Sitting of 2 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEES TUNNEL BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.

  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts).
  As amended, considered.
  Amendments made to the Bill.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    School Management (Taylor Committee)
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects the Taylor Committee to complete its deliberations.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I hope to receive the Committee's report by next Easter.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Secretary of State agree that when the report is published, if effect is to be given to the Government's new-found enthusiasm for the maintenance of standards in education it will be important to reject any suggestion that the rôle of governors and managers in the supervision of the curriculum should be diminished in any way?
    Mrs. Williams: The Government have been concerned about standards throughout their period in office. It would be unwise to anticipate my decision on the Taylor Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State not share the hope that the outcome will be a bigger rôle for parents in school management and government? Could it not result in being something of an answer to the concern expressed by the Prime Minister that if parents were more involved in education there would be more effective pressure for basic standards than can be provided from the centre?
    Mrs. Williams: I am anxious to involve parents. That is why the Government have made clear that for the first time parents will be involved in consultations about proposals for the curriculum.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many schools the managers and governors are parents?
    Mrs. Williams: That is true, but my hon. Friend will know that there are differences between local authorities. Increased parental participation is something which the Government wish to encourage.

    School Curricula
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the Prime Minister's recent speech on education, she will now answer questions on curricular matters.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I do not have detailed responsibility for curricula in maintained schools; the 1944 Education Act places this on local education authorities and school governors and managers. As I made clear in a speech at Rotherham on 22nd October, however, I have a close concern for the school curriculum in general, and intend to embark upon a series of consultations about this issue.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Secretary of State prepared to introduce a policy of minimum standards of literacy and numeracy to be determined at the ages of 7, 11 and 14?
    Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had read my speech at Rotherham—I do not blame him if he has not—he will be aware that we propose that there should be consultations in advance of any proposals to be made at the turn of the year. We propose to involve teachers' organisations, local authorities, the two sides of industry and—so far as we can involve them—interested parents. It would be most foolish of me to say now, in advance, what the Government's proposals are, since I intend to consult freely and honestly with those groups and to put forward proposals in the light of discussions.
    Mr. Newens: Is it not illogical that hon. Members may ask questions about the training of teachers but not about the shortage of teachers in particular subjects? Is it not high time that some change was made, so that hon. Members can probe the situation in the schools to ensure that criticisms are not made of comprehensive education in principle when the grounds for criticism lie elsewhere?
    Mrs. Williams: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. I intend that Parliament should be included in the discussions.
    Mr. St John-Stevas: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box in her important new post and on being the third Minister
    1176
    appointed to shadow me. I hope that she will have more success and be more moderate than her predecessors.
    I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is naturally cautious about committing herself, but does she agree that it would be inappropriate for her Department to behave as though we have a set centrally -controlled curriculum? Does she not think it would be appropriate and desirable for her Department to lay down national standards of attainment?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that shadowing a sun like himself is always very difficult. The sun moves round in 24-hour cycles, and here it has started up again.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed the Government's view that there is no question of State control of the curriculum. That would be a long step backwards. What we intend to do is to seek the achievement of basic school standards of the kind for which many parents have been pressing, but this must not involve any attempt at direct central control of the curriculum—something which none of us would want.
    Mr. Roderick: Will my right hon. Friend remind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there is a world of difference between education and training, and that he should not be lured into confusion by the advice of industrialists, who have tended to take a narrow view of education over the years?
    Mrs. Williams: There is much truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I think he would not disagree that over the last two years of schooling there is a need for links between the world of employment and the world of schooling. In my view this must be a two-way and not a one-way traffic.

    School Transport
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has received any new evidence or comments on the rules relating to school transport from local education authorities in England since the beginning of the current academic year; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has

    1177
    completed consultations with local authorities on the subject of school transport.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): Consultations on the proposals outlined in the Department's consultative document are complete and no new evidence or comments have come to hand since the beginning of the current academic year. My right hon. Friend is looking at the question of school transport generally but is not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Madel: Is the hon. Lady aware that parents are becoming very concerned about the three-mile limit, especially where an education authority such as Bedfordshire is going comprehensive and over the academic year the catchment area of schools is changed? Is there not a case for introducing a shorter distance with a flat-rate charge for parents, not least because of the annual changes in the catchment areas affecting so many people in a growing county such as mine?
    Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman may not have fully realised that it is within the power of local authorities to make discretionary as well as mandatory payments. If in Bedfordshire the changing situation year by year gives rise to particular difficulty it is open to the hon. Gentleman's local authority to seek to make adjustments on either side.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a county such as mine—Gloucestershire—in the county education office an inordinate amount of time is now spent dealing with problems related to school transport? Is she further aware that there is great concern in my constituency about the withdrawal of concessionary fares? Will she please introduce legislation rapidly to rationalise this chaotic situation?
    Miss Jackson: I am only too well aware that the withdrawal of concessionary fares has exacerbated a situation already growing increasingly difficult year by year. The problems created for many parents are very grave. However, the fundamental difficulty that we face is not only that many parents are extremely
    1178
    disturbed about any proposed change but that local authorities are opposed to a change. We are trying to see a way through this difficult problem.
    Mr. Luce: Does the hon. Lady realise that as bus fares increase parents who live just inside the statutory limit feel growing resentment against those who receive all the benefits and live outside the limit? In the light of the current economic situation and in order to be fairer to those people, would it not be more sensible now to introduce a standard fare for all?
    Miss Jackson: This was part of the basis of the scheme put forward to local authorities and interested bodies some time ago. Revised versions of the proposals were circulated in an attempt to find something acceptable to all parties. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are trying to make progress, but we are not getting much co-operation.

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the probable reduction in numbers of home and overseas postgraduate students in the universities that will result from the increase in fees to £750 per annum.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): In the academic year 1977–78 the reduction in projected numbers might be between 3,000 and 7,000 for home students and between 1,000 and 3,000 for overseas students. However, both the proposals and their statistical consequences are still under review.
    Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend and the Government consider overcoming the serious shortage of postgraduate students by allowing unemployed graduates to register for suitable postgraduate courses without loss of their social security benefit and with payment of fees by the State?
    Mr. Oakes: That is basically a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services. Under the present financial constraints I cannot see that it would be possible to put my hon. Friend's plan into operation.
    Dr. Hampson: Will the Minister confirm that raising an extra £48 million from fees by 1978–79 will involve a 50 per cent. increase on next year's levels of £650 and £750? Will he therefore explain the need for further restrictions on the flow of overseas students by the cumbersome and costly procedure that he and the Home Office are to announce in a circular?
    Mr. Oakes: The proposals and their statistical consequences are still under review. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Press speculation to which the hon. Gentleman alluded in the last part of his question bears no relation to the level of fee. Consultation documents issued to various bodies are now being presented to the Press as Government policy, whereas no break with the existing policy is suggested in those documents.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the payment of fees by about 100 different public bodies to about 100 different academic institutions in respect of 300,000 students is a bureaucratic idiocy, as virtually all the money comes out of public funds anyway? The whole system is nonsensical.
    Mr. Oakes: It does not all come out of public funds. A considerable proportion for postgraduate students comes by way of grants from industry or from students who pay for themselves.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Well said.
    Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that still up to one-third of the science postgraduates in many universities are foreign students? Does he agree that at a time of economic stringency charity should begin a little nearer home? In order to make up some of the shortfall that the increase in fees may cause in postgraduate numbers in scientific departments of universities, will the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of differential grants to encourage, in engineering and science, a bigger uptake of domestic places by United Kingdom graduates?
    Mr. Oakes: I should welcome a bigger uptake by domestic students. Unfortunately, although the position is now slightly better, we do not have that uptake. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is so easy and cut-
    1180
    and-dried a question. Charity does begin at home by the education that we can give to foreign students. Britain benefits to a considerable extent from the spin-off resulting from their being educated here.

    Truancy
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place with the local education authorities on truancy and related matters since June 1976.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: No formal discussions have been held since the meeting in June with representatives of the local authority and teacher associations and other educational bodies concerned. The follow-up action has been planned and will be taken in association with local education authorities.
    Mr. McCrindle: As truancy appears to be concentrated in the larger cities and in the age group between 15 and 16, has the hon. Lady any plans to reconsider her policy on the school leaving age? In particular, is she considering returning some discretion to the teacher on the question when a child is allowed to leave during the last year?
    Miss Jackson: The school leaving age was raised some time ago, but it is a little soon to decide to make a change. Giving teachers discretion to say when a child should leave would require a change in legislation, and Opposition Members are always complaining about the pressures on our legislative time. In some areas the problem will be accentuated by the leaving age being raised to 16, but essentially it is much more a problem of individual cases, and these can be more easily dealt with by teachers and by individual authorities. There are not many recent figures, but figures from ILEA relating to surveys this year show a small but definite improvement in truancy rates. It is a welcome sign, and one for which we have been looking for a considerable time.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill becomes Members of Parliament to lecture parents and education authorities and others about truancy when hon. Members, day in and day out, play truant from this House? Does she

    1181
    not also agree that last night's vote was another vindication of this theory?
    Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend's observations are interesting, but I do not think that I should comment on them.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will the hon. Lady ask her Department to require local authorities to publish truancy figures? Is not there a link between truancy among 15- and 16-year-old children and the enormous increase in juvenile crime?
    Miss Jackson: Given that we do not have adequate statistics in regard to absences from school, I believe that it would be dangerous to draw conclusions from statistics that do not exist in great numbers. Local authorities are already free to publish truancy data if they choose to do so. We as a Government have not decided to collect those figures and draw them together, because they are difficult to interpret and are not always collected on the same basis from one local authority to another. It is open to local authorities to publish their own figures, and of course it is equally open to hon. Members to press their local authorities to do so.
    Dr. Boyson: We welcome the figures showing an ostensible decline in truancy rates in ILEA, but should we not be sure that the figures on the registers are correct? Was it not the case at one time for inspectors as well as chairmen of governors to check school registers? Now that inspectors are to visit schools in connection with curricula, why cannot they check the registers too—bearing in mind that publications such as Where?, which is by no means a Right-wing publication, have thrown doubt on the validity of many school registers?
    Miss Jackson: Although there are problems connected with truancy and ways in which teachers and local authorities can try to bring about a decline in the figures, at present there are many other matters to which our over-worked inspectorate could turn its mind. I am willing to inquire into this matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, but he seems to be suggesting that because he does not accept the validity of such statistics, somebody else should produce some other results. A good deal of work would be involved in such an exercise
    1182
    and, as I have said, such efforts could perhaps be better directed.

