent. But I must say that I am utterly and completely convinced that the conclusion to which they came was the right one, and indeed the only possible conclusion to which that Committee could properly have come.
In these days there is a tendency—and one sees it in many fields—to challenge decisions made in our courts. We have had it in relation to murder cases; books are written about them, broadcasts are made and television shows are produced, to challenge decisions which have been reached in trials which have taken place, sometimes a long time ago. Far be it from me to say that every decision reached by the courts has invariably been right, but our legal system of trial, with our complicated systems of appeals, is designed to ensure, so far as human endeavour can ensure it, that justice and not injustice should be done. When a matter has been fully investigated it surely is a matter of public interest that there should be finality to the litigation. That is well recognised, and I think has been for many centuries.
I remember in the days of my youth all the litigation about the Russell case. My noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton has referred to the verdict of the jury. The matter came right up to this House, and that verdict was set aside by a decision of this House. If ever there was a case where the rule as to the end of litigation should apply, that was this case. In this House the rule which we lawyers then called the rule in Russell v Russell was laid down. I know neither of the parties to these Petitions. My only connection with this case has been that I in fact introduced the Bill in the House of Commons, which reached the Statute Book, to abolish that rule in Russell v Russell, but that is by the way. I do not accept for one moment the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton that the result of that abolition would have necessarily meant that Geoffrey would have been established as illegitimate in those proceedings more than 50 years ago.
14
As your Lordships know, that litigation was followed by the declaration of legitimacy in 1926. That Act of 1858 was surely designed to secure that there should be an end, after proper inquiry, to litigation of this character. So I would say to your Lordships, are we now as a House to challenge not only the conclusions of the Committee for Privileges but also that declaration reached by the courts of 50 years ago? Are we now to say as to Geoffrey, having been declared legitimate then, having been regarded as legitimate for 50 years, that there are doubts about his legitimacy? I think that that would be quite intolerable and quite wrong. We of this House must at least set an example of abiding by the law and respecting the law, and the law laid down by the Statute of 1858 has been thoroughly applied.
It is said by my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton that there was doubt as to whether there was fraud or not, with regard to the obtaining of that declaration of legitimacy. But one thing is clearly established—and I was taught it in my earliest days at the Bar—that it is for those who allege fraud to establish it, to give particulars of it. It really is not enough to cast a smear by saying that there is doubt whether fraud exists and now it is for you to prove that it does not.
Viscount BOYD of MERTON: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend referred directly to me, may I say that I did not say there was fraud. I said that there was some doubt, and that that doubt could only be resolved by comparison of blood tests, and that if the blood tests were regarded as irrelevant that doubt remained, but no solution could be proved.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not think that I misquoted my noble friend. I said that he had said that there was doubt whether or not there was fraud. What I was saying to him was that that was not enough. If you want to challenge this declaration of legitimacy, it is not enough to cast the smear of saying there is doubt about legitimacy; you must come forward with facts to establish the fraud, and that has not been done. It is said that if you have the blood test you may be able to show that there was fraud, but that is a very different thing from the burden

15
of proof which is required to set aside that decision of the courts on the ground of fraud. Those who assert fraud must come forward and prove it, and it is not enough to say that there was doubt. I would say to my noble friend that, even if it were the case that the blood tests now showed that Geoffrey was illegitimate (and the only case put forward is that it might show that), I would still say that it was quite intolerable after 50 years of legitimacy to declare that Geoffrey was a bastard, and that is the substance of these proceedings. I think that that would be absolutely intolerable.
I do not intend to speak at any length for the simple reason that we cannot really review the proceedings of the Committee for Privileges. But there is one matter to which I wish to draw attention which is not of a controversial character and it is simply this. The Committee for Privileges heard Petitions from two Petitioners, but in substance it was litigation between members of the Russell family. One Petition has been accepted, the other rejected. It was in substance what we lawyers call a "lis". When litigation comes before this House in its judicial capacity the House has the power to make orders as to costs. I think it desirable that if there were in future any similar proceedings of this character between two Petitioners, each seeking the same Barony, that the Committee for Privileges should have the same power of awarding costs; a power which I understand they are not regarded as possessing today. I think that Mr. Geoffrey Russell, whom I do not know, has really had to bear a very heavy burden, not only all the obloquy and doubts as to his paternity which have been expressed, but also a very heavy financial burden. I feel that the ordinary rule with regard to litigation might well have applied in this case, and that, if the Committee for Privileges had the power, they might have ordered his unsuccessful opponent to pay the costs.
I conclude by saying this. I hope that this question will not be pressed. I have no doubt that the words I have uttered will not affect those whose minds have been made up in the other way, or affect the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. It is really too much to assume, in an
16
assembly of this size, complete unanimity of view, but the fact remains that we have had this matter very fully investigated, and I ask that this House should accept the Report.
3.18 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, after the last two speeches I hope that the House will find its way to accept the Motion proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I, like other noble Lords who have spoken, have no interest in this case, but I perhaps ought to remind the House that my father appeared on one side of the litigation 50 years ago in the House of Lords and that I, myself, appeared on the other side in the uncontested divorce suit which ultimately brought an end to the unhappy marriage between the two original parties.
I am concerned about the constitutional position. The Prerogative of issuing a Writ of Summons to your Lordships' House rests with the Queen. Originally, the Sovereign exercised that Prerogative of Her own certain knowledge and mere motion, but for centuries now the privilege—and it is a privilege of this House of Parliament—of advising the Sovereign how to exercise this right in contested cases has rested with this House. It does, but is it not unthinkable that this House should ask the Sovereign to exercise Her Prerogative otherwise than in accordance with the rule of law, and that in a case where four of Her judges—the senior judges of the Realm—have unanimously reported to your Lordships' House that the rule of law is that it should go in a particular direction. Could we as a responsible legislative body advise the Sovereign to act against the advice of Her own judges where a Statute of the Realm is in question as to its meaning, and the Statute which is in question expressly declares that it is to be binding on the Sovereign? The idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that this House is not bound or might not be bound to accept a judicial decision on the meaning of a Statute is not one, I hope, which will commend itself to a majority of this House.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has rightly pointed out the nature of the proceedings which have just

17
taken place. There were before the House and before the Committee for Privileges, which is the appropriate organ of the House to conduct the investigation, two Petitions, one adverse to the other. Counsel of great experience and distinction was engaged on both sides. The matter was argued about day after day. In the outcome the decision in the case depended on a naked proportion of law, namely whether the Sovereign was bound by the Declaration of Legitimacy of, I think, 1926. We are now being asked to go behind what is in effect a piece of contested litigation. I am not in the least saying that, as a matter of procedure and of the rules of this House, such a Motion as we are now discussing is not debatable; it is being debated. The question is whether it really ought to be a responsible decision of this House to go behind a judicial decision of this kind, and I would respectfully urge the House to say that it is not.
At 10.30 in the mornings, usually on Wednesdays, we have reports from the Appellate Committee and there is a Motion before the House that the report of the Appellate Committee be agreed to. No one ever thinks of getting up and saying that he does not agree to it, even when, as not infrequently happens, the Appellate Committee divides 3 to 2. I agree that on occasion in the past Committees for Privileges have had their reports discussed and, I think on one or two occasions, rejected in this House. I do not in the least wish to canvass the question whether the precedents are good, but they are certainly very different from the present. All the ones I remember turned on the extent of the Royal Prerogative itself and the limitations on it, as in the Rhondda decision and the Wensleydale decision, and the idea that the House should now overturn a piece of judicial procedure depending in its decision on a point of law simply because certain Members of this House, no doubt sincerely, doubt the facts underlying the point of law or which gave rise to the litigation in the past, is something which I would beg the House not to consider.
It is being suggested that we should adjourn consideration of this matter. I wonder what we should gain by that. We were of course right, and the Government were right, to postpone the original consideration of the report which came
18
out, shortly before the Recess, but now that we have had time to read the speeches of the noble Lords who have made their decision, surely we must come to a conclusion. I suspect that those who ask for an adjournment—I am, of course, not impugning their complete sincerity in the matter—are doing so basically because they do not agree with the Report, and no amount of adjournments will make them agree. I ask the House to consider that now at last this unhappy matter should be brought to an end.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that we are witnessing the end—I hope the end—of a great human tragedy. Both the participants in this dispute have been activated by wholly honourable motives. Mr. Geoffrey Russell is fighting for his mother's honour and what he believes to be his birthright. The other party is fighting for the honour of his family and what he believes to be the truth. But it is the business of this House to advise Her Majesty to bring this matter to an end in accordance with what is lawful and what is right, and what is right according to the law and custom of this Realm is that on a question of the construction of a Statute the views of the judges should be accepted and that, after both sides have been heard in argument, the decision of a judicial body should not be overturned.
3.26 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am moved by what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to say just one thing; the noble and learned Lord said once—indeed, he said it three times—that we were being invited to set aside a judicial decision. I am not certain that that is a correct description of the finding that is before your Lordships' House. But if it purports to be a judicial decision, then I suggest that we really ought to look at the composition of the body which claims to decide these judicial matters. I confess that I am unhappy—I put it no higher than that—about the finding in this case, but I find it indisputable as a legal finding. I suggest, however, that if such a matter comes again before our purview we should seriously consider whether the matter should not be considered by the Law Lords of this House and not by a body

19
composed partly of Law Lords and partly of lay Members. If it is to be a judicial decision, it should come before the Judiciary and it should be seen to come before the Judiciary.
3.28 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I rise to state briefly my own hope that the House will quickly come to a conclusion and a conclusion in favour of accepting the Report of the Committee for Privileges. I respectfully agree with the speeches that have fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken today. Noble Lords will have read the opinions which were delivered by the Members of the Committee. I confess that I have found those opinions as conclusive as they are authoritative. As we know, the Committee had a powerful nucleus of Law Lords. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, too, the Committee had the opportunity to hear, and did hear, counsel for both parties as well as the Solicitor-General. That is an advantage which the House does not have today.
I submit that it would be quite impossible for the House to consider the arguments for the respective parties as fully and in such detail as was possible for the Committee, and for my part I am bound to say that, having read the opinions that were given by the Committee, I see absolutely no reason to suppose that, if the matter were referred back to the Committee, the Committee could possibly reach a different conclusion. I do not wish to enter into the legal issues of the case in any detail, but I submit that it is plain from the opinions of the Law Lords who sat on the Committee that the Legitimacy Declaration Act of 1858 binds the Queen, binds this House and binds everyone else to accept the declaration of legitimacy of 1926 in favour of Geoffrey Russell unless it can be shown that it was obtained by fraud or collusion.
The Committee appears to have had no difficulty in deciding that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud or collusion and it seems to me that those who wish to argue that the 1858 Act does not
20
apply here are suggesting that the rules defining legitimacy should be different for Peers from those which apply to other people. In the face of what I submit are the binding and conclusive legal effects of the declaration of 1926, and with great respect to some of those noble Lords who have spoken, the question of blood tests becomes wholly irrelevant and will continue to be so. I therefore invite the House to come to the view that there can be no possible advantage in postponing a decision on this Motion because the legal issue on which the case has turned has been so conclusively settled.
I would only add that a new hearing would involve further public expenditure and would also involve expense to the parties. I submit further that it would be intolerable and would be asking too much of the members of the Committee to expect them to sit again to hear a case which they may with justification, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton has indicated, regard as having been finally settled. In all these circumstances, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, will follow the advice which he has already received from other noble Lords not to press this matter to a Division and that it may be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, I trust that the House will clearly support the report and support the Motion which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like very briefly to add my support to the plea which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. We have, after all, our own Privileges Committee. That Committee has gone into this in great detail. It has come to a judgment. It has heard all the arguments and I would say that, on the basis that one does not keep a dog and bark oneself, in this case in which we have had the services of the Committee at our disposal and in which it has made a judgment—and we are not arguing a principle—on the facts as it knows them, the House should accept what the Committee has said. Perhaps I may just add that those of us who are life Peers have the comfort of knowing that this is not likely to happen to our families.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to detain the House, but I feel that it is due to the House and to the importance of the occasion that I should say a very few words. Your Lordships will realise that the Committee was set up in order to undertake the House's constitutional duty of advising Her Majesty. It consisted of four Law Lords. learned, supposedly, in the law, accompanied by five very experienced Members of this House who were not legally trained. I should like to say at once, with particular reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the presence of those five Members was of enormous importance in the hearing of this case. It prevented the hearing becoming, as it might otherwise have been thought to be, simply a lawyers' exercise in legal acidities and ensured that both possible views—that of strict legality and the broader view of what is due to this House—were taken into account.
Happily, all four lawyers were agreed and happily too the five lay members were also disposed to accept the view of the Law members. Thus we were not put in the unhappy position which arose in the Rhondda case where one of the non-legal Lords, Lord Muir Mackenzie, said when addressing this House:
"If we lay Peers had to rely on the legal advice of our judicial colleagues we should be in no slight perplexity."
Happily, the legal members were entirely and 100 per cent. agreed in this case and, to our great happiness, we carried with us those who were not lawyers.
I should just like to add, though perhaps it hardly needs saying, that the Committee operated under a very heavy sense of its responsibilities both towards this House in discharging the important constitutional duty of deciding who should succeed to a peerage and towards the members of the family who both, as has been said, felt with intense conviction that the cause that they were putting forward was the right cause and felt that thay had a case which demanded a hearing. The Committee gave to the very best of its ability a hearing to every argument including some which we have heard this afternoon. It had before it two Petitions by Mr. John Russell on the question of blood tests and it gave very earnest consideration to the situation
22
as regards the admissibility of the blood tests.
Some reference has been made by speakers to a supposed contrast between justice and truth which was ascribed to me. If I may read what I actually said, I said:
"There are cases where the certainty of justice prevails over the possibility of truth. I do not say that this is such a case and there are cases where the law insists in finality."

I adhere to those words. This is a case where the truth is perhaps an elusive phantom which one can pursue over the centuries, always raising doubts, but there comes a point when finality must prevail. I should like to suggest to this House that, in this case, there is no doubt in any relevant sense. There were doubts in 1921. They were pursued through all the legal processes right up to this House, as your Lordships know. In 1926, they came before the High Court and the judge said:
"On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Petitioner, Geoffrey Russell, has made out his case. I decree and declare that the petitioner, Geoffrey Denis Erskine Russell, is the lawful child of his parents, John Hugo Russell and Christabel Hume Russell."

That was the ultimate result of years of litigation. As your Lordships know, it was never appealed against and it has been made binding by Statute on this House, on Her Majesty, on the two rival claimants, on John Hugo Russell. It is attackable only on grounds of fraud or collusion and I entirely agree with what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that there is no question at all whether there was fraud in this case.
I should just like to add to what has been said and adverted to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as regards the fact that our hearing was preceded by extensive investigations by Her Majesty's Solicitor-General who reports, in the first instance, to Her Majesty. In his Report, the Solicitor-General says the following words which I feel are worth quoting:
"I am further satisfied that the matters alleged by the Petitioner [John Russell] to have constituted fraud or collusion in the obtaining of the said declaration were neither fraudulent nor collusive nor were they capable of constituting fraud or collusion. It follows, therefore, that, so far as my own estimation of the matter is concerned, the Petitioner fails in limine to make good his assertion that the declaration of legitimacy is not binding upon him, or upon your Majesty."

23
That is the view of Her Majesty's Law Officer. Nevertheless, the Committee fully investigated of its own motion and, after hearing counsel and voluminous material on the question of whether there was any fraud or collusion which would undermine the declaration of legitimacy, came to the absolutely clear conclusion that there was not.
Now, my Lords, that leaves one in this situation. A declaration of legitimacy, fortified by Statute, is there; it is suggested that some further evidence ought now to be entertained. I most wholeheartedly urge your Lordships to avoid taking that course, if it is possible. Particularly in matters of paternity it is necessary and vital that litigation should come to an end. It must surely be intolerable, and a terrible injustice, if a man, born during lawful wedlock, who has taken every step open to him under the law of the land to establish his legitimacy, were fifty years afterwards to be exposed to demands for fresh verification by any method, scientific or otherwise. That is really the beginning and end of this case.
Of course the Committee for Privileges is the servant of this House and will do exactly what this House thinks fit. If the House thinks that the Committee has not done its job properly, as it did in the Rhondda case, it would re-examine the whole matter, but that has not, I believe, been suggested so far. The Committee has done its best, it has read voluminous material and heard counsel. It has come to a conclusion and it is left with the unanimous and very strong feeling that the right thing to do is to terminate this matter here and now.
On Question. Motion agreed to: Resolved and adjudged that:

(1) the Petitioner John Hugo Trenchard Russell claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of Ampthill has not made out his claim to the said barony;

(2) the Petitioner Geoffrey Denis Erskine Russell claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of Ampthill has made out his claim to the said barony;

The said resolution and judgment to be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of public lending right]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("has") to ("to") in line 6 and insert ("the effect of conferring on authors the right").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I wish at the outset to congratulate—and I am sure that the Committee will join with me in this—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, who has received this baby into his arms, at rather short notice, upon his appointment as Minister with responsibility for the Arts. I am sure that I will have much sympathetic support in that, and the noble Lord has my sympathy that the moment the baby is in his arms we are pulling aside the shawl and clicking our tongues over the pimples.
The Amendment which stands in my name, and which relates to page 1, line 5, is designed to have two effects. The first effect is purely to tidy up the language and remove as much as possible of the unnecessary phrase which appears "with a view to conferring… "and in so doing to alter the wording of the Bill as little as possible. The Amendment also has the intention of disabusing the person reading the Bill for the first time of any illusion he may have had that there is a general public lending right implicit in the Bill, because, indeed, there is not. On reading

25
the Bill one finds that the right subsists only in particular kinds of books and in books borrowed from particular kinds of libraries and, indeed, from particular sections of those libraries. We shall come to this later. Thus by deleting the words in quotation marks in the Bill, "public lending right", we are attempting to clean up the wording of the first clause so that it shall read:
"This Act has the effect of conferring on authors the right to receive from time to time out of a Central Fund…"
and so on. That is the only right which exists; there is no such general right as copyright. Your Lordships may feel that this ought to be reflected in a new Title to the Bill, but that is something which I leave to the Government to suggest. But at Second Reading they accepted that there is no general right, and I shall be interested to hear what defence they will make of the Bill as it now stands in this clause.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): First, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his kind words, and I hope that by the end of our consideration of this Bill he will not wish to withdraw any of them. I wish to say two other things at this moment. In taking over this difficult Bill at this stage, at short notice, I must pay tribute to my predecessor who did an enormous amount of work in getting the Bill as far as it is, and I wish to be on record as saying how much I appreciate that. I also wish to say how much I appreciate the tactful and admirable way in which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi took this Bill through Second Reading. I am sorry to take it away from him; I only wish I could leave it with him. I am very grateful to him for sitting here and holding my hand, which I am sure will be very necessary. May I make a third comment? I must, in all fairness, declare an interest, because I hope very much that the result of this Bill will, through my wife's writing, affect my old age in an agreeable way. Although I had nothing to do with drafting the Bill and, therefore, it is in no way suspect up until this minute, from this minute on a suspicion may exist in the minds of noble Lords and it would be a perfectly sound suspicion.
I had hoped to open the proceedings
26
in an attitude of peace and good will by agreeing to this Amendment, but I will not be able to do quite that. I am in full agreement with the wording, which is really too inelegant for us to pass, and this will certainly go back and have to be redrafted. But it is worth noting that the Bill itself does not confer the right on authors; the noble Lord said this. The right is contingent upon registration of individual books in accordance with the scheme under Clause 1(7), and the description of the Bill in Clause 1(1) must reflect this process. As it stands, the Amendment would remove from this clause the crucial words "public lending right" which are used throughout the Bill, and we are quite clear that they ought to appear here in Clause 1(1). The authors' aim has been to establish a public lending right and the purpose of the Bill is to provide for this. If the noble Lord will leave this matter with me I will take it back and have a new phrase prepared for the next stage, but I think that I shall want to keep in the words "public lending right", and I shall want to make it clear—it would not be quite clear from the Amendment—that the right depends on registration.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord in coming at least half way to meet what I put before him. Of course I accept that the words public lending right appear elsewhere in the Bill, and to that extent this was a probing Amendment. I accept gratefully the assurance of the noble Lord that he will at least improve the English of the draftsmanship, and with that said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord SNOW: While we are about this, may I say how much all writers welcome the appointment of my noble friend to handle the arts on behalf of the Government? It has given great pleasure throughout the literary and artistic world. Secondly, can we not solve this problem, which seems to be not a very serious one, by merely inserting an indefinite article, so that it reads "known as a public lending right"? The phrase, "public lending right" itself is extremely comprehensive: "a public lending right" would be very simple and perfectly good English, and would remove some of this difficulty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.51 p.m.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page I, line 8, leave out ("books") and insert ("works").
The noble Lord said: It will perhaps be to the convenience of the Committee if I in fact speak on a number of Amendments, which are really textural Amendments, which relate to the one I am moving now. They are Amendments to Clause 1, Clause 3 arid Clause 4. It may also be to the convenience of the Committee if the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside—Amendment No. 40—should be debated at this moment under this general principle. May I add to the general congratulations, and welcome the Minister. I should also like to support the remarks he made about his predecessor, who I think made a great contribution to the arts in general, particularly in the amount of money that he got for the Arts Council, though I must say in all honesty—and this is a very difficult thing to say—that I do not think he left us with a Bill which is in all that good a shape.
I hope, too, that the new Minister will perhaps take a more reasonable attitude towards some of the Amendments that are being suggested than seemed to be indicated in the past. It may be that I am speaking with a dewy-eyed innocence, but it seems to me that the essence of a Committee stage—I have not yet got to the amusing part—is that there should be give and take, that Amendments should be discussed in your Lordships' Committee and that the Government should be prepared to listen to them. On the several occasions that we discussed this matter with the previous Minister it seemed to me that he behaved as if he had come down from the mountain with the tablets of stone, except that he went one better than Moses: he brought an eleventh commandment, which was, "Thou shalt not argue". I hope we can discuss all the Amendments that are coming up this afternoon in a spirit of give and take. May I tell the new Minister that authors are not always right, but their batting average is at least as good as that of Ministers or of politicians.
The purpose of these several Amendments to alter the word "books" to
28
"works" is a very simple one. It is to extend the right. We quite understand that the scheme, as distinct from the Bill or Act, must have some initial limitation, and we are quite prepared to accept the fact that, when this Bill passes into law and becomes an Act, whatever scheme is drawn up shall in the initial stages limit itself to payments to book writers and single book writers. But we do not believe that it is necessary at this stage to circumscribe the right as distinct from the scheme, and I hope I can make that point clear. If the Bill stays as it is, further legislation will be required to extend the right, which everyone concerned thinks is reasonable. Indeed, may I remind the Minister that at a meeting on April 10, 1974, it was agreed that, even if the initial scheme was confined to books, the legislation, when drafted, would give the Minister power to extend. That clear undertaking, which was given in consultation with authors' organisations, has been gone back on, so that the Bill as presented to your Lordships uses the word books", whereas the word "works" was clearly understood and accepted at a meeting on 10th April 1974, and was incorporated in a working paper that was discussed by the Technical Investigation Group.
There is, as all your Lordships know, a growing use of cassettes, not only for literary work but for musical works, and there is the loan of records from libraries. At this stage we do not want that all these things should be paid for under a public lending right; the scheme can take care of that. But what we do not want is to have to come back to Parliament in four or five years' time and have to argue about the extension to cassettes and records, and so on and so forth, and for there to have to be a new piece of legislation, or a piece of legislation amending the present Bill. It seems to me to be untidy and wasteful; at the same time, it is unfair to a large number of creative people whose works are used by libaries and who are being left out of the Bill which is at present in front of us.
Even if we were forced to tell them at this stage, "There is no chance of your getting payment under this scheme; it w ill be limited to book writers", I think they would understand, but to leave them out altogether at the moment, and to leave them out altogether against the assurances

29
that were given at the various discussions that were held, seems to me to be wrong. The implementation can come later: what I am asking for is that this Bill should clearly state the basic right, and the basic right must apply to "works" as distinct from "books". I beg to move.
Lord IRONSIDE: If it is to the convenience of your Lordships, I will speak to my own Amendment, No. 40, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, although I had not thought of doing this until he suggested it to me. However, from what he has just said I felt that he wanted to extend the right, but not as far as artistic works or musical works; he wanted to extend it to things like speaking books and cassettes, which in fact involve literary works. The Bill is without a definition of "books", quite obviously. The series of Amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to replace this word by the word "works" is, I think, very significant in the sense that it makes clear that the Bill is referring to original material. "Books", I think, may well be thought to be the modern idiom, and many entries in the register, when it appears, will hardly count as "works". For example, there are published books in many lending libraries which are miscellanies of cooking recipes, or of unusual car numbers and their owners. These books are lent out frequently, but I think they can hardly be called, "works".
What I think we need is a reference to the broad fact that books are literary works, as opposed to musical or artistic ones, for instance. The scheme can safely define the details of this, and this is the point that I want to make upon my Amendment. If the noble Lord's Amendment is rejected, I will move my own; but, quite clearly, if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, then of course I will withdraw mine.
4 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My noble friend has moved a very important Amendment. In our discussions we are quite clear—and when I say "we" I mean my predecessor, myself and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who have been discussing these things with the Secretary of State—that the philosophical right of a creator of literature to be paid for the use of his literature does not differ
30
in essence from the same right of a creator of different kinds of literature, of sculpture, of painting or of music. So there is no argument that it would be a splendid thing if the creators of these different forms of expression could get what we are trying to give to the authors.
The objections to doing this, therefore, are not philosophical or aesthetic; they are simply practical objections. The first is a very simple one: that if you do no more than the Bill now states, there will still be very little for anybody. To add to the categories of people who, in the end, are going to benefit—or, at any rate, to hold out a hope to them—until the money begins to be made available is not really very sound. Secondly, to find out to whom such monies should be paid would require not only an entirely different system but is liable to require different machinery in the system which is at the moment envisaged and which most people regard as satisfactory; that is, using the ISBN numbers of books as the basis. Even if we had the money to do this, it would be extremely expensive. Probably different libraries would have to be used for sampling. I cannot see why you should give this to one kind of creator rather than to another; so I think that if you are going to increase the coverage at all you will have to include these different categories.
The objections, therefore, from the practical point of view are pretty considerable and I will go into them in detail if necessary. But there is a further objection which, to me, is very fundamental. We have persuaded our colleagues in Government who are all short of money and are looking to where they can find it, to accept this Bill on a strictly limited basis, one which is extremely clear. It is on the basis of books loaned out. I should feel very unhappy to extend the Bill to a number of categories beyond this, even though there was no immediate intention of paying out under those headings.
If one considers the kind of extra expense involved, the lack of money and the fact that until there is enough money available (and nobody knows when this will be) to pay all authors reasonably generously, then any money paid to other people will reduce the amount paid to authors. I think it is a mistake to pursue this theme and I shall ask the Committee not to support the Amendment. I do not

31
think that I want to develop this argument any further at the moment. I think my points are clear. We agree on the philosophical right; but, practically, it would be extremely expensive to accomplish and, morally, in relation to the situation in the country where we have persuaded our colleagues to commit themselves in advance to this small but one hopes one day to grow payment, I think we could not commit them at the present stage to something wider. I would ask the Committee to reject this Amendment on those grounds. When the payment on loans of books is considerable enough to satisfy the authors, then would be the time to come back. The Bill can then be amended, and, in all likelihood, it will need to be amended in other respects. My own feeling is that I do not wish to see this matter pressed today.
Lord ELTON: While I sympathise with the noble Lord in his financial and diplomatic difficulties; that is, the extreme paucity of the money available and the fact that he and his colleagues have had to persuade a large number of people to accept the Bill on the terms that it is very narrow in its operation, he would help us a great deal in making up our minds about how to respond to his appeal that we should reject this Amendment if he were to tell us what he means by a "book". He has referred to the International Standard Book Number system of book numbering. He has not said whether everything susceptible of carrying ISBN numbering (which goes much beyond what a number of us accept as being a book) would be treated as a book in the Bill.
There is no Government Amendment on the Marshalled List to insert a definition of "book". My noble friend Lord Ironside has put forward a suggested method of remedying this omission. It would be helpful if we knew whether what some of us call a pamphlet and some of us call a paperback is a book or not. Where does a book cease to be a book? Until one knows, whether it can be a composite collection of different sources not all printed although by one author; or whether the Bill is entirely restricted to things which have fly leaves and end papers, it is difficult to know what we are being asked to reject.
Viscount ECCLES: I should like to support what my noble friend has said and, indeed, to support the noble Lord, Lord Willis. What the Minister tells us is that this is not a public lending right Bill at all. In fact, what he said on the first Amendment is contradicted by what he said on the second. On the first Amendment, he said that he would like to keep in the words "public lending right"; but a public lending right, if it means anything, means that some day or other authors will have the right to a reward of some size in respect of all the works which they produce which are, in fact, loaned out to the public in one form or another. What my noble friend argued on the first Amendment is that since this Bill is not a public lending right Bill in any way at all, it is a great pity to have those words in the first clause.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not understand how one can say that it is not a public lending right Bill in any way at all. This seems not to apply to what is in front of us at all.
Viscount ECCLES: The phrase "public lending" has always been held to refer to all the books which anybody has produced and which are in public libraries and are lent out; but we know from the financial restrictions that not all the libraries are to be brought in nor, at present, are all books to be brought in. There is a desperate attempt to reduce the number of books in respect of which some payment shall be made so as to come within the limited sum of £l million. In my submission, it does not really matter whether we have "books" or "works" in the clause we are now considering, because in any case there will have to be a definition in the scheme of what we mean by "books" or by "works". It cannot stand as it is because the Government themselves have said that there are very large categories of books—reference books, those written by foreigners, and all kinds of books—which are not to be included in the scheme. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is right. It is better to have in the Bill the wider word "works" because, in any case, it must be whittled down when the scheme comes out.
If, in the course of some years before any real scheme is workable authors agree among themselves that they would like to be participants in the scheme with

33
other ways of conveying their works to the public than actually in a hard-covered book or paper covered book, it would be a great pity if we had to come back again. I think that the Government would be better advised to have the wider word here and to define it when we come to the scheme. With respect to my noble friend Lord Ironside, I see that his Amendment No. 40 reads:
"'Books' shall include literary works as prescribed in the scheme."
But until we know that, it hardly matters what word we have in Clause 1, but I think that it is advisable to have the word with the widest possible meaning.
Lady KINLOSS: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I should also like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. We need a definition of the word "books". As I said on Second Reading, I can find no definition of the word "books" in the Bill. The word "works" would include cassettes and would be a wider and better word to use.
Lord WILLIS: It seems to me the point that has been made, and which has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is so logical that I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot accept it. We are talking about two different things. We are talking first about the Bill, and secondly about the scheme. In the scheme —to take the second part first—we accept absolutely readily that there must be a limitation. The money is limited and the amount that one has been able to get diplomatically from the Treasury and various other sources is limited. Therefore under the scheme we readily accept that the initial stages must apply only to book writers. That is perfectly clear. We are not arguing about that.
Therefore, we are not asking for more money, for more privileges from the Government, or an extension of right. What we are saying is that if you agree on a public lending right, let that be put into the Bill, and let it be put into the Bill properly. According to the statute, you can then implement it in ten, five, six, seven or eight years' time beyond the book authors according to the scheme. That is another matter. But do not let
34
us introduce a right which is only half a right, in which, by Act of Parliament, it only applies to half the people who have a perfect right to a public lending right. In other words, we are proposing something which will merely tidy up the Bill, which will establish clearly and with justice a lending right, which will apply to books in whatever form, and maybe to paintings, records and cassettes. We understand perfectly that under the scheme it will only apply in the initial stages to books. Parliament can hold back the statutory steps to introduce or extend public lending right to other things at a later stage.
This seems to me perfectly logical and I cannot understand why the Government do not accept it, why it should hold out a little finger to book writers and close its fist to the others. With respect, when the Minister spoke about introducing this on a limited basis—because all one had been able to get was a promise for a certain amount of money—that is not entirely up to discussions through diplomatic channels with other Ministers in whatever House. This is a matter for Parliament, and Parliament decides what shall be done. If Parliament decides, as I hope it will, that the Bill should explicitly underline what is a public lending right, while leaving provisions for the scheme to be brought in at various stages then that is a perfectly reasonable way of going about it. I would ask the Minister to see the logic of this and to give us some assurance on the point.
Lord SNOW: I should like to ask the Minister whether it is possible to have another look at this matter. The point does not seem to be very difficult. We can settle the scheme in as limited a way as anyone wants. We need not get into too Byzantine complications about what books are; we can just write down simple categories, and deal with this in a few hours in this Chamber. That is not very difficult. It is very easy to get too Byzantine about these things. But there is a very strong case for using the all-inclusive word as a general assurance that this is what we mean by public lending right. This does not seem to me to present any real difficulties. Gloomily, this is going to become more an oral culture and less a literary culture. Probably it will be wise, in ten or fifteen years to have shown that we are

35
aware of the way communication is going. That does not please me, but I am sure it is true. I should like to ask my noble friend if this matter can be looked at with a slightly less fastidious eye.
4.15 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: May I first of all say a word about the definition of the word "books".
It has two clear meanings. One is something which somebody writes which may be in the process of being made. It may be manuscript or anything else. The other meaning is things on a shelf. When I used to read philosophy, we used sometimes to talk about ostensive definition which one did by pointing at things. This is not an appropriate function for a Bill or for an Act of Parliament. This should surely be done by the scheme. We have given a pretty clear indication, in spite of what the noble Viscount said, of what exclusions are envisaged. In the end these have to be laid down in the scheme before which there will be massive consultation and which has to come back to Parliament. I do not think that the request for a definition of the word "books" is valid and I do not think it ought to be given. However, I find the mood of the Committee very clear. I do not want to start off by insisting on Divisions on anything as difficult as this. There is a case on the other side. I am not at all clear that if I say I will look at this again I will do any good to anybody
or do other than delay it. My own view is that that is probably as far as I can go.
At this early stage, I will look at this again but immensely pessimistically. What worries me very much indeed is that if we widen the category there is an implied promise that something is going to be done about it. I do not think that the Government are making any such promise. They are saying that such a thing would be desirable. They are not making any such promise. I am extremely doubtful whether it is possible to deal with the matter in the way the noble Lord has asked for without an implied promise. If there is an implied promise, the answer must be, "No". I hope your Lordships will allow me to consider this matter as I am obviously pretty green on the subject. The advice I have been given is that we cannot do this. But I will have a further look if the Committee wants me to do so. That is the least I can do.
Lord WILLIS: In view of the pessimistic tone of the last reply by the Minister, I would rather go by the mood of the Committee. I should like to press the Amendment.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

McNair, L.