    Policy Formulation
    Mr. Bryan Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the process of policy formulation in her Department is sufficiently open to public participation.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In its Tenth Report this Session the Expenditure Committee made some recommendations about public participation in policy making in my Department, to which the Government will respond shortly in their reply to the report. The Prime Minister and I have already proposed a major public debate on the curriculum.
    Mr. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that heartening reply, but will she accept that public debate will scarcely get oil the ground unless great efforts are made to improve public participation in fundamental planning decisions by the Department? Does she accept that it is necessary to define the word "shortly", as used in her reply, in the hope that responses to reports of the Expenditure Committee will be made in a sharper manner than precedents in the last 18 months to two years have illustrated?
    Mrs. Williams: In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope to give a reply this month, which will be a period of only three months after the Committee reported.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will recall that I have already published not only my answer to the Schools Council's proposals for an examination at 16-plus and for the CEE but also a full appendix and my reasons, and have laid the papers before Parliament. I intend to continue this style of open government. It is much better to do that than to have government by "leak", especially an irresponsible leak, such as that in The Guardian this morning, suggesting that the Government are planning something in terms of a document that Ministers have not yet seen.
    Mr. George Gardiner: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that, ideally, consultations should go beyond professional bodies and embrace spokesmen for the

    1183
    great consuming public? Will she consider the Expenditure Committee's proposal that membership of the Schools Council should be opened up to include many more lay members?
    Mrs. Williams: The subject of the Schools Council composition was raised in the Expenditure Committee's Report, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await my considered reply. It would be unwise to give that reply in bits and pieces.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regard the consultation procedure in the Department of Education and Science as a little better than some of the procedures adopted in other great Departments of State? Is she further aware that, however much one may deplore the "leak", as she calls it, in The Guardian today, it raises profound issues about the function of our educational institutions? Is she aware that many Labour Members would gravely deplore our educational institutions being brought into a policing role in regard to immigrants?
    Mrs. Williams: I share some of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend but, as I have already made clear, Ministers in the Department have not finally approved the document; nor, indeed, have they seen it. Therefore, I believe that the material published in The Guardian this morning is very misleading and could create a great deal of worry and alarm among those concerned. It will not be of assistance to good international relations or to good race relations in this country.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Has the Secretary of State not revealed a grave situation in her Department if documents of this importance can be obtained by the Press before Ministers have even seen them? Will she instigate an inquiry within her Department to see how this situation came about? It is clear that not only the Home Office is concerned; her Department is, too.
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is barking slightly up the wrong tree. The document was first issued for consultation in 1973, and consultations have been taking place since that time. What has now appeared is an updated version
    1184
    of the 1973 draft circular—which, as I said, was never issued—without any fresh policy decisions contained within it. It will have to come before Ministers—as, indeed do all circulars—before it is finally issued. Before that happens, it is normally the case with updated documents that we engage in a round of consultations with those concerned. I wish to make it clear that the Government have made no decision, though no objective person who read The Guardian report would have come to that conclusion. I think that he or she would have come to the conclusion that a decision had been made by the Government on the circular. That is not so.

    School Games Kit
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will alter the regulations to enable local authorities to help in cases of parental financial need for school games kit since evidence suggests truancy to avoid humiliation by children whose circumstances do not enable them to have the proper kit.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Local education authorities already have discretionary powers to help in such cases by providing kit free on loan, and if matters are handled sympathetically these powers are sufficiently wide to avoid this kind of problem.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an anomaly in the situation under which local authorities have discretionary powers in regard to school uniforms but appear to have no discretionary powers in regard to other equipment and in certain cases have to use subterfuges? Would it not be better if there were a directive to local authorities giving them a power of discretion?
    Miss Jackson: There is a power of discretion, but it is only to provide kit to be given on loan to children. Local authorities do not have discretion to provide kit directly to children that will then become their property. I am afraid that it is not possible to change the situation, even though it is a difficult one, by issuing directives. The matter would involve amending legislation, and could be discussed only in the context of the subject of school uniforms, PE kit, and all

    1185
    the rest of it. It could not, therefore, be undertaken in a hurry.

    Science Research Council
    Mr. Macfarlaneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet had discussions with the Chairman of the Science Research Council.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes Sir, on 1st November.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am grateful that that meeting has taken place? Is she not seriously concerned at the cut-backs forced upon the Science Research Council which may well prevent it from sustaining the necessary standard of education and research in universities? Can she give the House an assurance that after giving science a low priority for two and a half years the Government will provide new initiatives and encouragement?
    Mrs. Williams: It is true that the science budget has suffered from a limited reduction in the current year. However, the much more serious factor which has affected the budget has been the effect on international subscriptions of the fall in the value of the pound, since international subscriptions are expressed in currency units and not in national currencies. We are consulting about this matter. As a result of my discussions with the Chairman of the Science Research Council and also with the Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils I have concluded that a good deal of new and important work will, nevertheless, be able to go ahead.
    Mr. Nelson: Will the right hon. Lady say whether she has had discussions with the SRC about the progress of the teaching companies experiment which is being carried out in conjunction with the Department of Industry? Does she feel that this experiment is doing anything more than paying lip service to the need for a greater degree of technology transfer and for a better relationship between universities and industry? Will she consider extending the scheme to far more companies than the present limited number, which tend to be in the higher echelon of industrial performance and
    1186
    are consequently not open to a large number of postgraduate students?
    Mrs. Williams: The "teaching company" concept is an interesting one. We have to see how the experiment works out before extending it. It would be disastrous to extend it and then to discover that it was a failure. What we should do is to see whether the experiment works out and whether it can be extended not only to universities but to polytechnics, so that far more students of engineering technologies can gain direct and first-hand experience in industry while studying.

    GCE and CSE Examinations
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has now met the Schools Council to discuss its proposal to replace the GCE and the CSE with a single examination.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I met the Chairman of the Schools Council on Monday 25th October, and look forward to further discussions.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she deserves our congratulations for her answer to Sir Alex Smith and his proposals? Can she ever envisage a common examination standard for all 16- to 19-year-olds which will not tend to impair examination standards and thus harm the employment chances of young people?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may not have understood what was proposed by the Schools Council. It was not a common examination standard or even, for that matter, after the first stages, a common examination. What the Council recommended ultimately was a common examination system. I want to make it clear that, for obvious reasons, with small groupings of a specialised kind, there would be great advantages in a common examination system. I believe that we have first to satisfy ourselves on two points, the first being that a common examination system can be applied across what is now nearly 80 per cent. of the school population taking some formal examination at 16 and, secondly, that the administrative and financial complications, which are quite considerable, can be satisfactorily resolved. If these two

    1187
    criteria can be met I, for one, would welcome a common system of examination. I remain to be persuaded that they can be met.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if there were two or three separate examinations at 16-plus, many of the qualities which are required could not be examined? Does she also agree that having a universal system of examination would take some of the responsibility from future employers for making their assessment of these other qualities, which at the moment they are sometimes not anxious to do?
    Mrs. Williams: I see my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that examinations should be asked to do what they cannot do. Where we have, as at present, a fair amount of employer and industrial confidence in the CSE and GCE system, it is important to establish that there would be equal confidence in any successor system. I am talking just about examinations.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Lady agree that if more parents and industrialists were members of the Schools Council, instead of just teachers, these ridiculous proposals of the Council would never have emerged?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed my reply to one of his hon. Friend's earlier questions on the subject of the Select Committee's recommendations. I must ask the House to await my considered reply to its report.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us are dubious about a common examination at the age of 16? We are worried that the attempt to have such an examination may throw doubt on the credibility of academic standards in examinations at the very time when education is in turmoil—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that both sides of the House today are altering Question Time and making speeches? It is not on one side; it is on both sides. It has been happening all afternoon.
    Dr. Boyson: The point was made by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Minister aware that 40 per cent. of the least academic children currently take no examination? Would
    1188
    it not be practical to have a vocational examination for these people, so that they are not put into CSE classes, where most of them fail, to the disadvantage of themselves, the schools, and the country?
    Mrs. Williams: I have already said that there are great advantages in a common system of examination, because it would enable considerable teaching economies to be made. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I would point out that whereas only three out of five children in our secondary schools passed some public examination of any kind in 1972, by 1974 the figure had risen to four out of five. Many of the criticisms that educational standards are falling are utterly beside the point.

    Universities (Science and Technology Vacancies)
    Mr. Hookyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places in science and technological subjects, other than medicine or dentistry, but including mathematics, remained unfilled in October 1976 in the universities and polytechnics of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Oakes: In terms of physical capacity in science and technology departments, there are something like 27,000 such places, which would allow for an increase in annual entry of about 9,000 in universities in Great Britain and polytechnics in England and Wales. These figures take no account of the availability of staff, and other resources, which also determine the number of students that may be accepted in particular disciplines.
    Mr. Hooky: Does my hon. Friend agree that the critical decision is made by boys and girls about their higher education not at 18 but at 16? Does he further agree that we shall be lumbered with this problem of a shortage of technologists and scientists until we do something about excessive specialisation in the sixth form? Will he address his mind to that?
    Mr. Oakes: I do address my mind to that. I disagree with my hon. Friend that a decision is necessarily taken as late as 16. Sometimes decisions to drop mathematics or science are taken at 12 or 13 as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech at Ruskin College.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister of State accept that the shortages of scientists and technologists in industry are a result not only of the education that they receive but of the education received by managers in industry who often do not know how to use people of high qualification, which leads to people being frustrated and deters others from entering upon such a career?
    Mr. Oakes: It is true to say that industry needs to improve its image and that that image must conform to reality. It is a two-way process. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has encouraged this national debate on education, so that the two sides can talk to each other.