Airedale, L.

Daventry, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Allerton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Platt, L.

Alport, L.

Deramore, L.

Porritt, L.

Amherst, E.

Foot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Amulree, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Arran, E.

Glasgow, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Ashbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sackville, L.

Auckland, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Davids, V.

Aylestone, L.

Greenway, L.

Sharples, B.

Balerno, L.

Grenfell, L.

Slater, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stamp, L.

Banks, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathspey, L.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harvington, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Boothby, L.

Hatherton, L.

Tenby, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Headfort, M.

Teviot, L.

Brockway, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vivian, L.

Byers, L.

Jessel, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Cathcart, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Lytton, E.

Wise, L.

NON CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

George-Brown, L.

Pargiter, L.

Bacon, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Brimelow, L

Henderson, L.

Redcliffe Maud, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Cole, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Digby, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Trammire, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.27 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS Lady KINLOSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("or reference copies of works held by them for consultation on the premises").
The noble Lady said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said on Second Reading of this Bill in reply to my plea for the inclusion of reference books. He said:
"I repeat the assurance given in my opening speech; that is, that if an acceptable and effective scheme for reference books emerges, the Government will consider further legislation to extend the scheme."—[Official Report, 5/4/76; col. 1467.]
This is a perfectly simple Amendment. It enables the Government, whenever they feel able to, to admit works of reference held by public libraries into the scheme without any necessity for further legislation. We surely do not want to waste the time of Parliament by having a separate Bill to enable the Government to deal with the just claims of reference authors when a scheme has been agreed for doing so. To omit this Amendment would be to tie the Government to the necessity for future legislation. It seems to me much more logical to leave the Government free. There is plainly a question of justice for all authors. An author is providing a service whether his work is taken home or consulted in the library reference room. Whether a work is classified as a loan work or a reference work is a matter for individual libraries to
38
decide. In some libraries a work can be held in both the loan and reference sections; in some libraries a work will be on the loan shelves, while in other libraries it will be confined to the reference shelves.
On Second Reading, in the same column, Lord Strabolgi, said:
"The problem is that it is not practicable to measure the use of reference books directly without completely disrupting the work of libraries."
I am advised that in the very largest libraries at most one extra employee would be needed to pass reference works under a scanner before returning them to the shelves; but in the smaller libraries existing staffs could cope since the replacement of books is only a small part of their duties. Therefore I cannot believe there would be any serious disruption. I beg to move.
Lord IRONSIDE: I have no particularly strong feelings about this Amendment but should just like to say that I think the noble Lady is over-emphasising the situation here. There are not so many reference libraries, and the problem concerning reference is very much less than that concerning lending. I believe that most reference libraries are used purely for reference purposes and for browsing. If one goes into a reference library, if it is an open access library, one might, within five minutes, look at 100 books, if one could do it at that speed, merely by consulting the title, fly-leaf, the first page, the index or something of that kind. Therefore it would be absolutely impossible to keep track. I think reference is very often a good lead into lending; indeed, one finds in a lot of local lending

39
libraries a reference section which in fact is used for browsing, and a reference section very often leads one straight into lending.
Regarding reference books which are published each year, I believe the authors, who are very often companies and not individuals, benefit by the sale of their volumes year by year, and of course there is a second-hand market in large and expensive books of reference. As an example, one might quote one which all your Lordships will know about, and that is Debrett. Therefore, although I do not feel strongly about this Amendment, I should like to say that I feel the problem has been over-emphasised.
Lord WILLIS: May I ask the Minister to explain in a little more detail why reference books were left out in the first place? The Technical Investigation Group produced a very reasonable scheme, which would admittedly have added the sum of £12,000 a year to the cost, but since it would have covered a great number of reference book authors would have been equitable and just. I shall not weary the Committee with details of the scheme, but in practice it would have meant that there was an accuracy of payment to people who had reference books in libraries which very nearly matched the accuracy of payment that can be achieved by the computerised sample for fiction authors, and other authors whose books are loaned out of libraries. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why the stock sampling method which was proposed by the Technical Investigation Group, and which is already working in several countries, was turned down.
It seems to me unanswerable that reference books should be covered in the same way as books by other authors. The difficulty is that they are not taken out of libraries, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, said, one of them may be referred to 50 times in a day. But the scheme which was worked out by the Technical Investigation Group would cover all that, would put no burden of work or cost on the major reference libraries, and it seems to me so simple and straightforward that I am at a loss to understand why the Government should exclude from this public lending right the
40
great number of reference book authors. So I wonder whether the Minister could say a word about that when he replies.
Lord DIGBY: As chairman of a public authority library committee, I should like to point out that the majority of public authority libraries have reference sections. These are a very major public service and are referred to by many millions of people. The blue Report of the Technical Investigation Group stated that the counting of consultations of books in reference libraries would disrupt the work of libraries to an unacceptable degree, and I feel that this would be a major difficulty. We are making a very good advance by this Bill, but to include the reference sections would create tremendous difficulties for the libraries.
Lord McNAIR: May I support the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It seems to me that the point made by the last speaker is completely answered by the stock sampling device, which is clearly laid out in the Report of the Technical Investigation Group; and I expect that the noble Lady who moved this Amendment would be willing to limit its application, at any rate to begin with, to reference books by single authors. I do not think that any of us has any thought of giving a public lending right to Bradshaw, Debrett or any such work. But there are reference books which are written by authors, just like novels or any other kind of book, so could the Minister please consider very carefully whether it is possible, as I believe it to be, to include these by a stock sampling scheme, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said would cost £12,000?
4.36 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This is a very difficult question, and I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Willis that the answer is quite obvious. I think it is a very difficult technical question as to whether one should complicate a simple scheme by an absolutely different method of selection. The Government have plumped at the request of authors, and I think with most people's agreement, for a loan-based scheme and if you are to have what is really a purchase-based scheme, which is a stock sampling

41
scheme for a part, you have enormously complicated matters. This Bill had a great many enemies anyway, and my view is that the easiest way to get it through is to keep it simple. However, I think one should say that there are a number of public libraries, particularly the larger ones, with reference sections that include a very large number of standard works of all kinds. People are apt to consider that they are all Who's Who, et cetera, but that is not the case, and these books are held as available consultation for students and research workers—particularly, I think of current literature.
I do not believe that the multi-author books, to which the noble Lord referred will give very much trouble. To start with, they will be excluded for being multi-author, but in any case the big collections of books are much more literary, technical et cetera. In almost every case these books are available for lending also, either by another copy in the same library or by an inter-library loan. In exactly the same way, some of the technical reference books which are in the reference library are also available in what most people would regard as the non-reference loan part. There is a confusion here. Books in the reference section are not necessarily what are normally thought of as reference books. It is as well to be clear about this.
As many books in the reference section are also in the loan section, this seems to me to take something away from the authors' requirement that both of them should be allowed to claim. On the other hand the object of this Bill is to do something for authors, and if this is what authors want I do not feel inclined to be too difficult about it. It means, of course, that authors who get money through loans will get less. The ceiling is not affected and nobody has suggested that it should be. If this is what authors want, provided we can get a scheme which is satisfactory I think it is not unreasonable to look again at this point.
I think, however, that my noble friend oversimplifies the matter. To start with, it is difficult, as I have said already, to have two schemes, each of a different kind, applying to the same kind of material. Secondly, there are a number of arbitrary assumptions and I am not at all clear that they are very fair. The matter needs to
42
be looked at very carefully. The 19 biggest reference libraries are simply assumed to have 50 per cent. of the reference books. This may or may not be right; I do not know. I find the scheme put forward by the Technical Investigation Group very much an outline scheme and not a very satisfactory one, although it seems to me that possibly it could be made satisfactory. I was hoping—but judging by my ill-success over the last Amendment perhaps I was hoping unwisely—that we could say that we thought something of this kind was desirable and would in the end be possible, but that we should leave it for nowand keep the scheme as simple as possible. I believe that by the time we have added cassettes and reference books, even only in the future, we shall have made more difficult the chances of the scheme getting through unalloyed in another place. I have already made it clear that I am wholeheartedly in favour of the scheme as a whole but I am extremely sceptical about whether including this large and different section is the right course to take at this stage. I can look at the matter again. There is a good deal more to look at again than there was over the last Amendment. It may be that one could find a scheme which is satisfactory, for I do not believe the present one is satisfactory: but it is unlikely that in the amount of time in front of us we shall be able to find one which is satisfactory. However, we may be able to do so. If, therefore, the feeling of the Committee very strongly is that this Amendment should be included I could look at it again, but there have been two or three speakers who think that it might be a mistake. I feel rather inclined to reject the Amendment but if my noble friend likes to test it through the Committee I will make no objection. It is an uncertain question and I am not sure which is the right answer. I think that our answer is the simplest and the best for the Bill, but there is virtue on the other side.
Lord ELTON: I am not quite clear what is the choice that the noble Lord put before the noble Baroness since he said at one stage that he would be prepared to take it away, although he had had a nasty surprise when he offered to do so before. On the other hand, he says that his instinct now is to reject the Amendment and test the temperature of the

43
House, when presumably he may not have to look at it again. Before the noble Lord clarifies his position, we sympathise very much with the apprehensions of librarians in particular about being drawn into enormously complex, time-consuming, expensive and therefore counterproductive, from the authors' point of view, schemes. On the other hand, since multi-author books are to be excluded, as I understand the proposal, it will largely be a question of having to take stock, which must be taken in any case, and posting a list of all the ISBNs to the Registrar who will run them through a machine, out of which will come a very small percentage of single author books—a larger percentage in the libraries to which he alluded—books which the ordinary layman would not regard as reference books. The noble Lord slightly weakened his case there by saying that books which were available in the lending section might also be borrowed three times in one day in the non-lending section. Thus one would assume—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Surely it cannot weaken one. That is a fact, surely.
Lord ELTON: I did not suggest that it weakened the noble Lord but that it weakened his argument. I thought that the presence of what one would regard as loan books in the reference section must encourage authors to ask for this right to be extended to the reference section. If it is possible to produce a scheme which will not draw down the library services into a maelstrom of complexity, consuming yet more of the small amount available for authors, I should have thought it would be a good thing to look into, and if the noble Lord is convinced that this could be done I think that authors would welcome it and that librarians need not be alarmed. If, however, the noble Lord cannot allay their alarm, I should be doubtful about the wisdom of pursuing the Amendment.
Viscount ECCLES: May I support what my noble friend has just said. As the noble Lord, Lord Digby, has said, it is true that this would cause a very considerable amount of work, whatever scheme is introduced. You cannot do it by lending. Therefore, either it is a purchase based
44
scheme or a stock based scheme. This raises the question whether the librarians have been adequately consulted about the work which would ensue if reference books were included. The answer to that question is that they have not been consulted, and this is very relevant to the next Amendment on the Marshalled List. At this moment we simply cannot put additional work on the public libraries unless it is a scheme which they think it is possible to operate without causing the more normal service that they render to the public to be impaired in any way. On the other hand, it is illustrative of the extraordinary "hit and miss" way that we are trying to introduce a public lending right that we should leave out reference books, especially books on how to grow, for instance, rose trees or how to cook. There are cookery and gardening books which are borrowed all the time, and it seems to be rather hard on the authors of popular cookery or gardening books that they are not able to participate. However, this is the nature of the Bill. The Minister has told us that we are lucky to have any kind of Bill at all, that £1 million had to be screwed out of his colleagues and that it does not make any sense unless there is a drastic limitation of the work. I am sorry about that but I am afraid it is true. I am inclined to say to the noble Baroness that between now and Report stage I do not think there is any time in which libraries could be consulted in order to obtain their agreement to work any form of stock or purchase scheme for reference books. However, the Minister has been good enough to say that he will look at the matter again and that the Government will keep it in mind and that if and when the definition of "books" is widened, reference books will be very high up on the list. I think, therefore, that we ought to recognise the difficulties.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am absolutely prepared to agree with what the noble Viscount has just said. Certainly this is the Government's intention. The noble Viscount spoke of a cookery book being lent out two or three times, but that has nothing to do with it because it is a loan. If the noble Viscount means that the housewife goes in two or three times to look up how to cook, this is rather less likely but still possible. I am trying to get the feeling of

45
the House because this is not a matter of principle but of tactics in relation to the Bill. I think that the best thing to do is to say that I will look again at this matter and see what kind of consultation with the libraries is required. A certain amount has been done but the overall scheme which has been suggested by TIG is not very expensive for the libraries. I will look again at this point without making any promise that we will do more than that. That is the best I can do at this stage.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that the important thing is that when the noble Lord goes away and looks at this scheme he should try to come back with something which will not rule out the question of reference books being dealt with in the future. As the Bill is drafted, it appears that reference books are ruled out. We all know that there may be considerable difficulties, particularly with regard to the expense compared with the benefits; but it would be a very great pity if we had to go through all the hustle of another complete Bill if at any time in the future reference hooks are to be included. If some way can be found of getting round this point I think it will be useful.
Lady KINLOSS: While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his reply and explanations, in view of the fact that he has said he will review it I will withdraw the Amendment but I may return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 10, leave out (" books ") and insert (" works ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
4.51 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES Viscount ECCLES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, leave out (" such ")
The noble Viscount said: At present the clause reads that the Secretary of State will determine what are the classes, descriptions and categories of books which will come
46
into the scheme in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Secretary of State,
"after such consultation as he thinks proper with those representing authors, local library authorities and others."
The purpose of this Amendment therefore is to remove from the Secretary of State this option to consult or not to consult authors and local authority librarians as he thinks fit and instead to make such consultation mandatory.
All that we have said on this Bill during the Second Reading debate and so far in Committee shows in what difficulties we are because we have not got the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that they were fairly sure what kind of books would be included, but that is not being absolutely sure. We do not know the details of the scheme and I am asking your Lordships to come to the rescue of authors and librarians who feel that in this situation they have a right to be consulted. It is quite common nowadays to talk about "industrial democracy". If that means anything at all, it means that those whose work or livelihood is affected by management decisions should have some right to be consulted.
If that goes for industry, where of course the trade unions are on the look out to get this right, why does it not go for a public service? In my view there is no difference between the two, and the trend of the times, with which I thoroughly agree, is that we should no longer say, We will consult you if we think it is proper to do so, but if we think you are going to make a nuisance of yourselves we will not consult you". If we had the scheme in front of us in detail I suppose the Government could say, "The time for consultation is over; take it or leave it". I should not like them to say that but I think they might. We might accept it in toto or we might not, but as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has tabled another Amendment for an advisory committee, and this clearly envisages that the scheme being imperfect (as we know) there will be a constant stream of complaints from authors and, I hope, suggestions from librarians as to how to make it work better, we really must have the right for them to be consulted.
I must say one word on behalf of the libraries. They are the essential people. It is how they work this scheme that will

47
determine the proportion of the costs to that amount of money which is left for distribution to the authors. They really must be consulted all the time. We have just mentioned that they might be asked to operate some form of stock scheme for reference books; this will take up the time of librarians to a certain extent. It is a bad moment in the history of public libraries to put more duties on them, because their budgets are being curtailed.
I assure the Government that the Library Association as a whole is against public lending right in principle, and has said so. We are for it in principle, but in the world in which we live we have to carry with us the people who are dubious about the whole scheme but without whose co-operation it will not work at all. I should like to suggest that to leave out these words will not affect the Government at all, because they know they cannot get a scheme off the ground if the authors and librarians have not been properly consulted. It offends them that it should be put into the Bill merely that the advisers to the Ministers say, "All right, it will not do any harm; have them round tomorrow afternoon". I do not think it would hurt the Government in any way to take these words out and to give a little industrial democracy to the public library service.
Lord SLATER: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I should like to ask him a question with regard to the case he has put forward. Do I take it that it is a matter of the general principle, apart from textbooks, and that he is speaking as an ex-Minister for education and science in the other place? Or is he taking it that they ought to be taken into consultation over the whole gamut of authorship? If that is the case, I am afraid he is on the wrong track and the scheme will break down and will be a complete failure.
Viscount ECCLES: As an experienced Parliamentarian, I am sure the noble Lord knows that it means consultation with the bodies which represent authors or librarians. That is really all we are asking for; we are not asking that the Secretary of State shall be obliged to consult every author. No one would
48
want that. I am bound to say that I am more concerned with the libraries, because I am an author and I do not expect to be consulted; but I expect that the public library system—that is, the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations, who are the library authorities of the land —have a right to be consulted, and I think that is quite reasonable in modern times. I beg to move.
Lord WILLIS: I believe there is a great deal in this Amendment. That is clear, since I have an Amendment later about an advisory committee and therefore I am all for consultation. I should like to echo strongly the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about librarians and our public libraries. One of the things that distresses me about the public lending right campaign is the suggestion that authors and librarians are at variance about it. Of course, we are at variance on certain issues connected with public lending right, but in all the discussions I have had there has never been anything less than a civilised discussion and debate which reflects the very high standards of our librarians and their dedication to the public service of lending books. I think we have a superb library service which is staffed superbly well and the less burden we can put upon it, the better. Having said that, I think it is a corollary that one should consult them as much as possible in the development of any possible scheme; a slight adjustment of these words will strengthen it and I hope the Government will feel able to accept this Amendment.
Lord SNOW: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Willis on this point. When I was president of the Library Association this division between authors and librarians was already prominent and active, but in every other way one's relations with librarians are extremely good. I believe they will need rather careful treatment. It is not impossible. They are rational and literate people; curiously enough, they do like books. I believe the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is perfectly sensible and cannot possibly do any harm.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Your Lordships will be

49
surprised to hear that I think it is perfectly sensible and cannot possibly do any harm. I think that the desire to protect the Secretary of State from rigid rules is understandable and desirable, but I think that he has absolutely got to do this consultation. I do not think it will hurt him to have it put fairly strongly. But I do not think the Amendment as it stands will quite do, because it leaves others rather vague. After speaking fairly frankly to the Committee, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to bring back a version of this Amendment on Report which perhaps will go some way towards narrowing others. I do not mind the Secretary of State being obliged to consult the librarians and authors, but when it comes to others, we must be careful to say who he is obliged to consult, so this will not do as it is. If the noble Viscount will let me have another look at it, I will do so.
Viscount ECCLES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. He is on to a good point about others, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 22, leave out (" books ") and insert (" works ").
Lord IRONSIDE Lord IRONSIDE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 23, leave out (" person") and insert (" persons (if any)").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a rather different character from previous Amendments. It concerns something which involves a question of whether single authors or multi-authorship is recognised. So far as I can see, it is necessary to bring this subsection into line with the wording of Clause 4(3), which provides for the register to be conclusive in respect of a particular book title "and also as to the persons (if any) who are for the time being entitled to the right." This is very similar wording to Clause 1(4) which we are looking at now, in which the Registrar is charged with maintaining a register to show the book titles
"and the person entitled to the right in respect of any registered book."
There seems to be an anomaly therefore in the Bill, as Clause 1(4) refers only to the entry in the register of one person, or a person, as author or titleholder, yet Clause 4(3) clearly admits to persons, if any, as titleholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when referring to the Registrar during the Second Reading debate, at column 1414 of Hansard clearly drew attention to the fact that the Registrar's duties would be
"to establish and maintain a register of persons entitled to public lending right…".
The noble Lord used the word "persons" and not the phrase "people entitled" or "those entitled". Later on in the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, at column 1464, that it was the Government's intention that the scheme would apply initially only to books by single authors. So clearly, the Government are thinking in terms of joint authors and titleholders and therefore it would appear that Clause 1(4) should be amended as I proposed.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord, Lord lronside, has got on to a rather subtle point. In the first place, in English grammar, and particularly in legal English grammar, it is agreed that the plural includes the singular, and the singular embraces the plural, so I think we have a choice here. But I do agree with the noble Lord that it is the same in both, so that as far as that goes what he has said is very helpful.
Clause 1 requires the Registrar to establish the register to show the books in respect of which public lending right subsists, and the person who is entitled. Thus, there will always be a person listed. Clause 4(3) makes a quite different provision. It makes clear that the register shall be conclusive as to whether or not the public lending right subsists in a particular book. If a book is not on the register, the register is conclusive that public lending right does not subsist. If it is on the register, similarly the register is conclusive that the right subsists and it names the holder. In this provision, the "if any" qualification arises because the register is conclusive on two opposing counts, so I think we have to leave it as it is, but alter "person" to "persons", or "persons" to person". With the

51
permission of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, I shall have to take a look at that to see which is better.
Lord IRONSTDE: After what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, I am inclined to accept the position. It is a very technical point and a somewhat difficult one to understand unless one afterwards reads carefully in Hansard what has been said. I will accept for the moment what the noble Lord has said, and will be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("book") and insert ("work").
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("book") and insert ("work").
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 12
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("book") and insert ("work").
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("book") and insert ("work").
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("book's") and insert ("work's").
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("transmissable by assignment or assignation") and insert ("incapable of assignment except").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a slightly different character, and is really a question of protecting the authors after we have granted them this public lending right. There are a large number of authors who need no such protection,
52
but my own past experience in many fields as an author is that there are far too many people who are "out for grabs" for whatever royalties or other earnings an author may get. If any of your Lordships have the misfortune to have a play produced in South America, for example, I can tell your Lordships that, after you have paid the Government tax, the Authors' Society tax and your South American agent's fee, the Literary Society fee and the export tax, you are lucky if you come away with about 10 per cent. —which, of course, your English agent then takes, and you end up with nothing. There are far too many people in that position.
The principal problem is that of the young, keen, enthusiastic author, who wants to have his novel published. As your Lordships will know, there are some people who are idiotic enough—luckily, only a few—even to pay people to publish their poems. What we really want to do is to prevent the young, enthusiastic author, desperate to get his novel published at all costs, giving away his birthright to a greedy publisher; I will not say an unscrupulous publisher. I am sure that the majority of big and established publishers will recognise that the public lending right is and was intended for authors, and will not try to take anything away from them. But, inevitably, there will be others who will try to take some share of public lending right. There have been some noises in this direction, some suggestions that publishers should not be left out. Publishers do have problems, but that is not the object and purpose of this Bill.
We are suggesting that the right should be incapable of assignment, so that whatever pressures are put on the young author I have depicted to the Committee, he can say "I can't do it. Legally I cannot give you the money; public lending right must be mine; it must be paid to me". The Registrar can say, "I cannot pay it to a publisher; I must pay it to the author". That is the question involved here. I know the argument against is that, if you give somebody a right, that person should have the right, so to speak, to dispose of that right in whatever way he thinks fit. But I think if your Lordships examine English law in any depth you will see that we go to great lengths in

53
many cases to protect people against the sale of their rights.
One has only to study the doorstep legislation that we have introduced from time to time. The housewife has a perfect right to buy from a doorstep salesman a defective washing machine on very bad terms if she wishes to do so, but we have laid it down very carefully that there are restrictions on the salesman being able to take advantage of the enthusiastic housewife. What I am suggesting in this Amendment is that we should lay down something simple in the Bill which would prevent unscrupulous or greedy publishers taking advantage of authors. Twisting the words round a little, it is so that the rights should be incapable of assignment except by a Will or by the general operation of the law as it concerns personal or movable property. So we simply keep the snouts of greedy agents out of the bowl. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, carries me, at any rate, all the way with him on this Amendment. He is trying to extend the protection of Parliament almost excessively to the author. I rather question whether the manner in which he has engineered this extension is in any case the simplest. I would think that the insertion of the words,
" … except to a person who is the publisher of the work",
or "book", as the case may be, would probably be an easier formula than treating the right, so far as I follow him in his argument, as though it were a kitchen clock or a bicycle, i.e, a chattel, a thing. I do not want to delay the Committee at this point, but I thought it might be useful for the noble Lord to know that it does seem to me that this is going a little further than we would think wise at first blush.
Lord IRONSIDE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton. I have been following what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said, and I would agree that his basic principle is right; that is, to try to protect authors where possible. But, of course, authors are free to negotiate as they like with their publishers and vice versa. What I really do not understand here is how authors can be protected by the last paragraph of his Amendment, where we would try to afford special treatment where other countries give reciprocal
54
rights. In my view, the only way reciprocal rights can be guaranteed is through international agreement.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think the noble Lord has skipped an Amendment and is dealing with No. 16.
Lord IRONSIDE: I apologise to the Committee.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: It is, of course, perfectly true that some authors fear that they may come under pressure from publishers to assign some or all of their new public lending right to them under contractual arrangements for book publication. So far as I am concerned, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I hope nothing of the sort will happen. We must, and I think we can—I am choosing my words carefully —rely on publishers not to put improper pressure on authors. I am sure the publishers recognise, along with everyone else, that the public lending right is being established at public expense for the benefit of authors alone. If an author wants to assign the rights in a particular book once it is established, that is, and I think must be, his business, and the Government would not interfere. But there must be no pressure. If there is, I am sure individual authors can look to their associations to help, and this seems to me exactly what authors' associations should give their attention to, among other things.
The Amendment, in any case, is a blunt instrument, in that it would prevent an author assigning a right to anyone, including his wife and family. There are examples in the social security field where payments to individuals are regarded as being for personal benefit only and they may not be assigned. But we have to be very certain that this is what we want in this case. The Amendment would impose a major check on the individual's freedom of action, and I am not convinced that it is either necessary or desirable. We should, I think, resolve that the spirit of this new legislation should be respected. If there are some abuses, I expect the authors' organisations to be well able to deal with them. If it became a major problem we could think again. I hope my noble friend will not find it necessary to press this Amendment.
Lord WILLIS: I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed for those very strong words, which is exactly what I hoped he would say to the publishers. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No.
16:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
(" (d) to be exercisable only by persons who—

(i) are citizens of the United Kingdom; or

(ii) have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for such period as may be prescribed; or

(iii) are citizens of such other country as may be prescribed on the ground that such country affords substantial reciprocity of treatment to authors who are citizens of the United Kingdom.")

The noble Lord said: This is one of the two or three Amendments that I regard as of very great importance, because I think to some extent it goes to the heart of a very important part of the Bill. What it proposes is that we should exclude overseas authors where there is no reciprocal agreement on public lending right with their country of residence or nationality. The list of those countries which have a public lending right but have not any reciprocal agreement with us—not only with us but with any other countries—is quite substantial. They are Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia and Holland. The only exception to date is West Germany, which does have a reciprocal public lending right, the difference being that theirs was introduced into their Parliament under a copyright Act; ours is not. Ours establishes a completely new right. Therefore, there is a basic problem here which I think can be resolved. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi, in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that the international copyright Conventions do require that such rights as public lending right, for example, are not denied to citizens of other signatory countries. I do not believe that this applies to us because we are not introducing the right under the Copyright Act; we are introducing a new right. Clearly, if we are introducing a new right and not referring to copyright, we are not bound by inter-
56
national copyright Conventions. I should like the Minister to comment on that point, which seems to me a very valid and strong one.
Further, I should like him to comment on this. Even if it were established that we are bound by international copyright Conventions and therefore have to give a reciprocal right, there is, surely, in the Copyright Act 1956, Part V, Section 35, a perfect lever for us to get out of paying public lending right to countries which will not make a reciprocal agreement. In other words, I believe there are legal ways round it. In the first place we have the argument that we have not introduced this under copyright but as a new right. Secondly, if that fails, we can fall back on Part V of the Copyright Act 1956.
Why do I want to go to such lengths to exclude overseas authors? I have, of course, nothing against overseas authors or my international brethren. But I think it is reasonable to exclude them at this stage; the Minister, in his replies to many of the questions, has underlined the point very strongly that there is going to be very little in the kitty. To bring in powerful overseas authors, the great popular American writers, for example, and to pay them money, when there is absolutely no public lending right in America and no reciprocal agreement with America about public lending right, will mean that the great popular American authors will take a great deal of the cream out of whatever small public lending right funds we have. I am just picking the United States authors as an example; there are plenty of others, too, who will be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, again on Second Reading, said that there is a clear limit to what can be covered all at once. This has been a recurring theme in this Bill. What we are doing here is leaving out a British translator of a Swedish book, but paying the original Swedish author some money, public lending right. We are leaving out compilers and reviewers, and so on. I understand that we have to set strict limits, but we are including within the sweep a large number of overseas authors and we are going to get nothing back.
I have books that are extensively borrowed in Australia, for example.
Australia has a public lending right. I do not get a penny for that, but Australian authors resident in this country draw money from Australia because they are Australian nationals. They will now be entitled to draw money from our libraries under the PLR scheme, while I will get nothing from my books on the shelves of the Australian libraries. That seems to me unreasonable. The Minister has argued on several occasions that we cannot spread it too wide. Here is a very simple way of not spreading it too wide. Let us accept this clause which will cut out foreign authors until we have reciprocal agreements. When we have reciprocal agreements nobody can complain. There is a way of doing it, as I have explained, and I should like the Committee to consider the arguments that I have put forward.
Viscount AMORY: I intervene merely to say that it seems to me that the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, are good and are certainly persuasive to me. The fact is that the money we are talking about is expenditure from public funds. There is common ground among everybody who has spoken in this debate that the money is not going to go very far among our own authors. Therefore, on the grounds that the noble Lord has adduced, I should have thought that it would be a mistake and wholly unnecessary to go beyond the types of authors he has referred to in his Amendment here. If sterling continues to go down at the present rate whatever they get out of it will be serious for us in cross exchanges and of very little value to them. I should like to support the Amendment.
Lord McNAIR: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is in danger of giving a false impression of himself in this Amendment. I am quite sure that he does not mean it, but it has undeniably a xenophobic ring. First of all, how could other countries have reciprocal arrangements with us when we have nothing with which to reciprocate, because at present we have no public lending right? I hope that the approach to this particular problem will be positive rather than negative. Every effort should be made to negotiate reciprocal arrangements with other countries, because one of the biggest assets of authors who are lucky enough to have been born British is that they write
58
in the English language and this gives us access to far more foreign countries than if, for example, they were unlucky enough to be born a Hungarian or a Czech. So could we not so much exclude foreign authors as seek to include reciprocal agreements with as many countries as possible?
Lord IRONSIDE: When I spoke out of turn on the last Amendment I was going to speak about these problems of reciprocal rights. I think that I am inclined to support here the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and say that we ought to be working towards getting reciprocal rights and a universal agreement on public lending right, and a positive approach to this problem would be the best thing.
Lord ELTON: Since so many views have been expressed, may I say that I think that we would all agree—and in a minute or two the noble Lord will tell us whether he agrees—that it would be foolish for us to pay out money to authors who are nationals of other countries when those countries do not pay our authors for providing a similar service to their readers. Without going too closely into the nuts and bolts of it, which I suspect that the noble Lord will wish to look at before Report stage, I think that the general principle would seem unexceptional.
5.25 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The general principle is, alas, unexceptional. It is in the reverse direction. There is no doubt whatever that the kind of exclusion which my noble friend has suggested, and which is of importance and is a biggish item which affects everybody, is incompatible with this country's obligations under the Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions. It is true that we shall not be using copyright legislation to establish PLR, but nevertheless my advice is absolutely clear; it is that the effect of the Bill is to confer a right comparable with copyright protection, and that our duty under the Conventions is unmistakable. The right must be freely available to nationals of the 85 convention countries and authors who publish in those countries, providing they register and their books are revealed by the sampling arrangements. This is

59
indeed one of the consequences of establishing PLR by Statute, which is what the authors wanted and to which the Government agreed. In simple equity this is really as it should be.
The author, wherever he comes from, whose book is borrowed here from one of our sample libraries, deserves to be recompensed for that use. The fact that the reverse does not apply does not in any way alter the equity here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Lord, Lord Digby, that the right thing to do is to push ahead with negotiations. We shall do this more easily than we can now when we can show that we are paying money to foreign authors and that they are not paying money to us.
I do not think that we can go deliberately and absolutely against a legal obligation which is so completely accepted by our legal advisers. I think that it is not a starter. The noble Lord talked about Section 35 of the Copyright Act. This is a section which allows us to make complaint against a foreign Government for failing to observe copyright on our part. It has nothing to do with this matter, and it does not help us at all. I am afraid that the only thing that we can do is to carry on with our Bill where the public lending right, in spite of some rather thinning remarks by the noble Viscount, is something quite real, and which we are having to give to our neighbours and do not want to. Once we do so I think we shall be in a very much better position to negotiate with them. I could go on a good deal further but I shall not for the moment.
Lord WILLIS: There seems to be a great conflict of legal advice here. I do not pretend for one moment to be a copyright lawyer or even a lawyer, but I am assured that we have protection under Part V of the Copyright Act. I am equally assured by the same lawyers that the international copyright conventions do not apply because we are introducing a different kind of right. My advice, which comes from reputable lawyers, conflicts with the noble Lord's advice.
I am sorry if this sounds like xenophobia but it is not—and I will stand on my internationalism with anybody. It is
60
monstrous that we should pay large sums of public money to popular American authors when there is not a chance for generations of the American authors getting public lending right, and therefore no possibility of any reciprocal agreement. I do not just pick out American authors; I mean other authors of other countries. This is likely to take possibly one-fifth of the total amount of the money that we have in the kitty for authors and it seems monstrous that we cannot devise some way to stop it.
I am all for positive reciprocal agreements and my Amendment says that; it says that when we can get a reciprocal agreement, then we will open up PLR to the citizens of that particular country. I am all for that, but I do not suggest that we hand it all out now and wait for them to say, "You have been very generous: we will be generous back". There will not be public lending right in America for many years, I assure noble Lords, and the other countries will all take their time because some of them do not have it by law and they will all take their time to get amendments so that they can pay it to foreign citizens. Those amendments will have to go through their Parliaments and in the meantime great sums of money could come out of our fund. If one threw it out to all the countries under an international copyright convention one would swamp the number of British authors; one could have ten times as many people registering from overseas countries as one has from this country. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a big hole here that has to be plugged in some way by the Government. I should like the Minister to look at this matter again with his legal advisers because I am informed that there is some way of overcoming the difficulty, and I should have thought that it would be worth going into the matter further.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I am in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the point he is putting. This is an extremely important matter and I agree that we should try to find some way to put into practice what he is suggesting. l am not of course capable of adjudicating between what appear to be completely opposite and conflicting views on the law, but I should like to put to the Minister a point about which I am not clear. I refer to these other