    Comprehensive Education (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has yet received proposals from the Kent County Council concerning comprehensive reorganisation throughout that authority's area.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is the Minister aware of the recent decision of the Kent Education Committee to continue a "Tame-side" system throughout parts of the county? Is she further aware that that system merely replaces selection at 11 by selection at 13? Will she make it clear to the Kent County Council that when the Education Bill becomes law it is her intention to make sure that the system I have described is replaced by a fully comprehensive system?
    Miss Jackson: When the Education Bill becomes law it is our intention to see a fully comprehensive system of education in Kent, as in every other part of the country.
    Mr. Dodsworth: Will the hon. Lady confirm that if she receives any proposals from the Kent County Council she will take into account any discussions that she has had with the Hertfordshire County Council, where over 22 children are not at school, due to the dissatisfaction of the parents with the process of secondary transfer that is taking place in that county council, directly resulting from the reorganisation of education within the county?
    Miss Jackson: Every year in every local authority there are always a number of parents who are unhappy with the selection procedures for their children. Within the strict limits that we are allowed we do our best, as do local authorities, to ensure that these problems are solved as amicably as possible in the interests of the children.

    Mathematics
    Dr. Hampsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will establish an inquiry into all aspects of the teaching of mathematics in schools.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The question of mathematics teaching is bound to arise in the forthcoming consultations about the curriculum and standards. I intend to await the results of that consultation before considering whether an inquiry on these lines would be the best way of proceeding.
    Dr. Hampson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that 11 months ago, in a speech at Sheffield, her predecessor called for a strong attack on mathematical illiteracy, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely agreed? Is she aware that it has been our policy to have a Bullock-type inquiry into mathematics in all its aspects? Why has a year been wasted?
    Mrs. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like everything to happen yesterday, but it is not like that in education. In 1977 work is expected to be completed on an assessment of ways of monitoring standards for mathematics. In 1978 there will be a major national sample survey of mathematics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that to go ahead with ill-thought-out and ill-proven materials would be wholly self-defeating.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many former mathematics teachers like myself would very much welcome an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics? Is she further aware that the so-called modern mathematics, while they may be the right media for producing mathematics graduates, are not necessarily the right type of teaching for the mass of children who leave school at 16? If my right hon. Friend sets up an inquiry

    1191
    of any kind, will she ensure that there are not too many university people on it, as they are largely responsible for the change that has taken place in the past 10 years?
    Mrs. Williams: The problem that arises from an inquiry, as my hon. Friend will know better than most people in the House, is that it usually takes a very long time to report—probably between two years and three years from being established. I do not believe that we have as long as that. Therefore, I am already proposing to take certain actions that are likely to give us a picture of what is happening in mathematics a good deal more quickly than would be the case with an inquiry. As I have already said, I remain agnostic about whether we should have an inquiry. That will have to await a later decision.

    Teaching Methods
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now reconsider the decision not to commission an independent full-scale investigation of teaching methods in British schools.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I do not rule this out, but in general I am opposed to inquiries with terms of reference so widely drawn.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the somewhat lofty manner in which my right hon. Friend's Department set aside as partial the evidence of Dr. Neville Bennett about teaching in primary schools, does my right hon. Friend accept that only her Department has the resources to institute a truly wide-ranging investigation into this subject, which worries parents almost as much as questions of curricula?
    Mrs. Williams: I must say straight away that it was Dr. Bennett who congratulated my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State upon the way in which she interpreted his evidence to the House and deplored the way in which certain other hon. Members interpreted his findings. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I refer him to the answer that I have just given. There is always endless pressure for further inquiries in the education world.
    1192
    Sometimes it seems that we should take a little action.
    Sir John Hall: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is a considerable amount of disquiet about teaching in primary schools, especially when this so often leads to the necessity for secondary schools to establish remedial classes to deal with children who cannot write or read properly? Will she reconsider her decision not to carry out an investigation into teaching methods, particularly in primary schools?
    Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been an inquiry into precisely this matter—namely, the Bullock inquiry, which continued for nearly three years. It concerned itself precisely with reading standards in primary schools. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman's point makes my point for me.

    Handicraft Courses
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is concerned that poorer children are being deterred from undertaking handicraft courses because of the substantial increase in the cost of materials, including wood and metal, which some secondary schools cannot afford to purchase in sufficient quantity for their pupils and which pupils often cannot afford to purchase.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Although the provision of materials for courses in maintained schools is primarily a matter for local authorities and the schools themselves, I should certainly be concerned if I received evidence of arrangements which deterred poorer children in this way.
    Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a situation in which schools seem unable to provide all the materials that are required, and in which a number of children are penalised because they cannot afford to purchase the required materials, and although they would like to enter such courses they cannot? Does she agree that in borderline cases the quality of materials used can determine whether an entrant passes or fails a handicraft examination?
    Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend could well write to me about this matter. We have no knowledge of areas where this is a particularly significant problem. It may be that my hon. Friend is not making a distinction between the arrangements where materials are supplied free of charge and where there is a charge if the pupil wishes to keep the finished article. However, if he is talking—as he appears to be—about the supplying of materials, I should like to hear from him about the matter.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Gowasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 2nd November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, this evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Prime Minister make time today to reread the broadcast that he made to the nation on 5th April, when he said that there could be no lasting improvement in our living standards unless we stopped going deeper and deeper into debt? How does he reconcile that statement with the reality that during the past seven months the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added to the national debt by more than £6,000 million?
    The Prime Minister: It shows that the recovery of a country that has declined over the past 20 years takes longer than six months, and that industrial regeneration, upon which the fortunes of this country are based and which has received the approval of the CBI, the TUC and the Government, is the best way in which we can make Britain fully competitive again. Until that time we shall have to continue slowly in the right direction.
    Mr. David Steel: Were any of the ministerial meetings to which the right hon. Gentleman referred related to the progress of the talks at Geneva on the Rhodesian settlement? Will he give the House an assurance that although Mr. Ivor Richard is clearly doing a splendid job as chairman, the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to send the Foreign Secretary
    1194
    if that should prove necessary to maintain the momentum of British initiative towards a settlement?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Ivor Richard, whose experience is well known and who is proving, as I think he has done at the United Nations, to be an excellent chairman in gaining the confidence of everyone at the talks. As for the attendance of my right hon. Friend, who is now on a visit to Yugoslavia, he has indicated that if necessary he would go to Geneva. However, it seems to us at present that in this period of delicate negotiations Mr. Richard is well able to conduct the talks. I hope that there will be some progress.
    Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very sorry that his programme for today will not allow him to make a visit to my constituency, especially to Skelmersdale? Is he aware of the black despair that has settled over the town following the announcement by Courtaulds that it is shortly to close? If we say in the Labour Party that Socialism is the language of priorities, when my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am making a most serious point. If we say that Socialism is the language of priorities, will my right hon. Friend assure my people in Skelmersdale that they will be given the highest priority by the Labour Government, even if that means rescheduling some of the Government Departments that are to be transferred to places that are not in half as much need as is Skelmersdale?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend and I visited Skelmersdale together only two months ago. I am bound to say that I formed a much better impression both of the attributes of the town and of the labour force than I gained from the Press and by reading. I was under the strong impression then that Courtaulds intended to continue with the factory. I understand that today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been meeting Sir Arthur Knight, the Chairman of Courtaulds, and I think that a statement is expected shortly. Certainly it is important that every step should be taken to restore employment in Skelmersdale—a town that has a considerable future if those who are there can bring themselves,

    1195
    as I am sure they can, to work productively and competitively.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I refer back to the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? As the right hon. Gentleman said in that original broadcast that we cannot go on borrowing indefinitely, and as he will not reduce Government expenditure, is he expecting to increase taxation in order to get the IMF loan?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady really must wait upon the discussions that are taking place at this moment—[Interruption.]—but I can assure her that if there are any announcements to be made they will be made in this House in due course, and at the time that the Government choose and not as a result of shouting from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his broadcast on "Panorama" he gave two broad hints which he refused to give the House? He said that there was scope for increased taxation and that there was a margin for increased taxation. Do I understand that he has now ruled out increased taxation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady can draw any deduction she likes. In that broadcast on "Panorama" I was giving to a semi-philosophical question a wholly philosophical reply—that is to say, I was comparing the general levels of taxation in response to the question that had been asked. The right hon. Lady should not draw any more deductions from it than the weight of the answer will bear.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Prime Minister take time off his official engagements today and reflect on the very serious unemployment and investment situation in Scotland? Does he agree that the only way in which unemployment and inflation can be brought down and investment increased in Scotland is by the establishment of a strong Scots pound and the lower rates of interest that will follow from the marriage between self-government and Scotland's inherently stable balance of payments situation?
    The Prime Minister: I have read the concoction that is apparently intended to prescribe financial and economic policy
    1196
    for Scotland. If I were an elector there, I would not be very attracted by it.