61
countries which have public lending right, which do not pay Lord Willis any royalties and which are presumably signatories of the Berne Convention. Do they not pay these royalties because they have not in every case established public lending right by statute but have established it in some other way?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The answer to that question is, Yes; they are not statutory but administrative and therefore they do not carry the same obligations.
Viscount ECCLES: I am sorry to differ from some of my noble friends, but I am with the Minister on this Amendment To dispose of the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that American authors might take a huge slice of the cake, we have not yet been told whether there is to be a cut-off limit; that is to say that no author, however sensational or sensual his book may be, however many hundreds of thousands of copies are borrowed, is to have all that he would be entitled to. I understood that it was part of the Government's policy that £500 or some such limit was to be imposed as the maximum that any one author could get while there was so little money. That will drastically change what the Americans can get.
What the Americans lend out here is pulp fiction, but, leaving that on one side, far more serious is the fact that these are conventions which we have signed and we really cannot go back on them. I would say, not only from the point of view of straightforward international good behaviour, that it would pay us not to go back on them for the reason given by one of my noble friends: namely, that English is so much more widely read than any other language. We win in the competition of exporting books in our language against importing books in other languages.
At this moment the lending division of the British Library is developing the most tremendous loan service to the whole of the Common Market. We are lending far more books to them and they pay us the proper rate so that we get out with a tiny profit—it is a profit, though nothing really that one can see—and this is going on all the time. Looking forward, one must hope that our having joined the
62
Common Market and other forms of international association will lead to free trade in books and reciprocity in copyright and all the other rights. If it does, who will win? This country will win hand over fist. We should not deny ourselves the instrument by which we can go to other countries and say, "We are good fellows. We are sticking to the convention. You will get £2·20 "—that is about all that anybody will ever get—"look how generous we are. We are going to stick to this". That is something to use in arguing, but if we were to say that we are going to introduce a public lending right here but we are not going to give it to anybody else, how, for example, will Lord Willis ever get it out of Australia? He will have set such a bad example here that he will not have a hope. I therefore hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
Lord WILLIS: I am not saying that. I am saying quite specifically that if we give it to Australia we expect Australia to give it back. Australia cannot say, "You are destroying all the international agreements" because they do not pay us a penny out of their public lending right now. Once we get our public lending right established then naturally we will go to Sweden, Australia and these other countries and say, "Let us make it reciprocal" and I have no doubt that they will. That seems perfectly reasonable and I cannot think of any country in the world that would say that we were welshing on our international agreements because we were not paying their authors out of our public fund. I cannot think of one.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who put my side of the case very well. It might perhaps be better if I were to elaborate a little on the legal side because my advice is such that I really cannot ignore it. So far as I am concerned, the answer is, No. We as a signatory are bound by the Brussels text 1948 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 and also by the Paris 1971 text of the Universal Copyright Convention. The obligations demanded of signatories by these two conventions boil down to two. The first is giving the same treatment to works of Convention nationals and to

63
works first published in Convention countries as is given under domestic law to the works of British authors—the national treatment principle. That is absolutely unavoidable and it is a perfectly clear statement. The second is providing protection without formalities for Berne countries and within limited formalities allowed for UCC countries. The United Kingdom is in copyright relationship with 85 countries under these Conventions.
Although our public lending right will be established by new legislation and not by extention of the copyright legislation, advice from the Department of Trade, recently confirmed, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that since the effect would be to confer on authors a legal entitlement to remuneration for the use of works protected under the Conventions, it would be regarded abroad as tantamount to copyright protection. Thus, our obligations under the Conventions would be held to apply. This means that the new right would have to extend to all foreign authors who were either nationals of one of the 85 signatory countries or whose works were first published in one of those countries; and care would have to be taken not to build into the scheme formalities with which it would be difficult to comply in those countries. In view of the rule about first publication, there is little point in trying to distinguish between Convention and non-Convention countries at this stage, though it may be appropriate later. I could say a lot more, but I think that the number one obligation which I quoted cannot he got round. On that basis I could not accept the Amendment and I do not believe that anybody standing in my position could do so.
Lord SLATER: Did I hear my noble friend refer to 1851?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I referred to 1886.
Lord SLATER: It was 1886 when the Convention was arrived at. Surely we are in a position in which we can enter into negotiation with all these other countries. Also—and I say this to my noble friend quite kindly—is it not true that as a Party we have always advocated reciprocity? A simple example is the Health Service. My noble friend has been citing America and
64
what happens there. Yet we have American visitors who come to this country. Just the other week, a woman staying at my hotel happened to have an accident while walking along the pavement. She received free health treatment, but there is no reciprocity so far as America is concerned, and a friend of hers told me that if she had had to be attended to in America it would have cost numerous dollars to pay for the attention which she received free in this country. We have reciprocity with other countries in regard to the Health Service, so why cannot Her Majesty's Government give serious consideration to this question of reciprocity if we believe that that is our purpose and our policy? It seems to me that that was at the back of the mind of my noble friend Lord Willis when he moved the Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have already said that the future of this lies in working for reciprocity but one cannot put that into a Bill applying only to this country. We cannot insist on reciprocity; we can only negotiate for it. I have already said that, when we are operating the Bill and treating our neighbours in a way which my noble friend quite rightly feels is generous, we shall be in a very much better position to make them respond. But we cannot legislate for what America does, or anybody else. On the other hand, I agree with my noble friend if that is all he is saying; the next step is to work hard to develop reciprocity.
Lord WILLIS: I recognise the difficulty of the law on the conventions, but I do not agree with the point that has been made that if we are generous in this respect it will make it easier for us to negotiate and to obtain reciprocal terms. My experience in life is that when people are given something they are not likely to feel that the giver is in a very strong bargaining position because they already have what they want. I believe that this is such a serious matter that I shall return to it at Report stage having taken further legal advice. I would ask the Minister whether he will once again check to see if there is any way of achieving this.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Yes, of course I will.
Lord WILLIS: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.44 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE Lord IRONSIDE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
"(8) The Registrar shall have power to withhold payment of any sums due to the person for the time being entitled to Public Lending Right in respect of any registered book, if at that time he has reasonable grounds for believing that the registered book has infringed or is alleged to have infringed the rights of a title holder in copyright as defined in the Copyright Act 1956."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment involves another case of the possibility of unfair payments and it is designed to cover a situation in which the Registrar might find himself placed in respect of a book which qualified for PLR payments whereas the registered author had infringed, or was alleged to have infringed, a copyright. I believe that in such circumstances it would be wrong to make payments. The intention of the Bill is to reimburse authors of original works, as I said before, and the Registrar should not be seen to be reimbursing anybody who, without licence from the copyright holder, has made an adaptation or translation, for example, referred to in Section 2(5) of the Copyright Act 1956. Noble Lords may well argue that this is not possible or that such a situation is unlikely, but what is likely is that copyright infringement actions may well arise following the publication of any material in this country. Subsequent litigation may take a long time to reach a conclusion, as we have heard earlier this afternoon, in which case PLR payments could have been made during that period. The Government may say that the scheme will take care of this situation, but I should like to know how the House can be assured of this. This may be a technical point and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has to say about it. I feel that it would be fair to authors to provide for this situation in the Bill itself so that the fund, which, as the House realises, will be under extreme pressure in any case, will not be abused. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: I wonder whether this proposed subsection is wise. Surely, infringement of copyright is a matter to be decided by the court after hearing the evidence and arguments on both sides. I cannot believe that the Registrar, on an ex parte application and not hearing both sides—not hearing the arguments nor the
66
evidence tested by cross-examination—would be at all anxious to come to a conclusion. He might well come to the wrong conclusion and, with the best will in the world, he might withhold payment to an author because he thought, on the balance of probabilities, that there was infringement of copyright. Subsequently, the case might come before a court and might be lost, it being decided that there had not been an infringement of copyright. In that case, the Registrar would have been withholding payments wrongfully. I should have thought it much better not to have this subsection and to leave disputes about infringement of copyright to be decided by the courts.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for saying with his legal expertise what I was going to say as a layman. That is in fact the case. The trouble is that the noble Lord's Amendment would impose on the Registrar a responsibility which he would be unlikely to discharge effectively and for which there is already adequate provision in the copyright legislation. The Registrar will of course have to satisfy himself at registration stage that an applicant author is who he claims to be and that he wrote the book in question. He will not enter on the register any application with which he is not satisfied. So far, there is a safeguard. The registration procedure will be spelt out in full in the scheme and there will probably be provision for a sworn affidavit and other supporting testimony. This will enable the Registrar to establish that the applicant is the author but not what is the position in respect of the copyright of the book. That could be quite different. Sections 17 and 18 of the Copyright Act 1956 provide that infringements of copyright are, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, actionable at the suit of the copyright owner and the Performing Right Tribunal may be used to deal with disputes. However, this is in the last resort and the matter would normally go first to the courts.
It would not be appropriate for the Registrar to be involved in any way in a dispute of this kind, in our opinion. For example, no great harm would happen if by chance an infringing book should attract PLR payments because most pirated books

67
are unauthorised reprints in the original author's name, so that the PLR payments would still go to that author. The other main forms of copyright abuse—unauthorised translations and compilations —would not in any case count for PLR, since it is proposed to exclude transactions and compilations from the initial scheme. When and if, at a later date, they are included, the matter might have to be looked at again. The noble Lord has raised an interesting point, but after going into it carefully, I am satisfied that it is not a valid one. I hope I have also satisfied the noble Lord.
Lord IRONSIDE: After hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had to say and after listening to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SOMERS: Not having been here for the whole of the Second Reading, before we pass this clause I should like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to make one point quite clear, particularly now that we have changed the word "books" to the word "works". Can he tell me whether the word "author" includes composers?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I must take advice on this point because it involves a legal definition. I should have thought that it did, but I will have to look at it. The phraseology is altered by the Amendment of my noble friend, and we shall need to look at various points with this in view.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Central Fund]:
5.50 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("Fund") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment which seeks to elicit from the Minister whether or not the Government really mean business. If the Government do mean business, it is surely
68
extraordinary to limit to £1 million the sum of money to be paid into the Central Fund when the TIG has calculated that more than 40 per cent. will be required for administering the scheme. This cost of over £400,000 is at today's prices. Heaven knows what it will be by the time the Scheme is in operation!
To set so low a limit in comparison with the cost of administering the scheme seems to be a most unfortunate feature of the Bill. I am fully aware that the level of Government expenditure is far too high, but if the Government seriously intend that a substantially higher sum should be made available for this purpose in two or three years' time—or perhaps in only 20 weeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested was possible—could not the Minister give some idea of the likely level?
It seems that what we are being asked to consider is an initial sum which is totally inadequate except for a pilot operation, and which will infuriate authors by the distribution of trifling sums, together with a moral commitment to a much larger sum, of undisclosed amount, at some time in the future, whatever may be the level of Government expenditure or the state of the national economy. I hope that it is not too uncharitable to suggest that, having set up the pilot operation, the Secretary of State may slow-time his deliberations until the financial climate is healthier and he thinks there is a reasonable chance of obtaining approval for £5 million, or whatever may be the figure that he has in mind. Only a great optimist would think that such an improvement in the economy is likely within 20 weeks, and few would expect it within two or three years.
Cannot the Government make a more robust approach towards their avowed intention of establishing a public lending right, so that it really means something to authors? Will they not tell us what sum they really think is necessary for this purpose? And will they not remove this £1 million limit which so sadly shackles the Bill? I am tempted to mention the old Marx Brothers film in which Groucho Marx was asked: "Are you a man or a mouse?" Groucho replied: "Put a bit of cheese on the floor and you'll soon see".
So metaphorically I am placing a hit of cheese on the floor of your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I was trying to think of a suitable Groucho reply, but I am afraid that I have failed for the moment. I remember how he found out that there were four refugees in the cabin. On being asked: "How do you know that?", he replied: "Because they are singing Sweet Adeleine '", but that has nothing to do with the point in question.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, spoke of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as an optimist. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is a great optimist, and we cannot base our financial calculations on his wishes any more than we can on your Lordships' wishes or mine. The noble Lord spoke of the £1 million as being an unfortunate feature. It is a most unfortunate feature of this country at this moment that we are in very serious trouble for money, but that we have succeeded in getting something so near to a promise of £1 million within reasonable distance is not unfortunate; we are very lucky to have it. Those people who think the establishment of the principle of a public lending right to be the important thing, or the first step to take, must realise that of course everybody would rather have had £10 million, £15 million, £20 million, or whatever figure one wishes. It is not a starter, and if it were to come off the rest of the Arts I might have something to say about that.
I do not think that this is a practical point of view. Of course I shall not give an undertaking that the Government, of which I am a very humble member, will in due course give a great deal more. The answer is, No. I hope they do, but of course I shall give no such undertaking. The noble Lord did not really expect that of me. I think that the cheese was rather hard. In any case, we must have a figure. It would be inconsistent, with Parliamentary control of public funds, to leave an open-ended liability to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and the sum named must be dependent on the current constraints, but the financial provisions of the Bill are a matter for decision in another place.
70
Therefore I shall not attempt to discuss the size of the limit more than I have done, because in the end this is something which, when on Third Reading I move the privilege Amendment, we pass over to the other place, as is quite correct. When we can name an appointed day, which will mean that the funds of £1 million or thereabouts are in sight, then will be the moment when we can look at all these things. We can look at how quickly we can appoint the Registrar, what other research might be undertaken, and so on. But until that happens we can do very little. What I am perfectly happy to undertake at this stage is that my Department will continue to work on the scheme, and we will draw up a draft scheme so that if the Registrar is appointed reasonably soon lie will have something to go on; if he is appointed after a longer time he will have more to go on. But I do not believe that we can anticipate spending research money until we see money in the kitty.
I am afraid I am not being very helpful; this is not a subject on which I can be very helpful. The decision of the Government was that the demand for this right to be established justified a Bill of this kind, which is really an enabling Bill rather than anything else. I believe that most Members of this Committee think that this is right. Everybody wants more, and I am being asked for more in all directions. But in principle I think that your Lordships want to see a Bill of this kind go through and are prepared to accept the limitations which the financial position has put on the Government. I wish to repeat that I am not giving any assurance that any Government—this Government, the next one, or the one after that—will necessarily give more money.
Lord ELTON: I do not think that that was the question which the noble Lord was asked. The point is not that the Government are necessarily going to give more money, but that it should not be written into the Bill that they may not give more money. We accept that there is virtually no money now, but we have been told that here is a Bill which allows disbursement of up to £1 million, of which, it now appears, possibly more than 50 per cent. will be spent on administration, which as the Amendment next following of the noble Lord, Lord Digby, shows that

71
to be something which does not appear logical to us. The noble Lord has sniffed round the cheese, bitten it once, squeaked very loudly, and appealed to the conventions of this place, which means that the cheese has to be eaten in another place. I hesitate to mix metaphors too graphically, but I think that it must be a Cheshire cheese analogous to the Cheshire cat. If the noble Lord leaves this limit as a permanent lid, which can be lifted only by Amendment, by legislation, it means coming back to Parliament to get the thing off the ground at all. That is the point. Then, I think on the face of the cat, we shall see little more than the smile of benevolence, and no claws with which to do anything.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Clause 3(7) allows the scheme to be varied from time to time by the Secretary of State after the consultation which has been very properly insisted on,
"and the variation brought into force by an order in a statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The intention here, as I understand it, is that if Parliament decided to grant more money, then this would be the way in which more money could be granted. The limit is written into the Bill until something else happens.
Lord ELTON: I do not quite follow the noble Lord in this example, because in the Bill we have the limit of £1 million, and the Bill also says that there can be a scheme. It does not say that the scheme can change the Bill; it merely says that Parliament or the Secretary of State, or whoever, may change the scheme at a later date, not the Bill. It is in the Bill that the limit appears. I do not think it is necessary at this stage, to hold up the Committee for a long time on this point, but I think it should be on the record that we recognise that, while there is a shortage of funds now, with inflation going at the present rate and with administrative expenses rising as they doubtless are, there very soon will be no point in having the Bill if this lid is kept on top of it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I repeat that my understanding is that Clause 3(7) leaves this open to expansion, but I will write to the noble Lord if by any chance I am wrong.
Lord AIREDALE: It would make the matter perfectly clear if the £1 million mentioned in Clause 2(2) were expressed to be subject to Clause 3(7). That would make it quite clear that the £1 million written into the Bill could be varied by Statutory Instrument. We shall be very pleased to see that Amendment to the Bill at the next stage.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My noble friend has just found the right clause for me. Clause 2(3) says:
"With the consent of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may from time to time by order in a statutory instrument increase the limit on the sums to be paid…".
I think that answers the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: I do not want to delay the Committee, but it is a question of whether it increases the individual sums or the total of the sums. I am sure the noble Lord is right, but let us look at it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I would prefer that.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
Lord DIGBY Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
"Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not come into force until the Secretary of State is satisfied that in the ensuing financial year the estimated expenses falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection for the purpose of administering the scheme referred to in section 1(2) above do not exceed one tenth of the money provided by Parliament in accordance with subsection (2) of this section and, until he is so satisfied, the money so provided shall be paid to the Arts Council of Great Britain for distribution in a manner to be prescribed by him for the benefit of authors.".
The noble Lord said: I am not asking for more money—although I should like it—but for its better use. I beg to move Amendment No. 19 on the Marshalled List. It is rather long, and I should like to summarise the intended effect. It is that, until the expenses are less than 10 per cent. of the money available, that money shall be distributed back to authors by the Arts Council. This Amendment