  EDUCATION
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on education, delivered at Ruskin College. Oxford, on Monday 18th October.
  Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on education in Oxford on 18th October.
  Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on education on 18th October at Oxford.
  The Prime Minister: I did so the same day.
  Mr. Roberts: Has the Prime Minister considered that the general reluctance of young people to enter industry as opposed to the public service may be due to the comparative uncertainty of employment in industry and of the comparatively poor rewards that there appear to be for middle management?
  The Prime Minister: I think that there is something in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. When there are high levels of unemployment, certainty and security in employment are a very great attraction, and that must have an impact. But I think that it goes deeper than that. I doubt whether most of the 550,000 youngsters who left school in June and July—all of whom, I am glad to say, are now off the register, except for 78,000—were really concerned at that stage about rewards to middle management. What we need is a closer relationship between schools and industry at all levels, and I hope that that will be encouraged.
  Mr. Corbett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech on education. Has he considered the possibility of an inquiry into the supply, training, and qualifications of people in the professional engineering occupations, so that, in order to achieve the reinvigoration of British industry, we have this professional interest?
  The Prime Minister: All these matters must come under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has indicated that we are going to focus attention on this whole range of issues, and I hope that she will be able to produce either a Green Paper or something in another form which will enable us to bring these matters into full discussion so that conclusions can be reached on them. I am in no doubt, as a result of the correspondence that has reached me since I directed attention to this matter—although I know that others have been doing it for some time—that there is genuine concern in industry and a strong desire on the part of the schools to try to meet the need. We must bring them both together.
  Mr. Morrison: In the Prime Minister's welcome but belated concern about standards in education, will he now take the obvious step of dropping the Education Bill at once?
  The Prime Minister: It is that approach to education which distinguishes the two sides, and shows that the hon. Gentleman is concerned only with making party points and with trying to attack a particular system of education. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are concerned about is the quality of the education in the schools today.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Since my right hon. Friend wants a full public debate on education, will he take it upon himself to instruct the Department of Education and Science that when a Select Committee of this House seeks access to documents pertaining to the deciding of priorities within the Department those documents must be made available to the Committee, and not refused?
  The Prime Minister: I will inquire into that. I am not aware of the circumstance to which my hon. Friend is drawing my attention. I am quite certain that what has been said and the attention which has been focused on this matter represent the views of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of parents, and that it is something to which the whole House must turn its attention.
  Mr. Tebbit: Will the Prime Minister accept our congratulations on the fact that he is at last beginning to understand the concern that has been expressed from the Opposition side of the House about these matters for so long? Will he, as Prime Minister, consider intervening in what would appear to be an interdepartmental wrangle and taking away from the Department of Education and Science the responsibility for the Careers Advisory Service? Will he put it into the hands of people who have had genuine contact with industry, instead of leaving it in the hands of the somewhat remote people who run it at present?
  The Prime Minister: I have been impressed by the fact that the quality of the careers officers in a number of schools does vary. In some schools it is much better than in others. Whether a change in structure would effect an improvement, however, I am not sure, but I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
  Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the economic difficulties afflicting most of Western society, his speech on education was warmly welcomed by ordinary people? Will he make another speech and make it clear that he will in no wav undertake to submit to the clamour of the Conservative Party to inflict savage cuts on education, which would be the equivalent of eating the seed corn?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that I have now been invited to make a speech at Woodberry Down School on 9th November, where I have no doubt that I shall have something further to say about this matter. This is an area in which I naturally want to see the high level of public expenditure that is devoted to education—about £6 billion a year—used in proper priority, if necessary reordering the existing priorities, so that we can get real value for money.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whilst welcoming the Prime Minister's support of our ideas on standards in education, and understanding the difficulties that there may be in dropping the Education Bill, may I ask whether, as an earnest of his sincerity, he can now give an undertaking

  1199
  that no local education authority will be forced into going comprehensive without being given adequate financial resources to make a good job of it and avoid botched-up schemes?
  The Prime Minister: The Opposition's pathological dislike of comprehensive schools is exceeded only by the reaction of Pavlov's dogs when the bell rings. If the hon. Gentleman would concern himself more with the content and less with the structure of education, we might do very much better.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (DISPUTE)
Mr. Gorst Mr. Gorst (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the industrial dispute affecting Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd., which could be forced into liquidation by the end of this week with the loss of 300 jobs if the illegal withholding of mail by the Union of Post Office Workers continues.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that some 140 employees of this company have been on strike since 23rd August, initially in support of 10 other employees who, it is claimed, were dismissed unfairly. The strikers themselves were subsequently dismissed by the company.
The strike has been made official by the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, which is claiming recognition. At the request of the Association, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has several times sought to persuade the company to accept its assistance in seeking an end to the dispute but the company has so far refused to meet the union.
On 15th October the union referred the recognition issue to ACAS under the statutory procedure provided in the Employment Protection Act. An inquiry by ACAS is, I understand, proceeding.
Members of other unions are taking sympathetic industrial action, including action by members of the Union of Post Office Workers which is affecting postal services to the company.
1200
Given the history and circumstances of this dispute, I would hope that the company will even now agree to participate in meetings with the union under the auspices of ACAS in a search for the earliest possible settlement of the issues in dispute.
Mr. Gorst: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is possible that there may well be a dispute about some of the facts, as seen by the management. The managing director is a constituent of mine. I put to the Minister that the action by the Union of Post Office Workers is in direct contradiction to the provisions of Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953, which states that any officer of the Post Office who wilfully fails to handle mail is guilty of a misdemeanour.
Will the Minister say whether this provision has been brought to the attention of the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers? If so, will he, in the light of that, be withdrawing this industrial action? If industrial action is not withdrawn, will proceedings under the Act be taken against those who are involved?
Mr. Walker: I think that what is beyond dispute is that there is interference with the mail—although this started only yesterday, I understand. I am sure that the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers is quite familiar with the law in this respect. It is not for me to judge the legality or illegality of such action. I understand, however, that if the company would respond to the proposals of ACAS for conciliation and the use of the Section 11 procedure under the Employment Protection Act, the union would immediately call off its action.
Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that this firm employs Asians who work in disgraceful conditions and that immediately they join APEX they are sacked? Will the Minister, therefore, explain to the firm that the first step in avoiding liquidation is to negotiate with APEX in order to get a settlement?
Mr. Walker: I have heard some very disturbing stories about the behaviour of the company, but we all recognise that what is necessary now is that steps should be taken to bring the dispute to a speedy end. I hope that the company will take

1201
advantage of the willingness of ACAS to conciliate and to use the Section 11 procedure to which I have referred.
Mr. Tebbit: Without entering into the merits of the dispute one way or the other, may I ask the Minister whether he will now advise Post Office workers that it is no part of their job to discriminate in the delivery of mail in response to industrial disputes, political likes and dislikes, or any other factor whatsoever? The Minister should make the position clear now. Is he aware that, if he does not do so, it will be assumed that he is at least conniving in—if not giving complete approval to—the use of the mails as a weapon of industrial warfare?
Mr. Walker: No, I think it is perhaps a symptom of the character of this dispute that reasonable and moderate men feel sufficiently outraged to take the action they have taken. I have no doubt that the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers—the action taken has now been made official—is fully aware of the law. The whole House will recognise him as a reasonable and moderate man who would not take such action unless provoked into it.
Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that most of the workers in this factory are in my constituency, and that the factory itself is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)? We have had no notification from the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in the usual courteous manner.
Is the Minister also aware that the history of this dispute goes back over many years, and that the company is intransigent and sends rude letters to me and to my right hon. Friend? We get no proper response to our letters. It is the only firm in the whole of my constituency which treats its workers in this deplorable fashion. [Interruption.]
Mr. Walker: I am bound to say that I am surprised at the reaction of Conservative Members to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has just said. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) have played a thoroughly useful and constructive role throughout this long dispute, urging the company to take advantage of the conciliation machinery
1202
provided by the Government—machinery which has secured the approval and support of all parties in this House.
Mr. Prior: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has said about the attitude of the Post Office workers, will the Minister join me in hoping that reasonable and moderate men in the Union of Post Office Workers will be very careful not to break the law in this case, although they may feel aggrieved at the treatment being meted out to other workers?
In view of the fact that an inquiry is proceeding into a recognition dispute under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, and that ACAS has the necessary power now to decide on a recognition issue, would it not be better in those circumstances if advice were given to the people concerned to return to work pending the ACAS report? We may otherwise have an increase in the number of unemployed people, and I am sure that we wish to avoid that.
Mr. Walker: I am sure that we all want people in disputes anywhere to observe the law. We are all as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman that any possible loss of jobs arising from this sorry dispute should be avoided. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to encourage the company to use the conciliation machinery which has his blessing. The right way in which to bring a speedy end to the dispute is to get the parties to sit down together—as they will have to do eventually—under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that this firm has been exploiting coloured immigrants by paying them as little as £23 a week? As the firm's business is conducted mainly by mail order, is it not obvious that a sympathetic union such as the Union of Post Office Workers will take action to prevent this sort of exploitation, and that if the firm refuses to negotiate with ACAS the best thing it can do is to go into liquidation?
Mr. Walker: I said earlier that I had heard disturbing reports about the company's conduct. What we all want now is to seek to bring the dispute to a speedy end and to avoid at this stage the use of any words which might impede that

1203
process. However, there may well be some wider issues deserving of more careful consideration once the dispute has been resolved.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate it now.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate that when applications are made for Private Notice Questions affecting matters of national importance, there is some sort of general convention that they are raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, other applications are made which involve direct constituency interests, and on some of those occasions, although not all, a Private Notice Question will be accepted in the first place by you and then answered.
Having listened to these proceedings for the last 10 minutes, I feel bound to wonder—as, indeed, do some of my hon. Friends—how the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who was responsible for putting down the Private Notice Question, managed somehow or other, in very unusual circumstances, to get it through the tight control exercised by you before allowing a Private Notice Question.
Mr. Pavitt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your ruling. I know the procedure very well. But will you also bear in mind that it is not the practice of Mr. Speaker's Department to inform hon. Members if their constituencies are affected by a Private Notice Question? For future reference, would you look into whether that decision should be altered?
Mr. Speaker: It is quite impossible for me—as I must take responsibility—to have a map in order to see where particular factories are and in whose constituency they are. I deal with the issue. The House has vested me with this discretion, which I exercise very carefully, as the House has discovered. I realise that I am very cautious in my attitude. If I think that a Question should go to the Order Paper and not jump the queue, I am not slow in indicating so.
1204
I can only say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I went into this matter with great care before the Question was allowed. I felt that there was some urgency and that a statement was required. That was my judgment.
Mr. Spriggs Mr. Spriggs rose— —
Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow a debate on what I have said.
Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to be helpful in my point of order. May I put it to you that an hon. Member applying for a PNQ should state definitely whether it is a constituency matter?
Mr. Gorst: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I might make three points on this. First, the matter was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who is the managing director of the firm concerned. Secondly, the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which this dispute has arisen is in fact a Minister and, therefore, would be unable to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in the way that I could. Thirdly, the issue is much more important than the jobs of 300 people, important as they may be. It has national connotations in that the action of the Post Office workers is a threat to the nation as a whole.
Mr. Speaker: I find it a very difficult task to deal with Private Notice Questions because I have to have the interests of the House as a whole at heart as well as those of the hon. Member who asks the Question.
With regard to the helpful point of order raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), I am afraid that I cannot decide Private Notice Questions on the basis that a Private Notice Question is only a constituency matter. It may well be a matter of national concern. But I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Buchan: I have followed your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in the course of which I think you have answered the point that I wished to make, that in the future, it would be seen as a convention of the House that, where it is a constituency matter, that should be said, and,