73
seeks to avoid the considerable expense and administrative effects—the increase in public service manpower involved in this Bill—until the costs are reasonable compared with the benefits derived by the authors. At the same time, it would mean that the full amount, or nearly the full amount, of the money available would accrue to authors from the coming into force of the Bill. Above all, the principle of a public lending right enshrined in this Bill would be established, which I believe is a prime object of authors.
My argument is based on common sense: that to spend £400,000 or more to provide £600,000 or less is a nonsense. I think this common sense argument can be challenged on the grounds that establishing the principle is worth the disproportionate cost, or that justice and common sense demand that a large sum of money be provided. I think my Amendment covers both these objections. The principle is established because the Bill comes into effect; and if more money is made available, then this Amendment would have no effect. I am suggesting 10 per cent. as a reasonable proportion for expenses, but I am not wedded to that figure. If, say, 20 per cent. would be more acceptable to your Lordships, I certainly would not dissent; but I think that more than 20 per cent. on expenses is really entirely unacceptable.
I am also suggesting that the Arts Council should be the body to distribute the money available, and that they will do it with fairness and economy; but if this Amendment is accepted I hope that the Arts Council will set up a special committee to deal with this, with a very strong representation of authors, possibly even a majority of authors. At a time when public expenditure is under extreme restraint and libraries are having to reduce their book purchases, librarians and ratepayers resent such a large proportion being spent on expenses. I wish to establish the principle, postpone the expense and get some benefit to authors at the earliest moment. I beg to move.
Lord GIBSON: As chairman of the Arts Council, perhaps I might be allowed to give your Lordships my personal reaction to this proposal, but before I do so may I add my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment to his new post. May I also say that, having known
74
him very well for a very long time, and knowing his interest in and knowledge of the arts, I look forward with a quite rare degree of pleasure to working with him in that sphere. My personal reaction—and I stress that it is personal, because I have had no opportunity to discuss this proposal with my colleagues, having had no foreknowledge of it—is that it confuses the public lending right with straight support for literature. The last thing I want to do on behalf of authors is to look a gift horse in the mouth, and I appreciate very much the motives which inspire the noble Lord's proposal; but I think it confuses these two things, which are quite separate, as in fact I pointed out on the two occasions that I have had the privilege to address your Lordships' House on the public lending right, both when the noble Lord, Lord Willis, introduced his Bill last summer and on the Second Reading of this Bill.
The meaning of this proposal, I think, is that until there is enough money to bring administrative expenses into a proper relation—in this case, 10 per cent. is suggested as the total—the Arts Council should do the work instead of the libraries, the Registrar and the rest of it. If the Arts Council were to do it properly, administering it as a public lending right, then of course we should have to set up a very substantial organisation ourselves, and I doubt if very much money, if any, would be saved. If, on the other hand, we are simply to administer £1 million for the benefit of authors who in our opinion write literature, as opposed to the great majority of authors, who of course do not write literature, then it is something quite different, and I do not think that is what the Arts Council is for, although we are very glad and ready to help in any way we can. Therefore, an extra £1 million for literature is certainly not something that I would spurn, and if the noble Lord has any proposal which will extract for the Arts Council an extra £1 million for authors who write literature, I shall be very glad to support him in it; but I do not think that this Amendment has that object in mind. I think it simply involves the Arts Council instead of the Registrar and the libraries, and would therefore not save any money.
Viscount AMORY: When I spoke just now, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that he could not have

75
agreed less with everything I said. I am now, in a thoroughly Christian mood, going to add my congratulations to Lord Donaldson on his well-earned appointment. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of this Bill, but I think it is a terrible Bill. It is the worst kind of enabling Bill, it seems to me. The scheme, which is a central feature of it, has still to be concocted. By common agreement, the initial sum of £1 million is going to prove inadequate. The administration involves an immense amount of detailed work, high in relation to the receipts that are going to be obtained by authors. I prophesy that the expenses of administration will prove to be a great deal higher even than is indicated here. I have never written a book and I have no intention of doing so. When this Bill came along I got a copy of it because I thought that perhaps I was wrong and that it would be a good idea to start writing some books as soon as possible; but having done my sums and looked at the £1 million I have decided that the, to me, great effort in doing so will not be worth while.
I prophesy that this will prove to be a bad Bill as it stands and will require much amendment as time goes by. I think that that has been acknowledged and I understand that it has been received just for the sake of getting a foot in the door, so to speak. I am far from asking for more than £1 million in the present economic circumstances and I was delighted to hear Lord Donaldson say that it had been a Herculean task to get £1 million from the Treasury. That warmed my heart. It proved that those great public servants who operate that Department still have sonic grip on the situation and that the Treasury Ministers are not wholly neglecting their responsibilities.
I may have wandered a little, but I want to say that I sympathise with the object of my noble friend's Amendment. He says in effect: "Do not set up this elaborate and expensive new organisation while the estimated cost of administration is anything like 40 per cent. of the total sum available. "That seems to me to be a sensible approach. Whether it is possible to find other ways of administrating it in its early stages, I do not know. I agree with the sentiment that my noble friend has expressed and I shall look forward to
76
hearing what Lord Donaldson is going to say.
Lord WILLIS: May I say how deeply moved and heartened I am to hear the statement by the noble Viscount that he is not going to write a book. I think that he is the only person in the two Houses whom I know is not. I am quite sure that my noble friend the Minister is keeping a diary. I should like to oppose this Amendment. I think it would be retrograde in the way it would operate. Of course, the figure of something like £400,000 out of £1 million for administration is monstrous. Looked at in that way, it is likely to shock anybody; it shocked me. On the other hand, it is true that if you run irrigation pipes from a lake over miles of territory it will be very expensive; but once you have got the pipes laid then you are able to water more than one field. This is the point with the cost of administration here. I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken. One understands what is in the noble Lord's mind; but the effect would be simply that of negativing the Bill. What lie is really saying is that if you cannot get more money, then do not do it at all. I do not think that this is the view in this House nor—and we shall find this out —that of the other place. It is certainly not the view of the general public, though it may be the view of certain members of the public.
I think that we must reject this Amendment. The noble Lord says: "Distribute the money until…". What money? The money can be distributed only if the elaborate machinery is set up for finding out to whom it goes. That is what costs the money. That will distribute far more than £1 million; it could distribute £100 million quite easily, once you have it. But you cannot distribute any money for much less. Although I should be delighted to support any suggestion for giving the Arts Council more money to give to those authors that they choose to support, this is not what the Bill is about. The Bill is about a right. I do not think that I need say more. I think that the feeling of the Committee is against the noble Lord's Amendment and I hope he will withdraw it.
Lord DIGBY: It may surprise the noble Lord to know that I do not intend to impose the extra expense of another Voting List being printed. This Amendment was put down really to demonstrate the futility of the Bill. I repeat my assertion that common sense says that it is ridiculous to pay such a high price. I was trying to find a way of keeping the principle without the cost. We all know that this is difficult, if not impossible; and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: A brief word of explanation from the Minister will suffice to enlighten me on one point; and that is, the reason for the difference in phraseology about the source of the funds. Clause 2(4) says that the funds for the general administration of the Bill are to be brought from the Central Fund, while paragraph 2 of the Schedule says that the source of the salary of the Registrar is to be money provided by Parliament.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Perhaps I may answer that immediately. The reason is simply that it is thought improper for the Registrar to pay his own salary.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Tire scheme and its administration.]:
6.18 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 19, leave out from beginning to (" into") and insert—
(" 3.—(1) Within twelve months of this Act coming").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading there was a good deal of talk about the "two to three years" when the scheme eventually gets under way. As the Bill is drafted, this period could extend to the "seven years to seventeen years". I thought that this was a fitting time for the Government to tell us what timetable they intend to adhere to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I hope that the Committee will
78
not feel it necessary to shackle my right honourable friend in the way suggested. There has to be some allowance for good faith in this. I think the Government have shown imagination. Some people think they have shown too much imagination in bringing this Bill as far as it has got. I think the idea that it should be allowed to die through inanition is one that we must reject. We cannot saddle the Secretary of State with a date. I will now make some general remarks about the position, and I shall be hurt if in due course I am held to them in a serious way. Looking at it logically, I can give no date for the appointed day. This seems to me to be a financial matter which in the end is for the Government as a whole to decide with particular reference to the Treasury. Before that day, as I have already said, my Department will work on the scheme. As soon as an appointed day is made known to us, however far ahead it may be, we shall be able to take steps to employ a Registrar and do some of the research work necessary to get the scheme fully worked out. I should have thought that the dangerous delay is the delay before we get the appointed day at all; in other words, the financial delay. This must be so. If things go a little better and we can get that within reasonable time, then if the preliminary work has been done on the scheme—or most of it, or even some of it—then it should be a matter of months rather than years before something fairly definite could be used for consultation.
Noble Lords have insisted—not improperly—on extensive consultation. This must take some months. So that will take more months. Then it has to go through Parliament and then one might see something happen. I have not committed myself or my colleagues very far. I should have thought that this was not too depressing a prospect, except for the first stage over which I have no control, and over which I will give no advice. I do not know whether that is helpful, but it is about the best that I can do. I should like to repeat that it will be my duty on Third Reading to propose the Privilege Amendment which protects us in relation to our position with the other place.
Lord ELTON: It was not our intention to shackle the Minister with an instruction. I am glad that we have now saddled him

79
with an aspiration. We may not hold him to it, but we shall encourage him to pursue it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 24, after ("House") insert ("or is so approved with an amendment or amendments to which both Houses have agreed").
The noble Lord said: We come now to what I regard as one of the more fundamental Amendments to this Bill. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Eccles and others referred to this as an enabling Bill. The phrase has been repeated since many times in this stage. It is a Bill which enables the Secretary of State to draw up a scheme to administer a sum which is initially limited to £1 million per annum, and although the Minister has firmly kept that lid on we are all aware that he shares the apprehension—or aspiration—that it will eventually be raised. It is a sum intended to benefit the authors of books on loan from certain sections of certain types of public libraries. If we look at the Bill more closely we find that the scheme by which this is to be done is to include provision for a register of books qualifying for payment or, as the Bill would have it, books in which public lending right subsists. That register is to be kept by the Registrar.
The Registrar is appointed by the Secretary of State to determine, upon criteria handed down by the Secretary of State, both who is an author and what is a book. He is also to determine, again on criteria handed down by the Secretary of State, how many times a book may be presumed to have been borrowed. The Secretary of State, in framing the scheme, will determine upon what evidence that presumption is to be founded. He will decide both the character and the volume of evidence necessary. At present, I must add, we have no certain knowledge of either of those aspects of evidence. We only know that the Technical Investigation Group examined a scheme based on 72 sample libraries, and that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said on Second
80
Reading on 5th April, at column 1412 of Hansard:
"If a sample of 72 library service points, as considered by the Technical Group, is adopted, the annual cost of administering a loans-based scheme is estimated at about £400,000".
Most of us were so dazzled by the figure of £400,000 that we did not notice the all important word "if" until we read Hansard.
So the Secretary of State is to impose upon the Registrar, whom he is himself to appoint by the means of the scheme which he is to draw up, the number and nature of qualifying authors; the nature of qualifying books; the volume and character of evidence upon which he is to estimate the presumptive number of loans; the basis of the division between them of such spoils as remains after the deduction of administrative costs; the means of determining what are and what are not admissible as administrative costs; the nature of the evidence which he may specify as necessary to establish ownership of the right to payment; the nature of the evidence by which assignment or inheritance of that right is established; and, indeed, the method and duration of time by which the right to unclaimed payments may be deemed to be void, and the means by which such payments are subsequently returned to the fund and redistributed.
It is clear from Second Reading that no one expects the maximum content of this fund—I have said this already to remain at only £1 million, and I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, say at Second Reading on 5th April, at column 1410 of Hansard, that:
"It is in any case essential to provide for proper control by Parliament of the use of public funds".
Here is no control by Parliament at all. It merely has the power under Clause 3(2), as it stands, to say "Yea" or "Nay" to any scheme dreamed up by any Secretary of State of any Party, and if it says "Yea" it may well do so in the knowledge that to say "Nay" would be to deprive authors yet longer of their just reward.
I turn now to the effects of these Amendments. They are to enable each House of Parliament to examine, criticise, and, if they see fit, amend the scheme when at last it sees the light of day. The process by which Amendments of each House

81
are to be accommodated to those of the other, should they be different, is deliberately omitted. I have an alternative Amendment to hand which specifies this. But it is cumbrous, restrictive and necessarily describes in detail what is in effect the process by which Amendments to Bills are harmonised between this House and another place. The advantage of the Amendments before the House at present is that they enable the usual channels to set up a joint standing committee to reach agreement in the event of disagreement. This is the scheme proposed by my noble friend Lord Eccles. In the light of his wisdom, the advice of the Table and my own understanding, I am confident that it is acceptable, or at least workable.
Finally, may I say that it establishes no new principle. It follows a perfectly respectable and practicable precedent, that of the Government of Burma Act 1935, Section 157(1). I will, if the Committee wishes, return to the Box to specify what would be envisaged as the sequence of events if it was necessary to harmonise the amendments to a draft scheme proposed in another place. But the alternative to this is to have a draft which, like a Statutory Instrument, cannot be amended in either House, and therefore one either takes it or leaves it, and if one leaves it one may leave it for a very long time. This is a sensitive issue because it is a skeleton Bill, an enabling Bill, one which may appeal to Governments as being a nice way of ducking out of precise legislation, legislating in fact by delegation. When Parliamentary pressures are so great, and pressure of business is so great in both Houses, there is great temptation to delegate as much work as may be in order to lighten the Parliamentary load. There is therefore a danger that this Amendment may show a means by which such legislation (which we should like to reduce, because there is too much legislation anyway) might be more attractive because it would be seen as a means of enabling more business to be done by the House; the bulk of the resultant work would be off-loaded on to somebody else's shoulders.
If that is the case, then the answer is simple: remove this Amendment, after we have inserted it, and put in its place the scheme which at present is not in the Bill and which we are not able to discuss
82
because it has not been presented to us. It seems that these are the two alternatives: either Parliament discusses the scheme as a whole with the Bill, or it has a right of amending the scheme submitted by a Secretary of State after taking advice in a form which does not limit it to the Statutory Instrument procedure which excludes the possibility of amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount ECCLES: I should like to support my noble friend. We have heard from the Minister more than once that he is going to work with his Department on getting out a scheme. We have also heard indications that it may be a considerable period before the scheme comes before Parliament. My noble friend has referred to a large number of points on which we are ignorant today as to exactly how this right, if it is a right, is to be claimed. For instance, as regards the entitlement, we do not know whether or not there is to be a cut-off point at a low level. If the figure is to be £4 or £5, then I suppose, roughly speaking, the average expenses would be about £5 per author. I do not think that another place would agree that public money should be handed out to authors in such small sums that the cost of handing it out is greater than the sum involved. It is not for us to deal with this here. My noble friend and I have had experience on finance Bills in another place, and I am perfectly sure that there would be objections to a scheme where the cost of distribution would be more than the author would receive. So this really implies that nothing is to be paid below £5 or £10. Similarly, we do not know whether or not there is to be an upper limit. This point was referred to earlier in connection with the American novelist. We do not know about these things.
Certainly it is quite true that the Minister has said that he will consult with authors' and libraries' representatives in the working out of the scheme from now onwards, because there are so many things still to be settled. But, after all, Parliament is responsible for seeing that the scheme, when put into operation, is as fair as it can be made, and for seeing, particularly, that the public money involved is being spent in a sensible manner. Unless this scheme is amendable, we shall have the simple choice of either accepting it as it is or throwing it out. I am quite positive that