1205
where it is not, that also should be said in the application.
Mr. Ridley: Many hon. Members, myself included, feel that it is quite intolerable for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to have questioned your decision, Mr. Speaker, to call this Private Notice Question. Your job would become quite intolerable if you had to answer and defend every decision to call or not to call a Private Notice Question. May we, therefore, assure you that from the Opposition Benches there will be no support for the bullying line of questioning on bogus points of order adopted by Government supporters?
Mr. Speaker: I try to deal courteously with everyone in the House who raises any question, and I assume that an hon. Member who does intends to be courteous.
Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we can all agree that it would be most unfortunate if, every time a Private Notice Question were allowed, there were to be an inquest into the way in which you had exercised your discretion or an attempt to rewrite Standing Orders. There are other ways of doing that. I hope very much that, simply because of the rather spiteful disappointment of one hon. Member that something with which he does not happen to agree has been allowed, there will be no suggestion that applications for Private Notice Questions should be in any way limited to constituency interests.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I made that clear earlier. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for what he said in his opening remarks. I think that the House must accept the ruling of its Speaker on these matters.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order— —
Mr. Speaker: This must be the last point of order that I shall take on this matter.
Mr. Faulds: I trust that it will be. In view of the conduct of the disgraceful Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in not informing the Members more immediately concerned, would it not be
1206
advisable that you Mr. Speaker, or his own conscience, should prick him to apologise to the Members more immediately concerned?
Mr. Speaker: Relationships between hon. Members are not my concern. But I hope that they are always of top quality.

SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asked me whether I would he willing to have lists of my provisional selection of amendments placed in the "No" Lobby, as is done in the case of the selection of amendments to Bills. I shall be very glad to do this if we have a similar occasion to yesterday's debate when there were a number of amendments to different lines of the motion. I doubt, however, whether it would serve any useful purpose if, for example, selection lists were placed in the Lobby announcing that I proposed to select a Government amendment to an Opposition motion in Supply. If the House is willing to leave these matters to my discretion, I will do my best to see that lion. Members are informed in advance by selection lists whenever this seems to be indicated.

FISHERIES POLICY
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, make a statement about the outcome of a discussion of fisheries questions at a meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers in the Hague on 30th October.
I am glad to report that Foreign Ministers reached agreement on the matters which they had been unable to resolve in the Council on 18th and 19th October. It was agreed that member States of the Community should extend their fishing limits to 200 miles as from 1st January. Agreement was also reached on the outline mandates which will enable the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on framework agreements which will govern future Community fishing in the waters of those

1207
countries, and third country fishing in the waters of member States.
The House is aware of the particular urgency in the negotiations with Iceland, and I am glad to say that the Commission will start negotiations with the Icelandic Government very shortly. On the internal aspects of the Community's fishery policy, the details will have to be dealt with at a later stage. The Council did, however, agree that, in applying the common fisheries policy, account should be taken of the vital needs of the fishing communities in regions particularly dependent on fishing including inter alia the northern parts of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary again made clear that the Government had in no way modified their view on the width and scope of the coastal arrangements which we are seeking.
Mr. Pym: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the agreement to move the limits and are pleased that that has been achieved? Does he accept that more than a framework agreement with Iceland will be required to deal with the situation which arises in the United Kingdom only on 1st December? On the crucial importance of the internal arrangements, I think that the House is agreed about objectives. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Foreign Secretary will be accompanied in his negotiations by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture? Can he confirm that fisheries will be on the agenda and discussed at the Heads of Government meeting at the end of the month?
How is the 200-mile limit to be policed and enforced? Where are the vessels to undertake the task and how is it to be organised? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the details needing to be dealt with later. Is he aware of the urgency and the need to reach agreement by 1st January 1977 so that the partners in the Community will know where they are? Why does the Minister single out the northern parts of the United Kingdom apparently as being particularly dependent upon fishing whereas in reality other parts of the United Kingdom are affected as well?
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I readily confirm that there is considerable urgency in relation to Iceland and a need to make an arrangement there by 1st December. That, of course, has considerable impact on the deep-sea fishing. The Commission is well aware of that, particularly the Commissioner who is dealing with this matter at present.
As for the internal arrangements, it would be of advantage if all these matters could be agreed by 1st January. It would undoubtedly be better, but we must take a realistic view of the negotiations. There is still a formidable gap between the countries of the Nine about the internal régime and it would be optimistic to believe that we would get total agreement by 1st January—although I should be happy to see it.
As for the Heads of Government meeting, of course any Head of Government can put an item on the agenda for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this matter would be discussed at the end of the month. I have no doubt that if we reached a situation in which there was no possibility of agreement with Iceland, the Prime Minister would wish to discuss the matter with his fellow Heads of Government, but if we can reach some agreement—negotiations are proceeding smoothly—it may be better for that to be discussed later.
Enforcement and policing are crucial parts of any internal regime. It is well known that the Commission has put forward proposals dealing with quotas. There is great scepticism about quotas, largely because of the enforcement procedures. This is therefore a central issue to be discussed as part of the internal regime, and it will be discussed.
Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the dismay felt in all parts of the House following the massive compromise made by the members of our delegation in the European Parliament on this matter and the fact that we were unfortunately scuppered by the Irish delegation? I hope that he will convey to the Foreign Secretary, who is also a Humberside Member, the strong feeling that we have now achieved a massive breakthrough and can now attempt negotiations with the Icelanders, the Norwegians and others, such as the

1209
Canadians. We wish him and his team success in this difficult matter of achieving a system of banded zones of 12, 35 or 50 miles within the 50-mile exclusive economic zone which all parties in the House desire.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words about the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend has throughout upheld both the interests of the deep-water fishermen, of whom he has considerable knowledge because of his constituency, and the need for an arrangement on the internal regime to protect the coastal fishermen. A substantial change has been made. The fact that we have been able to get the Council to endorse what the Commission said in its document about the northern region—the first time that that has been stipulated—means that it is now a Council agreement. That is a substantial advance and the wording makes it clear that there are other regions, notably the southwest, all around the coast of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland which we also wish to protect.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call every hon. Member with a direct constituency interest in this matter, but I can do so only if hon. Members will make their questions as succinct as possible.
Mr. Powell: As the extension to 200 miles is a decision jointly taken and as, under the Treaty of Accession, the waters between 12 and 200 miles are now in effect Community waters, is there any mutual acceptance of responsibility for the policing of those waters?
Dr. Owen: This is still to be discussed. There are two different views on the question. Some fishermen in the United Kingdom would wish enforcement to be still a United Kingdom responsibility and are sceptical about the advantages of the Community. There are other smaller Community countries without the resources to do an effective policing job over a large area of sea. That was the matter raised by the Irish.
Mr. Beith: In drawing particular attention to the northern parts of the United Kingdom, are the Government making clear their recognition of the needs of the fishing communities in Northumberland,
1210
something which their predecessors did not do?
Dr. Owen: I do not wish to be involved in drawing a map at this stage, but I am well aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is why the wording is cast in a fairly broad sense and talks about northern regions of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I add my congratulations to the team who have begun on what may still be a very long haul before we get satisfaction? Can the Minister confirm that the Scottish Office will be represented when it comes to discussing the internal arrangements for the fishing régime?
Dr. Owen: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland took part actively in the discussions on 18th and 19th October and has been closely associated with this matter. I discussed this issue with him on Saturday over the telephone.
Mr. Watt: May I congratulate the Government on their decision to extend the limits to 200 miles? Does the Minister recognise that urgency still exists until we get a 50-mile exclusive zone for Scottish fishermen? So long as our partners in the EEC—namely, the Danes and the Belgians—are allowed to rape our waters by industrial fishing, our entire fishing stocks will be in extreme danger?
Dr. Owen: Her Majesty's Government will look after the interests of British fishermen from wherever in the United Kingdom they come.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that Irish Ministers achieved a better deal for Irish fishermen than British Ministers did for British fishermen? Is he aware that there are many people in Scotland who will seriously question the benefits of British representation at the EEC? Is he aware of the seriousness of this matter and the grave responsibility which rests with him for the unity of the United Kingdom? If he fails to satisfy the legitimate needs of Scottish fishermen, he will fan the flames of separatism much more fiercely than all the nationalists and other extremists put together.
Dr. Owen: I am only too well aware of that. If we had been prepared to acquiesce in an arrangement which did

1211
not recognise the special problems of the United Kingdom, we should have had agreement much earlier. It was because my right hon. Friend fought for a recognition of the special interests of the United Kingdom that the negotiations took such a long time.
Mr. Prescott: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the extension to 200 miles. However, would he fasten his attention on the real problem? That is the internal fishing policy and the fact that we may be playing off one area against another when what we should do is to consider an alternative policy of coastal control for conservation and quotas agreed with the Community, which would be an alternative to the exclusive zone argument.
Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that what we are discussing is fish. That is the central issue on which the livelihood of fishermen depends. Therefore, it is right to look seriously at conservation, enforcement and the viability of any system of quotas. However, at the moment the British view remains that we do not believe that we can sufficiently safeguard the interests of the British fishermen without some form of coastal zones.
Mr. John Davies: Would the Minister confirm, so that there can be no vestige of doubt, that his right hon. Friend has agreed in the Council of Ministers with the other Foreign Ministers on a 200-mile fisheries zone and not an exclusive economic zone, which has overtones going well beyond the cause of fisheries?
Dr. Owen: I can confirm that interpretation, which is an important one.
Mr. Jay: Are we then moving to a situation in which Iceland, Norway and other countries obtain a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone while we have to share most of ours with eight other countries?
Dr. Owen: We are moving towards a readjustment of the common fisheries policy, which it was accepted at the time of our accession had many unsatisfactory features. It is difficult to renegotiate that, but we are taking the opportunity of the extension to 200 miles to try to arrange a common fisheries policy which
1212
takes into account the interests of British fishermen rather more than hitherto.
Mr. Wall: Will the Minister explain why all the reports indicate that Ireland received better assurances for a 50-mile limit than were given to Britain? Is he aware that the real battle will be over the 50-mile limit? Is he aware of the explosive anger that will be demonstrated by the whole fishing industry if we fail to obtain a 50-mile exclusive limit?
Dr. Owen: That is a little rich coming from the hon. Gentleman who supported a system which gave no safeguards for fishermen. I do not wish to turn this into a political issue between the two sides of the House, but it does not lie in the mouths of the Conservatives to criticise us in our difficult task of recovering lost ground. We shall do so as far as is humanly possible.
Mr. Bowden: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the inshore fishermen on the South Coast are facing a particularly difficult problem? Will he ensure that when the final area is agreed for exclusive use that will also mean the cancellation of all historic rights?
Dr. Owen: That is an issue that may need to be discussed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Commission's proposals for keeping to the 12-mile limit and allowing historic rights. Once one embarks on the subject of historic rights and seeks to revert to that situation, one is asking for substantial changes not envisaged at the time of the common fisheries policy.
All hon. Members will have to recognise that we are trying to regain a situation that was given away. It will not be easy to do that, and it would be most unwise for anyone to adopt an attitude which did not reflect that the issue has to be negotiated with nine other countries. These nine countries have shown a degree of understanding of the peculiar and special interests of the United Kingdom and Ireland. However, there is much further to go. I do not disagree with my hon. Friends who have said that we are only just starting the negotiations. I advise the House to look at the position realistically and to make a realistic assessment of the British position.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Is the Minister aware that I believe that what he says is entirely reasonable? We cannot expect to get a 50-mile limit or any other limit by 1st January because of all the complications involved. Will he nevertheless confirm that as from 1st January the fishing fleets of non-Community countries, notably of Japan, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, will be unable to fish within the 200-mile area without some agreement with Community members?
Dr. Owen: That is the essence of the negotiations that are before the Community now. There are problems attached to it. However, we take the view that there should be a reduction of fishing catches from 1st January mutually agreed between third parties and the Community.
Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we agree with the decision about the 200-mile limit, and that I endorse his rejection of the hypocrisy of the Conservatives? May we, however, deal with the question of historic rights? Is it not the case that the vast amount of water that we are dealing with within the 200-mile limit is basically British water? In that context, is he aware that in considering belts and broad bands all rights up to 50 miles—and I would prefer the 50-mile limit—must also be thrown into the melting-pot and discussed before we reach a final decision on the bands up to and including 50 miles?
Dr. Owen: Yes, I totally agree. I think that the whole Common Market fishing policy, which takes in the common fisheries policy, will have to be discussed, and that should embrace the question of historic rights.
Mr. Luce: Is the Minister aware that one reason we must insist on a 50-mile exclusive zone in the internal regime is that we have seen the French and the Belgians over-fish their waters in recent years? If they proceed to do precisely the same in our waters off the Sussex coast and elsewhere, we shall have nothing left to fish.
Dr. Owen: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there is an acceptable contrary view which believes that fish can be conserved by proper surveillance and protection and a system of quotas. We have to look into
1214
this matter. It is one of the points which will have to be discussed, but we believe that it is easier to do that if there are exclusive rights or a coastal zone.
Mr. Clegg: In Fleetwood we welcome the resumption of negotiations with Iceland. Will British advisers and representatives of the British Government be present when the Commissioner holds the talks?
Dr. Owen: No, these will be negotiations for the Commission to undertake. The Commission has been given a mandate by the Community, and it will negotiate for the Nine as a whole.
Mr. Nott: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? Were any specific undertakings given to Ireland as a result of the last meeting which were not given to the British? Why was the northern region specifically mentioned and the other regions of the United Kingdom merely mentioned inter alia? Is there some special feature of the northern region which was thought to deserve particular recognition?
Dr. Owen: The main reason was that this was an area which had already been picked up by the Commission. The Commission mentioned three areas—the northern region of the United Kingdom, Greenland and some regions off Southern Ireland. That was felt to be the most that could be achieved if we could secure the Council's endorsement of the Commission's proposals.
The inter alia reference was inserted when other countries recognised that there were other regions similarly affected—we mentioned the south-west and other parts and there was mention of regions off Germany. We argued the case for the southwest. Irish interests are for the Irish Government to take up.
The Irish made a great deal of play of the fact that they have a small fishing industry, as they have in relation to the rest of the Nine, and that they have a development programme in operation. To that extent they had an unusual reference, but their industry is not comparable with the industries of the other member States. I do not claim that they secured any special treatment. I think that the special treatment involved the

1215
three specific areas, leaving open the opportunity of arguing for all the other areas.
Mr. Michael Shaw: I welcome the statement and I acknowledge the words which point to the special needs of the northern parts of the United Kingdom. However, is the Minister aware that my constituents were very disturbed to see in the Press that those words were interpreted as meaning Scotland? Does he accept and confirm that they include the North-East Coast?
Dr. Owen: They mean what they say, and they do not mean just Scotland.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I indicated earlier that I would call those hon. Members with a direct constituency interest, but I meant those I had seen standing. However, I call Mr. Albert Costain.
Mr. Costain: I stood up the moment the statement finished, Mr. Speaker, and I have a direct constituency interest.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement today gave the impression that he had not realised the special problems which exist for the South-East Coast and the narrow waters of the Channel? Is he aware that the fishermen in my constituency—we have three fishing fleets—are extremely worried about conservation? Will he make certain that the talks cover such matters as the types of nets to be used, and that the importance of conserving the fish supply will be stressed? My constituents are apprehensive about what has already happened off the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts.
Dr. Owen: I am aware of the problems of the South-East Coast. I have some personal knowledge of it. These negotiations, however, were held in the Council of Foreign Ministers primarily to deal with external arrangements. The detail of the internal arrangements has yet to be negotiated. Those talks will be difficult, and it will take some time before we reach agreement in view of the difference of views which exists at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) to be under a misapprehension. I was not referring to him when I made my observation. The hon. Gentleman about whom I was speaking knows to whom I was referring.
Mr. Ridsdale: I have a constituency interest which is closer to the Danes and the Belgians than most. Therefore, may I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the negotiations? There is no doubt that on the East Coast there is considerable fear of over-fishing by the Belgians and the Danes.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Conservation is central to the whole negotiations.
Mr. Pym: On enforcement the Minister commended on the admitted complications that will arise with any new internal arrangement. But what will happen about enforcement in the rest of the waters in the 200 miles? Will that be organised from 1st January?
May I take up the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? In 1971 and 1972 there was no thought of a 200-mile limit, but in 1975 it was being discussed all round the world. Was that not an item that the Government should have put on the list of matters to be renegotiated?
Dr. Owen: I shall try not to make this a partisan issue. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not start it, and if he looks in Hansard tomorrow he will see that I did not.
Internal and external regimes and enforcement to some extent run together and it is difficult to separate them. I agree that the 200-mile limit poses a much wider area of sea, and therefore there are greater problems of enforcement. A lot depends on the system operating in the internal regime and the ease with which any form of enforcement can be reached. Negotiations will have to take place in the Community about the resources for policing which the nine member nations can produce. But no final decision has been reached and this is a matter for discussion.

MAIL SERVICES
Mr. Tebbit: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter which should have precedence over other business; namely
"the interference with the delivery of Her Majesty's mails".
I apologise for not giving you notice earlier in the day, Mr. Speaker, but I could not do so because the matter was not public knowledge until the Private Notice Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
I submit that this is a very specific matter because it refers to the circumstances surrounding the holding up of mail in pursuit of an industrial dispute. That is how my hon. Friend described the circumstances, and this was confirmed as accurate by the Minister of State for Employment.
It is an important matter because the carriage of mail is a State monopoly, and it is a service which is vital to the continuance of the social, industrial, and commercial life of this country.
It is urgent because this is a great abuse and the longer it is allowed to continue without the House debating it and reaching a conclusion about what should be done, the more difficult it will be to uproot and destroy such abuses.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the
1218
House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"the interference with the delivery of Her Majesty's mails".
As he 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 do not have to rule on the importance of the question or whether it should be debated, but only whether it should have precedence over all other business.
I have given careful consideration to the representations by the hon. Member, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

MAIL SERVICES

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's Sitting, Standing Order No. 4 shall not apply to the Motions relating to Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1209) and Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1221), but that the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if such Motions are then under consideration Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put any Question which may he requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair.—[Mr. Coleman.]

MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT)
4.18 p.m.
Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1949; and for related purposes.
Last July an extraordinary case was reported in the Press of a woman who married at least 50 times to 50 different bridegrooms. She was not a film star, she was not a latter-day Women's Lib Casanova, and she was not a raving beauty. She was merely earning her living in what was, I must admit, a novel way, even if a thoroughly dishonest one. She met her bridegrooms for the first time at the register office door and left them for ever immediately after the ceremony. She was, and probably still is, part of a criminal ring whose objective is to get would-be immigrants into Britain.
According to Scotland Yard, foreigners temporarily in Britain were, and still are, approached by front men who ask them whether they would like to stay here longer and give them certain advice about how this might be achieved. One method is to enrol as a student in an English language school, and the would-be immigrant will almost certainly be given permission to stay an extra six months at least. Apparently after that the marriage brokers move in and offer to arrange a marriage. This is certainly not cheap; the fee is reported by the police as £350, £100 of which goes to the bride. This is a fairly lucrative business because the police estimate that 30 illegal marriages take place in London alone every week.
I raised this matter last summer and was warned off by a threatening telephone call from the man who arranges these things, and who obviously makes a good deal out of them. It is perfectly legal for a woman to marry a foreigner and then to claim the right for him to live and work here. There is nothing whatever to show that the men are aware of the fraudulent nature of what is going on. Certainly they pay a large sum of money, and I think that these bridegrooms deserve the sympathy of the House because they are being conned.
The police were alerted to this busy bride after someone noticed a great similarity of handwriting in letters of
1220
application for these bridegrooms to remain here. This was looked into and handwriting experts found that the writing was, in fact, identical. The case was then proved but it was far too late. The woman in question has never been found.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady but she must not make an Adjournment sort of speech but indicate why the Bill must be introduced.
Mrs. Knight: I was attempting to indicate the case for action in this area, because there is no actual bar in law to what this woman was doing, provided that she and people like her are willing to lie. If people are willing to lie and sign a statement which is a lie, there is nothing to stop them from getting married at Marylebone and Chelsea in the morning and Brompton and Kensington in the afternoon.
We have many laws covering many aspects of weddings, but at present there is no instrument in law which hinders the "rent-a-bride" racket, and there should be. Clause 16 of the original Marriage Act 1949 states that a common marriage licence as distinct from a special licence shall not be granted unless one of the persons to be married swears before the person granting the licence that there is no impediment. Clause 28, which refers specifically to register office weddings, says that notice of marriage must be accompanied by a solemn declaration in writing that there is no impediment to the marriage. If a woman or a man cares to lie, there is no impediment to stop the marriage from taking place. Since the woman in question is known to have married Turks and Cypriots in North-East London, Indians in Southall and Hillingdon, and Egyptions in Kensington, one must recognise that there is a case for this Bill.
At present, all the information that is needed is already in the possession of the authorities. It is put on record when a person is born, when a person marries and if a person is divorced. However, all these records are held in different places. All that my Bill seeks is that all the information should be correlated and computerised and that a system should be introduced which will not only put all this information together but put a duty on the registrar to ensure that the record is

1221
scrutinised to see that a person is free to marry, before the registrar is prepared to go through the ceremony.
This would apply also to church weddings. It would cover not only cases of the kind I have outlined, on which all the information came from Scotland Yard and was all perfectly accurate. Again, I am extremely sorry for the people who are conned in this way. Not only would those people be covered, but the Bill would cover bigamists in general. I am sure that no one in the House would support bigamy, bearing in mind the misery that it causes to many innocent people.
I hope therefore that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.
4.21 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Clemitson: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is very concerned about what I might call multiple marriages. I think I am the only Member of the House who can claim to have married hundreds of women—though I hasten to add that I have married them to hundreds of husbands, not to myself.
The title of the Bill that the hon. Lady seeks leave to introduce is quite attractive—the Marriage (Amendment) Bill. I can think of many ways in which marriage ought to be amended, and in which marriage law ought to be amended. However, the question is, what lies behind this apparently attractive, even innocuous, title?
The fact is that the whole thrust of the hon. Lady's argument is concerned with immigration. That is the main thrust of her argument. Indeed, the hon. Lady's statements about the Bill, which are on record in The House Magazine, which is sent to every Member, say that she welcomed the 1975 ruling about wives and fiancées. I was very pleased to hear that. However, the main thrust of her argument is that a racket is going on to use this particular change in the immigration rules so that immigrants can enter and stay in this country in an illegal fashion.
I presume that the hon. Lady is using the word "immigrant" merely as a euphemism, in the main, for coloured immigrants. Indeed, she is on record as saying that the bogus husband is anxious to claim permanent residence for himself
1222
and his dependants. I am not sure what dependants the hon. Lady is thinking of—children or other dependants. However, she should know perfectly well that it is extremely difficult to get other dependants into this country. Those hon. Members who have intervened in cases in which, for example, there is a desire to bring aged relatives into the country know how difficult it is to do that.
I can only conclude that, whatever the apparent merits of the hon. Lady's proposals, she is using this opportunity as a peg on which to hang certain anti-immigrant feelings. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop his argument but in temperate language and without interruption from either side.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is a very good argument, too.
Mr. Clemitson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Even if we leave aside the hon. Lady's motive for bringing in this proposal, we must ask ourselves whether her proposal would work. She talks about people lying. If people are prepared to lie, it seems to me that lies can be compounded, and however elaborate is the system of checks that is instituted, those checks can be avoided.
I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady's proposals if they addressed themselves to some serious causes of difficulty. Perhaps I may briefly mention two cases concerning two of my constituents. The first is that of a woman who, in good faith, married a man at a register office, only to discover subsequently that he had spent well over 20 years in Broadmoor and was a convicted murderer. Indeed, only the intervention of a social worker prevented a probable second tragedy happening.
The second case is that of a constituent of mine from Pakistan who is a British citizen and who wanted his wife to be registered as a British citizen, only to be told by the Home Office that it is was not satisfied that the woman was his wife. He was advised to go to the register office and get married. He went to the register office to marry his wife—of all things—only to be told by the registrar that the

1223
registrar could not marry them because the man was married already.
In short, I find these proposals, at the least, very partial. They do not meet the real problems that a serious reform of marriage law would have to face. Most important, I believe that they are not put forward as a serious attempt to reform marriage law, which needs reforming, but as an opportunity to fuel prejudice against immigrants.
Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There must be no imputation of false or unavowed motives against any hon. Member.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 148.

Division No. 363.]

AYES

[4.28 p.m.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hawkins, Paul

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Holland, Philip

Rathbone, Tim

Baker, Kenneth

Hooson, Emlyn

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Banks, Robert

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Ridsdale, Julian

Beith, A. J.

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Bell, Ronald

Hurd, Douglas

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Benyon, W.

James, David

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Berry, Hon Anthony

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

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Biggs-Davison, John

Jessel, Toby

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Body, Richard

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Lamont, Norman

Shepherd, Colin

Bradley, Tom

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shersby, Michael

Brotherton, Michael

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Silvester, Fred

Budgen, Nick

Lawrence, Ivan

Sims, Roger

Burden, F. A.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Skeet, T.H.H.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Speed, Keith

Carlisle, Mark

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Spence, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

McCrindle, Robert

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Macfarlane, Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Clegg, Waller

MacGregor, John

Sproat, lain

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stanley, John

Corrie, John

Mates, Michael

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Costain, A. P.

Mawby, Ray

Stradling Thomas, J.

Crawford, Douglas

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Crouch, David

Moate, Roger

Tebbit, Norman

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Molyneaux, James

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Montgomery, Fergus

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Drayson, Burnaby

Morgan, Geraint

Townsend, Cyril D.

Farr, John

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

Fell, Anthony

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Viggers, Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Neave, Airey

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Nelson, Anthony

Wakeham, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Neubert, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Freud, Clement

Nott, John

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Onslow, Cranley

Wall, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Weatherill, Bernard

Goodhew, Victor

Osborn, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Gorst, John

Page, John (Harrow West)

Wigley, Dafydd

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Winterton, Nicholas

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Pardoe, John

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Parkinson, Cecil

Hall, Sir John

Pattie, Geoffrey

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Penhaligon, David

Mrs. Jill Knight and

Hannam, John

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Mr. Peter Rost.

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Cartwright, John

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Clemitson, Ivor

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Dempsey, James

Bates, Alf

Cohen, Stanley

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Bean, R. E.

Coleman, Donald

Eadie, Alex

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Concannon, J. D.

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Conlan, Bernard

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Corbett, Robin

English, Michael

Buchan, Norman

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Ennals, David

Canavan, Dennis

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Cant, R. B.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Evans, John (Newton)

Carmichael, Neil

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Faulds, Andrew

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Forrester, John

Litterick, Tom

Roper, John

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

McCartney, Hugh

Ryman, John

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

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Sandelson, Neville

Freud, Clement

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Sedgemore, Brian

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Selby, Harry

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Gilbert, Or John

Madden, Max

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Golding, John

Magee, Bryan

Skinner, Dennis

Graham, Ted

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Spriggs, Leslie

Grant, John (Islington C)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Stallard, A. W.

Hamilton, James (Bothwett)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Mendelson, John

Stoddart, David

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Stott, Roger

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Strang, Gavin

Hatton, Frank

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Heffer, Eric S.

Molloy, William

Tomlinson, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Moonman, Eric

Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hunter, Adam

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Ward, Michael

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Newens, Stanley

Watkins, David

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Oakes, Gordon

Watkinson, John

John, Brynmor

Ogden, Eric

Weitzman, David

Johnson, James (Hull West)

O'Halloran, Michael

Whitehead, Phillip

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Orbach, Maurice

Whitlock, William

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ovenden, John

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Kelley, Richard

Perry, Ernest

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Kerr, Russell

Palmer, Arthur

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Park, George

Woodall, Alec

Lambie, David

Pavitt, Laurie

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Lamborn, Harry

Prescott, John

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lamond, James

Radice, Giles

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Leadbitter, Ted

Robinson, Geoffrey

Mr. Christopher Price and

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Ms. Maureen Colquoun.