83
that is not in the best interests of authors; nor do I think it would be fair to librarians, because we ought to try to help them to get some improvements made.
Now I come to the point on which I am sure the Government will rely in trying to reject the Amendment. They will say that it is unconstitutional and that they do not like what we have proposed; but, as my noble friend has already pointed out, there are formidable precedents for amending delegated legislation. But I do not think there can ever have been a precedent for such a disgraceful Bill, in the sense that it is only a framework and Parliament is left knowing nothing at all about how rough the justice will be as between one author and another. We do not even know how the sample is to be arranged. That is very important. Many people in the library world believe that by sampling only 72 libraries it is not possible to get a method of calculating the assessment which the authors could possibly accept. We should like to have the chance to look at all those things.
I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept either this Amendment or another one which does what this one is intended to do; in other words, to make it possible for both Houses of Parliament, where there are many authors and many Members representing local authorities who are very anxious about the effect on the public library service of the scheme we are discussing. I think we should give them a chance to amend the scheme, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept either this Amendment or another one which has the same effect.
Lord DONALDSON of K INGSBRIDGE: This is a very grave Amendment so far as I am concerned. I do not think I can accept it; nor do I think I ought to. On the other hand, I can see the intention behind it and, as usual, noble Lords opposite are less than wholly unreasonable in what they are suggesting. We have a system of running Parliament, and it would be a marked departure from modern practice to amend subordinate legislation, and particularly to put in a Bill in advance. There would have to be very special grounds for such a departure and this could have major implications for
84
all future legislation. A good deal of legislation is carried on in this subordinate way, which is a convenience for everybody. However, it seems to me that if there is something wrong with this system —and who am I, who have never sat in the other place to hold a view?— it should be dealt with after due consideration by a properly appointed body to look at constitutional practice and not be suddenly dealt with in a Bill of this kind.
I am afraid that my attitude is absolutely clear. I have no intention of accepting this Amendment—not because I think it would be undesirable for the two Houses of Parliament to discuss these points in detail before they are presented to them, but because of the constitutional position which the noble Viscount said he knew would be the Government's defence, as indeed it is. In fact, I do not think this measure is likely to give rise to the difficulties which such special treatment would necessitate.
I accept that there may be points in the draft scheme which will not suit everyone, but we must remember two things. First, there will be full consultation on the preparation of the scheme. Noble Lords have insisted on what might be described as "mandatory consultation" in connection with a clause we discussed earlier. There will be full consultation, as I say, on the preparation of the scheme, and there will be ample opportunity for the people most affected to put forward their views, which will be very carefully examined. If either House is not satisfied with the principles laid down in the scheme, it can reject it and ask the Secretary of State to think again. This has been the long-established procedure of both Houses and I do not consider that the nature of any changes of detail that might be sought in this scheme could possible warrant such a major departure from it. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not find it necessary to press this Amendment, but I must say that my hope is a rather slender one.
There has been reference to the 1935 Act, which separated India and Burma and gave each of them a Constitution. That Act is not really a true analogy. It has 478 sections and 16 Schedules, and it occupies 430 of the 1076 pages of the Law Reports edition of the Statutes enacted in 1935. It is a far stretch to make this analogy and, though the noble

85
Viscount is capable of stretching a long way, I think this is a little too far. In the ordinary way, if a draft order or other instrument is not approved, the Government amend it and submit a fresh draft to Parliament. The suggestion that this cannot be discussed is not true. It will be discussed in full and the reasons for rejecting it will be given in full. The Government will have to think again and produce something else. This is not a final and arbitrary thing; it is a detailed opportunity to discuss something. I really do not understand the intensity of feeling which has been evinced over this, to me, rather technical point.
The comparison between this and the 1935 Act will not do. The formula which was used in connection with the 1935 Act did not enable Parliament to amend orders made under the Act in the way in which Bills are amended. The short answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is that if the scheme, in the opinion of either House, is substantially defective in any respect, that House will not approve the scheme and the Government will have to submit a fresh scheme with the defects removed.
If he takes the point that the two Houses will not be able to insist on the removal of minor defects without prejudicing the establishment of the whole scheme, the answer is that one of the main purposes of dealing with a matter by subordinate, as distinct from primary, legislation is to keep matters of detail away from Parliament; or, if you prefer to look at it in a slightly different way, to save Parliament the trouble of having to look at points of detail. I know that noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, feel very strongly about this point but I am afraid that I can yield not at all.
Lord CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has been performing this afternoon as if he had been Minister for the Arts for years and I congratulate him, but I have not been entirely convinced by what he has just said. He was good enough to say to my noble friend below the gangway, as I understood him, that the reasons underlying his Amendment were not unreasonable, and then he proceeded to say that in spite of that he was not going to do anything about it and, anyway,
86
nothing needed to be done. It seemed a little contradictory.
As I understand it, the Government have produced a Bill which is just a framework, and when the Minister feels like it he can put some flesh on the skeleton and then bring it to the House and we have either to take it or leave it. That is not what usually happens under subordinate legislation. Subordinate legislation usually operates under an Act which is clearly defined. In this case, everything is left to the subordinate legislation and what will happen when it comes to this House is that we shall either have to take it or not get anything. So from that point of view it is quite different from the usual subordinate legislation which we have to take in this House. If the noble Lord does not like the proposal of my noble friend behind me and if, as I understood him to say, what we are seeking is not totally unreasonable, then if he is not prepared to accept this Amendment will be give an undertaking that he will devise some other way, which will quieten the fears of those of us on this side who are not happy with his proposals?
Lord SHINWELL: My only qualification for intervening, and so far I have failed to interrupt the proceedings, is not that I have had five books published by various publishers, but that I am just as confused as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, appeared to be, at the observations which came from the Minister's lips. It is largely a matter of procedure. Not very long ago we had an acute controversy in your Lordships' House which derived from some turbulence in the newspaper industry, and the suggestion was made by one of my noble friends that in order to avoid further turbulence there should be provided a charter, which would result from consultation between the newspaper publishers and the journalists' profession. Eventually, the idea of a charter was accepted but that charter would derive only from consultation, from a scheme that would be somewhat lacking in specification and very much the framework that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred to in connection with this proposed legislation.
It seems to me that the real defect of this Bill—I do not want to indulge in a Second Reading speech, particularly because I

87
have so far failed to say anything about it—is that it is an enabling Bill, a framework of legislation. But nothing has been said, except in the course of some observations arising from proposed Amendments, about a scheme that would emerge as a result of consultation between the Secretary of State of whatever Government exists, the publishers, the authors and the members of local authorities who are responsible for the supervision of public libraries. That kind of scheme I could understand, because it would mean the provision of regulations that were consequent upon the consultations that took place from time to time.
Regulations are a fundamental, inevitable and essential part of much of our legislation. Almost 50 per cent. of the legislation that passes through another place and eventually through your Lordships' House is legislation of a delegated character which means regulations, and regulations mean orders and orders mean Statutory Instruments, and Statutory Instruments enable the House at any time it should so decide to propose either—it depends on the character of the legislation —an Affirmative Resolution or a Negative Resolution. If there had been such a Bill and a scheme as a result of consultation, with no specific reference to the sum to be apportioned among the authors by those responsible—the local authorities or whoever it happens to be—then the scheme would have eventually produced something in the nature of proposals and the Government might or might not have accepted it. But if the Government should decide at some stage under such a Bill to make a proposition—say £1 million or £5 million to be apportioned—and some objection was raised to it, or it was not regarded as sufficiently adequate by authors or other people concerned with the legislation, then an Affirmative Resolution or a Negative Resolution could be moved; and that is precisely what ought to be done in this case.
If I had my way, I would abolish the Bill at once and produce something in the nature of what I have just suggested—a framework of a Bill, an enabling Bill, but one that provides for consultation and a scheme as a result of consultation, and delegated legislation and a right, which is possessed by another place and by your Lordships' House, to propose one type
88
of Resolution or another—Affirmative or Negative. That should have been done. May I take the opportunity of congratulating the Minister on his elevation. He has been dealing with a very turbulent situation in Northern Ireland, and it now looks as if he will be involved in another turbulent situation. But my advice to him, from my experience of procedure in another place and of what has happened to enabling Bills and the like which have come before us from time to time, is that he should give the matter further consideration—not accept the Amendment, because even the Amendment is a little vacuous; there is a vacuum in it. I would not accept the Amendment, but I would not reject it out of hand. My advice to him is to say: "I will give the matter consideration and will take this back." It is obvious that there is a great deal of opposition to the nature of the Bill, to its provisions and to what its consequences are likely to be. So in the circumstances, I suggest that he should take my advice.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am grateful to my noble friend, first for his congratulations, and secondly for his advice, which I do not find it entirely easy to accept fully. I wonder whether it would be helpful if we agreed that the Government should publish a Consultative Document in advance of the scheme, so that everybody could discuss it without having to discuss it in Parliament, and so that the scheme, when it came out, would have had the advantage of everybody's view. I should be perfectly prepared to do this and I see no objection to it. One will have to do something very much like it in the consultations we are to have with the interested parties, and I can see no reason why such a document should not be published for everybody to comment on. That is as far as I can go. I hope that my noble friend will think that this is partly taking his advice. Also I hope very much that noble Lords will feel that they can accept this suggestion. If noble Lords believe that this system of legislation is wrong, I do not think we should try to put it right in this Bill. There should be a more official and constitutional way of altering this syetem of legislation. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept that offer.
Lord ELTON: Before we reach a conclusion, would the noble Lord tell the

89
Committee what the Government intend to do with the Consultative Document? Is the Consultative Document to be debated in Parliament? Would it then be withdrawn and a draft scheme drawn up in the light of the Parliamentary criticisms of both Houses?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: No; that is not the normal drill, is it? The Consultative Document will be available to anybody who wishes to make comments; and if political Parties wished to make comments, of course they could. It would be in the form of a Green Paper, or something of that kind.
Lord CARRINGTON: But presumably there would be no objection to debating the Consultative Document if it was put before the House?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: No; the objection would come only through the usual channels.
Lord ELTON: In the light of the noble Lord's suggestion, may I say with some hesitation that I think we should come back to this at Report stage. What the noble Lord has said does not alter the constitutional situation. It gives an opportunity to ventilate doubts, grievances and injustices, and that is one of the objects that we are seeking. The noble Lord has not excluded their ventilation in Parliament and that is something we are seeking, but what he has not done is to give Parliamentary right to amendment of the scheme itself. At this stage I am reluctant to withdraw the Amendment, but in the light of the noble Lord's own almost equally pessimistic undertaking to reconsider, I think that it would be churlish of me not to do so. Therefore, I think that is what we should do. However, I must tell the noble Lord now that at first glance I do not find myself entirely satisfied with what is, none the less, a new idea. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE Lord IRONSIDE moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 30, after ("on") insert ("registration").
The noble Lord said: There are two matters which are referred to in the
90
subsection. One is the entitlement to the right and the other is the extent of the right. Entitlement depends upon registration. Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, made it very clear that entitlement definitely depends on what is contained in the register. As I read this clause, entitlement does not depend on loans or on the scheme that is used to sample loans. The wording of this subsection is very technical and on the whole it is very difficult to understand its true meaning. The clause needs explanation. Whatever else is said in the clause, the Amendment makes it clear that entitlement depends upon registration. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord is perfectly right. Entitlement does depend on registration, which is dealt with in Clause 1(7)(a). The purpose of this subsection is not to define what entitlement depends on; it is to describe the nature of the scheme and how it will provide for authors' entitlement to payments. Therefore, it is not relevant to refer again to this question. I do not think that there is any difference between us. The facts as stated are in Clause 1(7)(a)—that the right depends on registration. The description of how it works is in Clause 3(3). I do not believe that there is anything to go for here. I do not know whether I have explained the situation to the noble Lord in a way which satisfies him, but I do not feel inclined to accept the Amendment as it stands.
Lord IRONSIDE: The noble Lord has explained the situation fairly clearly. It is a very difficult situation to understand and I think that the Committee is probably surprised that this kind of wording is used to cover this particular point concerning the scheme. However, I accept what the noble Lord has said and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("books") and insert ("works").
Lord DIGBY Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 37, after ("the") insert ("general").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25 which has the effect

91
of defining libraries as ones which lend to the general public. My reason for adding the word "general" is to find out the Government's attitude to school libraries. Most library authorities are also education authorities, and efficiency and economy dictate that the expertise and resources of the library service are often used to help the schools. In some counties all the school libraries are integrated with the public library service. I believe that the Government do not intend that school libraries should be included, and I hope that this Amendment will make it quite clear. In Wiltshire, however, the same book stock is used for public and school libraries. I hope that the Government will consider how these kind of cases will be dealt with under the Bill and that they will accept this Amendment, as I am sure they intend the Bill to apply to lending to the general public and not to particular groups. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord is making a valid point, although it is not a valid Amendment. In the first place, this particular clause defines "library" for the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, inserting the word "general" before the word "public" does not materially affect the definition. The term "the public" is in common use in legislation. I understand that the noble Lord's intention is to safeguard the provision by public libraries of books in bulk for use in schools, which is, of course, very important. A number of schools, instead of having their own libraries, use books in bulk from public libraries. It is the Government's intention to protect from public lending right the bulk use by schools of books from public libraries, and this will be covered in the scheme; but there is no place for putting it in the Bill and I do not believe that the addition of the word "general" would make any difference. However, the point is taken and will be dealt with in due course.
Lord DIGBY: That certainly answers part of my question; but there is, as I said, an instance in Wiltshire where the same book stock is used for public and school libraries. The book stock is not lent out in bulk to the libraries which then operate a library service. They are integrated rather more and I think that
92
there will be problems. I do not know whether the Minister would be prepared to look at this a little more in the light of the very complicated and different forms of the library service?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am quite prepared to go on record as saying that there will be problems of definition here which will have to be sorted out in the scheme, but I do not think it will be appropriate to deal with this in the Bill. If the noble Lord would like me to say more than that I will do so. I think he has a perfectly valid point, but this is not the place to deal with it.
Lord ELTON: Is this not exactly the kind of thing that will be included in the Green Paper?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Exactly.
Lord DIGBY: I thank the Minister for that answer and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 en bloc:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("books") and insert ("works")
line 3, leave out ("books") and insert ("works")
line 4, leave out ("books") and insert ("works").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
7.2 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 9, leave out from ("as") to ("expenditure") in line 10 and insert ("will reimburse them for any").
The noble Lord said: There is a certain unease among the county councils on this area and the Amendment is designed to seek clarification. It is intended to ensure that all additional expenditure incurred by authorities shall be reimbursed, including, for example, the possibility of redundancy payments if the initial work involved in the sampling machinery creates a need for the temporary employment of additional staff, for the labelling procedures, who later have to be dismissed. Having regard to current

93
financial and manpower restraints on local authorities the Association of County Councils in particular attaches great importance to the undertaking of the Government that no expenditure in relation to this Bill shall fall on local authorities. I hope this Amendment at least provides an opportunity for them to go clearly on record in this respect. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: I support strongly what my noble friend Lord Elton has just said. Local authorities have had much bitter experience in this field as a result of Parliamentary legislation which has been passed and which has in fact thrown heavy additional responsibility on the local authorities, generally with little reference during the passage of the legislation to the additional expenditure which would fall on local authorities and which almost invariably under-estimated the amount of that expenditure. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be able to agree with what my noble friend Lord Elton has said, and will give a clear undertaking to local authorities that they will be compensated for all additional expenditure falling on them as a result of this Bill. I am the more hopeful about that because in the Second Reading debate I think the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, raised this question and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said he could give the assurance that no additional expenditure would fall on the local authority. Therefore I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be able to give a satisfactory reply to my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think I can satisfy both noble Lords. The intention of the Government is perfectly clear, that in carrying out this scheme there should be no loss to the local authorities or the local libraries. I would rather look at the wording again than accept this Amendment, if the noble Lord is happy with that, because he knows the difficulties of drafting. The intention is clear. I hope on those terms the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I am most grateful for that undertaking and I look forward at Report stage to seeing the noble Lord's doubtless superior version of the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [The Register]:
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, and 35 en bloc:
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("books") and insert ("works")
line 25, leave out ("book") and insert ("work")
line 26, leave out ("books") and insert ("works")
line 30, leave out ("book") and insert ("work").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35, which are in identical terms.
Lord IRONSIDE Lord IRONSIDE moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("and amended") and insert ("amended and deleted").
The noble Lord said: In this clause I am not clear as to whether the words used in subsection (4) will allow an author or a title holder at his own wish to apply to have his entry deleted. There are a number of reasons why he might wish to do this, and I will mention some of them. He might be a successful and highly taxed author who wishes to see the Fund bring more benefit to the less well off author on the register; he might be elderly and wish to lessen the value of his estate upon his death; he might become wealthy, and in the event of the wealth tax he might wish to lessen his commitment in that respect, and as a title holder he might not take any interest in the scheme and wish to forgo payments. If, therefore, the clause is amended in this respect, to include deletions specifically, I think it could bring nothing but benefit to other authors and title holders.
I note that in Clause 4(5), which is the following subsection, the Registrar may remove entries from the register if there has been no movement on an account for ten years. I think that is probably right and proper, but I also feel that an author should be able, if he so wishes, to de-register voluntarily. I think this Amendment would allow him to do that if the clause as now drafted for the proposed scheme does not permit such a

95
transaction. I hope the Government will look sympathetically at this Amendment.
I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Once again I think this is a perfectly sensible Amendment. In my view it is desirable that authors should be able to de-register if they want to. I am not clear whether this Amendment is the right way to do it, nor am I clear whether this possibility appears somewhere else; in the time available I have not been able to find the right answer. I hope the noble Lord will leave it that we agree that authors should be able to get off the register of their own will, and at the Report stage we will suggest how this should be done.
Lord IRONSIDE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for indicating to the Committee his intentions. I think authors will probably benefit from being able to do this. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Page 4, line 36, leave out (" book ") and insert (" work ")
line 39, leave out (" book ") and insert (" work ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

" 4.—(1) There shall be established an Advisory Committee to be called the Public Lending Right Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Advisory Committee").

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, the Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than ten and not more than fifteen members, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) Of the members of the Advisory Committee, the Secretary of State shall appoint one to be Chairman and one to be deputy chairman of the Advisory Committee.

(4) In appointing persons to be members of the Advisory Committee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need for securing that a
96
majority of members are authors or representatives of authors' associations and that there are members who are able to represent the views of local authorities, public librarians and publishers.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order increase the maximum number of members of the Advisory Committee to such number as he may think fit.

(6) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to keep under review the operation of any scheme made under this Act and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to any action which in the opinion of the Advisory Committee it would be expedient for the Secretary of State to take under the powers conferred on him by this Act.

(7) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to provide the Advisory Committee, if it should so request, with information about the administration of any scheme made under this Act.

(8) The provisions of Schedule (Public Lending Right Advisory Committee) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Advisory Committee."

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to this Amendment and also to Amendment No. 43, which is a new Schedule. In view of what the Minister has so kindly said about consultation, and particularly because of the valuable suggestion that there should be a Consultative Document, I do not intend to move either of these Amendments.
Clause 5 [Citations, etc.]:
7.10 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 3, after (" force ") insert (" within twelve months of its passing ").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment; in fact it falls with Amendment No. 20. I merely intervene at this point to say that if the wickets continue to fall at this rate, the ground will be needed for another match rather sooner than expected. I congratulate the Committee on its speedy progress, and I do not move this Amendment.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BAIL BILL [H.L.]
7.13 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions about decisions on bail]:
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 40, leave out from (4 then ") to (" the court ") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House at the same time if I speak to, but do not move, Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. I apologise if I inadvertently inconvenienced the House and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, as a result of my absence from the House, but on the previous Bill the House moved with greater speed than had been predicted.
My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to correct an error in the Bill as published. The effect of Clause 5(3), (4) and (5) as it now reads is that the Crown Court, when withholding bail or imposing or varying conditions, is not required to give reasons, written or oral, to a represented defendant unless his counsel or solicitor asks for them. This was not the intention of the Government. It was intended that both the Crown Court and the magistrates' court should be required to give reasons in every case when withholding bail or imposing or varying conditions, but that, whereas the magistrates' court should always give the accused a copy of the note of the reasons, the Crown Court should be required to give such a written note only if, first, the defendant's counsel or solicitor requests it, or second, the defendant is unrepresented.
The reason for this distinction is to save unnecessary work at the Crown Court where the defendant is almost invariably represented, usually of course by both counsel and solicitors, and the legal representative ordinarily would take a note of reasons given orally. Most bail applications are, in any case, made to a magistrates' court in the first instance. As I have indicated, this Amendment seeks to put right an error in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I have no particular observations to make about this. I am sure we should send the Bill down to another place with this Amendment in it.
98
I have not had time to consider the implications very fully.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 7, after (" shall ") insert (" (except in a case where, by virtue of subsection (5A) below, this need not be done) ").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
(" (5A) The Crown Court need not give a copy of the note of the reasons for its decision to the person in relation to whom the decision was taken where that person is represented by counsel or a solicitor unless his counsel or solicitor requests the court to do so.")
Clause 8 [Bail with sureties]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 9, line 37, after (" below ") insert (", or in a case where the proposed surety resided in Scotland subsection (5A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, and for the convenience of the House, perhaps I might deal at the same time with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which incorporate the same point. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable a person in Scotland who wishes to stand as surety in criminal proceedings for a person granted bail by a court in England or Wales, to enter into his recognisance in Scotland before the Scottish police. The Amendment introduces a small but useful improvement in the present bail system, and overcomes a difficulty which has been the subject of criticism in recent years.
As the law now stands, a person in Scotland who wishes to stand as surety for a person granted bail in England or Wales has to cross the Border and enter into his recognisance before an appropriate person or court in England or Wales. Even where the Scottish surety is willing and able to do this, it may involve him in considerable expense, and can delay the release of an

99
accused. There are substantial differences between the bail systems in force in England and Wales and in Scotland, and these will remain after the present legislation is passed.
One relevant difference is that sureties in the English sense do not exist in Scottish law. The effect of the Amendment would be to give the court in England or Wales which grants bail the power to direct that where a proposed surety resides in Scotland and the court is satisfied of the suitability of the proposed surety, the surety may enter into his recognisances before any constable having charge at any police office or station in Scotland.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I have no particular observations to offer about this change.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
" (5A) Where this subsection applies, the court, if satisfied of the suitability of the proposed surety, may direct that arrangements be made for the recognizance of the surety to be entered into in Scotland before any constable, within the meaning of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, having charge at any police office or station in like manner as the recognizance would be entered into in England or Wales.".
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 39, after (" (4) ") insert ("or (5A)").
Clause 11 [Legal aid for bail decisions in certain cases]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, leave out line 22 and insert (" to the amendments made by this section.
(2) In section 28(1) (exercise of powers to grant legal aid), for the words "subsections (2) to (4) "there shall be substituted the words" subsections (1A) to (4) "; ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and perhaps speak at the same time to Nos. 9 to 16 inclusive and also No. 19. This series of Amendments deals exclusively with the
100
question of legal aid, and it is moved as a result of an undertaking I gave during Committee stage to look into a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that the court should be required to grant legal aid to a defendant remanded in custody for inquiries prior to sentence. The Amendments on the Marshalled List produce this result. This is achieved by inserting into Section 29(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1974 a new paragraph (d), which is the operative part of the Amendment. The other minor Amendments are consequential on this.
Generally speaking, a defendant who is remanded in custody for inquiries after conviction will have been granted legal aid at an earlier stage. This Amendment is therefore in the nature of a fail safe provision to cover a relatively small number of cases. Nevertheless, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was not without importance, if I may say so. We are grateful to him for having raised it. I hope the House will accept this Amendment and the others related to it.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having brought forward these Amendments, but I am sorry to say that I am doubtful whether they really achieve the purpose I had in mind, or indeed the purpose the noble Lord has in mind. What this clause and this series of Amendments does, as I understand it, is this: first, it adds to those occasions on which the magistrates, or the Crown Court for that matter, are obliged to grant legal aid; it adds to (a) and (b) in Section 29(1) of the Legal Aid Act. The other cases in which it is compulsory for the magistrates to grant legal aid, where the defendant is eligible, is where the defendant is charged with murder, or the prosecutor is appealing to the House of Lords against a decision of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
This Amendment has the intention of adding to Clause 11 of the Bill as it stands a further situation where it is compulsory for the magistrates to grant legal aid. This Amendment, as I understand it, is to provide for the case where a court—and in particular this applies to magistrates' courts—has before it somebody who has been tried and convicted, and then the magistrates decide that they want to put the case back, remand the case, in order that inquiries of one kind of another

101
can be made. If they are contemplating remanding him in custody, then he shall be provided with legal aid at that stage to argue the matter of bail. That, as I understand it, is the object.
But what in fact happens? The situation which arises is surely this. An unrepresented defendant is before the magistrates' court; he is tried, the magistrates decide to convict him; they decide, because of the inadequacy of the information that they have about him, to remand the case for three weeks, or whatever it may be, for medical report or something of that kind. It is at that moment of time that this clause is intended to give the defendant representation, legal aid, in order to make an application for bail. But how is it accomplished?— because the court cannot foresee that they are going to find themselves in this situation; they cannot foresee that they are going to convict him and then set the case back for a period of time. The processes by which legal aid is obtained—that is, filling up an application form, nominating a particular solicitor, investigation into the means of the defendant to see whether he is eligible for legal aid—cannot be gone through at that point of time.
The magistrates would be in an impossible situation. They are being required compulsorily to provide legal aid for that person at that moment, and before he is sent away into custody, in order that he can make his application for bail. But you cannot go through the machinery by which legal aid has to be obtained under the Legal Aid Act. When a duty officer is available he can make an application, but that is not under the Legal Aid Act at all. He is not providing legal aid under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. If you want to give a person legal aid under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, you have to go through the procedures of filling up a form, nominating a solicitor, inquiring into the person's means and the rest.
The only way in which I can see this being put right would be by adding some words to this clause providing, say, that in such a situation as this, where the magistrates have convicted and are minded to send the case back for inquiries, they should be under an obligation to remand him for not more than 24 hours in order that the legal aid procedures can be complied with and somebody found to represent him.
102
I am afraid that at the moment, as it stands, it seems to me, regrettably, that this is really quite unworkable. The magistrates would be faced with an intolerable situation, because, under Section 29(1) this is one of the cases where it is compulsory for them to provide legal aid, and yet they do not have the means and machinery by which they can do it. Although I have no doubt that the Government's intention was to try to meet one of the situations I was talking about at Committee stage, I am afraid this does not really accomplish it. I would respectfully recommend to the Minister that he should take this back again and see whether the machinery could be put in order, because at the present moment it seems to be me to quite unworkable.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government will, of course, gladly consider whether, at a later stage, there is a need to look at the precise phraseology of this series of Amendments. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not take quite such a pessimistic view as he does. I accept, of course, that we are talking, as I indicated earlier, about a relatively limited number of cases. I am not sure—and I would not want to commit myself at the moment—whether the precise formula the noble Lord has suggested would be a particularly appropriate or workable one; namely, to put a case back for 24 hours, during which period, the legal aid certificate having been granted, there would be a second appearance. I will gladly look into the matter, but the noble Lord will understand that I cannot commit myself at this stage.
I think, as he rightly says, we are talking here about the post-conviction situation, as to what one does in a case of a person who the court decide they wish to remand in custody particularly for medical reports. When they have seen a defendant, let us say on the morning after, they come to the conclusion that they want some form of psychiatric or medical examination. I will look into the point which the noble Lord raised as to whether at a later stage this particular formula which he has suggested is capable of being implemented, but, as he will recognise, I could not commit myself at this juncture.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Is the noble Lord suggesting

103
that he should withdraw his Amendment pending this consideration, or that we pass his Amendment?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am suggesting that the House should pass the Amendment and then we will look into the question of whether, at a later stage of the Bill, we can go into this point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 en bloc:
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("(a)") and insert (" (3) ")
line 29, leave out ("(b)") and insert (" (4)")
line 32, leave out (" further ")
leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert—
(" (5) After paragraph (c) of section 29(1) inserted by subsection (4) above, there shall be added a further paragraph (preceded by the word or ") as follows—
"(d) where a person who is to be sentenced or dealt with for an offence by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court is to be kept in custody to enable inquiries or a report to be made to assist the court in sentencing or dealing with him for the offence; "
(6) After section 29(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
" (1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall require a magistrates' court, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection, to order that the person charged ").
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("(c)") and insert (" (7) ")
line 9, leave out (" Subsection (1)(c) ") and insert (" Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) ")
line 16, leave out ("(d)") and insert (" (8) ")
line 21, at end insert—
(" (9) In section 30(12) (interpretation), for the words "In section 28 above" there shall be inserted the words "In sections 28 and 29 above".").
Schedule 1 [Bail of accused persons: supplementary provisions]:
7.32 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 17
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
(" ( ) In applying their minds to the question whether a risk of the matters referred to in
104
paragraph 1 of this Schedule be unacceptable the court shall take account of all relevant considerations but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing shall take into account the following considerations as relevant where capable of assessment:

(i) the seriousness and nature of the offence alleged;

(ii) the character record and community ties and associations of the accused;

(iii) the question whether the accused has has at any time failed to comply with the conditions of bail including the obligation to present himself at court.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that I can take this Amendment quite shortly because of an indication which has courteously been given me by the noble Lord on the Government Bench. I need not explain its purpose at any great length because the Committee stage is still fresh in your Lordships' minds. I would say in passing that I would, following an undertaking I made in Committee, have accepted the Amendment to it which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has down on the Marshalled List. If, as I anticipate, the Government say that they want to draft an Amendment of their own at a subsequent stage embodying the principle of mine, then of course the noble and learned Lord's Amendment will suffer the same fate as mine. I am sure that he will accept from me that I am entirely behind him in making this change in my own Amendment, as I promised to be on the earlier occasion.
As I explained at a previous moment the object of this is to give a court, in coming to the conclusion which is prescribed for it in the amended form we passed on Committee, a number of guidelines as to the kind of thing they ought to look at. There is the general phrase, of all relevant considerations", and then, "without prejudice to the generality" of that general phrase, three matters are now included. These are:
"… the seriousness and nature of the offence alleged; the character record and community ties and associations of the accused; the question whether the accused has at any time failed to comply with the conditions of bail including the obligation to present himself at court."
I omitted the fourth factor which I had originally proposed in Committee because it ran into criticism from the Committee when I proposed it and i thought that it was fair to propose it at this stage in the shorter form. I shall not expatiate on

105
that point, because all I am now doing is to move the Amendment formally in the hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accepting the principle which underlines it. I beg to move.
Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER moved Amendment No. 18 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 17:
In Head (ii), after (" record ") insert (" other than a conviction which has become spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Harris would deal with it in his reply.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I shall gladly do that. First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, indicated, we have considered this matter, as I said we would, and I have discussed this matter with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and it is our intention to put down an Amendment at the Third Reading of the Bill in this House to deal with this particular point. As the noble and learned Lord will recognise, there are certain drafting difficulties, although he has got very nearly alpha for his drafting capacity, but I think we must go even further to attempt alpha plus, so far as this Amendment is concerned. That being so, in the interval between now and Third Reading of the Bill, we should like to look at the precise drafting of it.
Might I just deal briefly with the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. I am not clear whether my noble and learned friend would like to intervene at this stage, or whether it would be appropriate for me to speak after he has spoken to his Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord has moved it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right; he has. I will certainly consider carefully this point made by my noble and learned friend. As I hardly have to tell him, he having been the person who inspired the passing of the 1974 Act, the
106
Act provides that, subject to certain exceptions provided for in it, or by order, a person can become rehabilitated in respect of a conviction for which any sentence was imposed except severe sentences of two and a half years or more, which are excluded for the purposes of rehabilitation, provided that during the rehabilitation period he does not receive a sentence of the excluded kind for a further conviction. The effect of rehabilitation is that for most purposes a rehabilitated person is to be treated as if he had never committed, been charged with, or convicted of, or sentenced for the offence concerned. Thus he does not have to reveal it or admit its existence when applying for a job, and an employer cannot refuse to employ someone, or dismiss someone, on the grounds that he has a spent conviction. However, a major exception provided for in the Act itself is that the Act does not, as a matter of law, apply to criminal proceedings. Evidence of spent convictions is therefore admissible in such proceedings before a court in Great Britain. My noble and learned friend's Amendment to exclude information about spent convictions being available to a court which is considering the grant of bail would therefore constitute a reversal of the exception provided in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
If such convictions are admissible for other purposes in criminal proceedings, it seems to us to be inconsistent to create a special exemption for bail applications. Moreover, it can reasonably be contended that where a court is considering the question of whether it is probable that a person will fail to appear for his trial, and that person has previously failed to appear, a previous conviction on this ground would remain relevant indefinitely for this particular purpose, though of course clearly its importance would diminish over a period of time. That is our view of the matter. We are making here a significant change in the law as it applies to bail applications, but as we at present consider the matter we are not convinced that it is appropriate to pass an Amendment of this sort which would in fact have the effect of excluding information from the court.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, might I speak on the principal Amendment rather than on the Amendment to the Amend-

107
ment. I would welcome the principle expressed in the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, particularly where it makes clear, I hope, once and for all, that the seriousness of the offence is not in itself a ground for objecting to bail but simply a highly relevant matter which the court must consider in deciding whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused would fail to surrender to custody.
If the Minister is going to reconsider the wording of the Amendment, might I ask him to consider whether, when the question is raised as to the wording, "the seriousness and nature of the offence alleged", there ought not to be included some reference to the nature of the evidence or the strength of the case against the defendant. I say that for this reason: a very serious offence, where there is a written admission of guilt, might lead a court to say that that in itself might provide an unacceptable risk that the accused may fail to surrender to custody. Precisely the same offence, where the only evidence is the rather dubious fleeting identification of a single prosecution witness, might lead a court to a wholly different view, and in those circumstances, although I concede of course that the matter is covered by the general expression "take account of all relevant considerations", I would ask the Minister to consider whether it might not be preferable that a specific indication should be given that the weight of the evidence is a matter that might be borne in mind.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said, I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment. But first let me say that I accept the view which he has put forward in relation to the courts so far as being outside the Act, but I submit that, having regard to the fact that no serious criminal, or at least nobody who has had a sentence of more than two and a half years, has had the Act applied to him at all, and in view of the time in any event which must pass, the courts ought not in fact in relation to bail have to deal with spent convictions at all. I should like to know, if not at this stage then at the next stage of the Bill, whether the Government
108
would not agree that this should be dealt with in the way in which court proceedings are dealt with in relation to the Act, namely, by a direction from the Lord Chief Justice and advice to magistrates by the Home Office, which I understand is now working extremely well. Subject to that, and while associating myself largely with the views which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has expressed about the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that leaves the substantive Amendment. I am very grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has dealt with it and in view of the fact that he has promised to deal with it in that way, I shall in a moment ask leave to withdraw that one, too. Regarding the controversy between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord on the Front Bench, I shall observe a totally neutral attitude, probably willing to take the Government's view about it. I had at first sight, as Lord Gardiner knows, wholly endorsed what he had said and I do not want at the moment to resile from that position. I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said about my Amendment. With those brief comments, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, No. 17.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 19:
Line 5, at end insert (" and for legal aid for persons remanded in custody for inquiries or reports ").

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.] (Petitioner for Additional Provision)
Examiners Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with: Referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  SUPPLY OF GOODS: LAW REVISION
  SUPPLY OF GOODS: LAW REVISION
  PATRIAL BRITISH SUBJECTS: DOMICILE
  PATRIAL BRITISH SUBJECTS: DOMICILE
  NON-PATRIAL BRITISH SUBJECTS: DOMICILE
  NON-PATRIAL BRITISH SUBJECTS: DOMICILE
  EEC: MOVEMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
  EEC: MOVEMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
  EEC: DEFINITION OF "NATIONALS"
  EEC: DEFINITION OF "NATIONALS"