Lipton, Marcus

Rooker, J. W

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &c. (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  New Clause 3

    PRE-PACKED AND OTHER GOODS: TEMPORARY RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL OF PERMITTED IMPERIAL QUANTITIES.
    '.—(1) The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale, which are conferred by section 21 of the 1963 Act shall not be exercised so as to make unlawful any sale of goods to which this section applies.
    (2) This section applies to a sale—

    (a) which is of goods which are prepacked sold, or made for sale in any quantity specified by the enactments and orders in Schedule (Pre-packed and other goods) to this Act (quantities expressed in the imperial system), and

    (b) which is made at any time before 21st April 1978.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.38 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this, we may take Government Amendments No. 17 and No. 21, and Amendment No. 16, in Clause 2, page 3, line 13, at end insert:
    'No order may be made applying to weighed out goods sold by retail before 1st January 1980'.
    The House will probably know—but I shall repeat what is written on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments which has been posted in the No Lobby—that New Clause 3 has been wrongly placed at the bottom of page 3001 in the list of amendments. It should have been placed as the first new clause.
    Mr. Fraser: The new clause, Government Amendment No. 17, and Government Amendment No. 21—the new schedule—all hang together. Amendment No. 16 is an Opposition amendment.
    The Government amendments arise out of an amendment carried in Committee
    1228
    to insert a number of words which Amendment No. 17 now seeks to remove. I should explain the effect of the amendment which was carried in Committee. There are two defects in its drafting. The first is a minor defect. Cheese is not subject to a prescribed quantity order because it is not generally sold prepacked. The second and perhaps the more serious defect is that the amendment which was carried in Committee does not make clear that "prepacked" means prepacked in prescribed quantities. The two phrases are not synonymous.
    That having been said about any drafting defects, the intention of the Committee and of those moving the amendment was absolutely clear. The principle was clear that, for instance, butter, tea and bread should not be subject to what in shorthand we call cut-off orders before 1st January 1980. I counsel the House against choosing 1st January 1980, and I ask it to endorse, and, indeed, to widen substantially, the principle carried in Committee.
    The Government seek to substitute 21st April 1978 as the date before which orders proscribing imperial sizes cannot and will not be effective. The effective date worried the Opposition rather more than the actual date when the order was made. I ask the House to choose the alternative date of 21st April 1978 for two reasons. First, choosing 1st January 1980 could mean—I put it no higher—an excessive prolongation of the process of changeover, with all that flows from that in terms of uncertainty, confusion and a lack of framework in which to have orderly planning and, not least, consultation. The effect of choosing 1st January 1980 would be not merely to tie the Government's hands behind their back, but to risk giving the consumer double vision.
    Secondly, I ask the House to bear in mind that as from April 1978 metric packs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom. We had the argument in the House and in Committee whether this was likely to happen. I do not intend to pursue that argument now. The truth is that no one really knows the extent to which metric packs will come into this country from April 1978. Nevertheless the risk is there, and it would be unwise not to have the power to bring order into that situation. I say "bring order into that situation". That can be

    1229
    done only by an affirmative order of both Houses of Parliament. The argument about the date is that it may unduly prolong matters and remove the power to bring about order if there is need to bring order to the situation by 1978.
    I have adopted the principle agreed in Committee and made it much wider. The amendment carried in Committee applied—apart from cheese, about which it is defective—to butter, bread and tea. According to the new Schedule it will apply to bread, which was in the original amendment, to milk—I re-emphasise that we do not intend to phase out the pint size—to prepacked potatoes, tea, cereals, flour, all edible fats, not merely butter, and to sugar, salt and jam. Indeed, it will apply to almost every important household food item sold in prescribed quantities. I hope that the House will think that a reasonable response to the principle agreed in Committee and will find it acceptable.
    The amendments tabled by the Government have listed a number of prescribed quantity orders which apply only in Great Britain, not in Northern Ireland. Later, in order to make this absolutely clear, I shall ask the leave of the House to move a manuscript amendment. Northern Ireland prescribed quantity orders have always in the past followed British prescribed quantity orders. There is no intention of trying to steal a march in the Province over the safeguards introduced in the United Kingdom.
    Turning briefly to the Opposition's amendment, No. 16, I think it would be as well if I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has to say before I attempt to reply. However, there are some problems of drafting, not least because the term "weighed out" foods is not a term of art. We know in our minds what it means, but it is not a term of art. I shall be happy to respond to the need to give some kind of safeguard about weighed-out foods, but I shall wait until the hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I must utter a mild protest that, as neither the Bill nor all the amendments were tabled until yesterday, life was made a little difficult for the Opposition to table their amendments
    1230
    in the right form. The Minister has complained about that fact. Nor has life been made any easier by the way that the Department has been behaving. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said on New Clause 3. It is a concession that we welcome.
    The Minister said that he accepted the principle that cut-off orders for prescribed quantities will be delayed until 1st April 1978. By that time inflation may be down to a more reasonable level. One of our objections was that the consumer would face considerable confusion with the current level of inflation. We welcome the broadening of the area from tea, bread, butter and cheese to cover a whole range of prescribed quantity goods. That seems the right thing to do.
    The effect of the amendment is that for the most important things we shall not have compulsory metrication until 1978. By 1978 I confidently expect that there will be a change of Government, so who is to say that compulsory metrication will ever take place?
    I turn now to Amendment No. 16. I am grateful for what the Minister said on weighed-out foods. I do not know whether our amendment is in the right form, but it has been asked for by the retail consortium. Again, we see no reason why weighed-out foods should be subject to metrication. As the House is well aware, there is a considerable problem relating to the manufacture of scales. There are about 250,000 shops, with more than 500,000 scales. All those scales have to be converted at considerable cost—perhaps £700 each. This change ought to be made gradually. The retail consortium thinks likewise. Originally we suggested 1985, but the compromise date of 1980 is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason for hurrying up the process of weighed-out foods beyond that. There is no argument about suppliers producing things in metric quantities and therefore those at the retail end having to harmonise with their suppliers. There is no argument about prescribed quantities, either.
    I hope that the Minister will fill in the detail and tell us how he proposes to do this. I hope that it will be across a broad range of goods. I can see no reason why selling carrots or apples in weighed-out quantities in shops should

    1231
    be illegal. That would be ludicrous. As the scales manufacturers are happy with our amendment, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle.
    Mr. Michael Neubert: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), I welcome the Minister's conversion to our point of view, which was advanced on Second Reading and in Committee, that we should not go in a giddy rush towards metrication in prepacked and other goods when common sense and consumer opinion indicate otherwise.
    The Minister should not have too many misgivings about his proposal, particularly the advantage of allowing present quantities to continue to be legally used, but there is the difficulty, which we debated in Committee, of the change from imperial to metric sizes. The Minister said in Committee that 4 ounces was equivalent to 113 grammes. I shall have to take the Minister's word for that. But, following a rapid extrapolation, we see that the proposed metric size rounded up nearest to the 4 ounce size would be 125 grammes. One ounce, which is 56½ grammes, would go down to 50 grammes. That would be an example of a size being made smaller and, therefore, the cost of the item would not go up.
    One of our major causes for anxiety is that this process will inevitably lead to more expensive goods in the shops, not in terms of value for money but in terms of price for the item. The Minister has cited, rather reluctantly, on more than one occasion the mythical box of cornflakes which would increase by 10 per cent. in size yet by only 5 per cent. in price. He must recognise the danger here. This must not become part of the metrication mythology. There is no inexorable law of logic which says that if we increase size by 10 per cent., the price will go up by 5 per cent.
    This example was a bonus for the consumer, but it related to one particular item in those particular circumstances at that particular time. In other instances the price may well go up pro rata. Small income families and pensioners may have difficulty in adjusting to the larger figures and will have the impression that prices are going up unless they appreciate that quantities are also going up.
    1232
    I refer to the background information on the recently introduced order about tea. In that instance the differential begins to widen with other sizes in that range. For example, 8 oz, which is 226 grammes, is rounded up to 250 grammes. I asked the Minister what examples there would be of rounding down rather than up and he was able to cite only one or two at the lower end of the range.
    Although 12 oz is equivalent to 339 grammes, the next size up is 500 grammes. That means that we go down 89 grammes or right up to the half-kilo size, an increase of 161 grammes. As the differential begins to widen, the price becomes increasingly important. That is why the Opposition think that the Minister has made the right decision not rush into these changes.
    The Minister should not be too dismayed by the views of bodies such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups, which said:
    Any half-and-half stage in which some goods are sold in imperial, others in metric units, will be confusing for consumers and must add to costs.
    That is rather overdoing the argument. In fact, in several instances, consumers have been, are and will be transacting purchases in different units, and the problem should be not overstated.
    I conclude by welcoming the Government's attitude to these changes, which, I am sure, are in the nation's interests, and particularly in the interests of consumers.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Minister opened his speech by criticising the drafting of the Opposition amendment in Committee on which this new clause is founded. The present new clause, which the Minister has moved, is also open to certain drafting criticism. As he said, it is the paving clause for the new schedule—Pre-packed and other Goods. The new clause applies to the sale of goods specified in certain enactments and orders listed in the proposed new schedule. Some of them, such as those relating to biscuits, cereals and dried vegetables, come under the heading:
    "nitted imperial quantities in Orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963".
    Nitted imperial quantities? The mind boggles. This conjures up an interesting

    1233
    recipe for "nitted" biscuits, "nitted" breakfast cereals or "nitted" shortbread. I am sure the Minister will put that right.
    To be more serious, the way in which the new schedule sets out enactments and orders is a little inelegant. An order is an enactment and it is rather confusing to call them "enactments and orders" as the new clause does.
    I refer to the very last order printed in the new schedule:
    "The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976".
    This is about the third or fourth bread order that we have had in 12 months and I suppose that these orders will go on in future in the same form as in the past until 21st April 1978—the date mentioned by the Minister. They will be permissive orders. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to have these interesting orders from time to time, as it has been in the past, but they will be permissive, not mandatory.
    The other peculiarity in the drafting of New Clause 3 is when it speaks about
    "The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale,"
    Does "made up sold" mean sold made up? This again conjures up the interesting image of mascaraed biscuits, or powdered flour, or lipsticked sugar. Surely it means "sold made up". The new clause also uses the phrase "made for sale", but surely that means made up for sale. All goods are made for sale. These phrases are confusing and create some difficulties in interpretation.
    I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), when he complains that Government amendments appeared on the Order Paper at the last moment and that the Bill was not printed until the day before we were to discuss it on Report. This means that it is impossible for the Opposition to suggest amendments to the right lines or the right clauses. It is impossible for us to make any constructive suggestions or to put down amendments to Government amendments. If they had appeared on the Order Paper earlier, I would have taken an opportunity to put down a few amendments to tidy up what I would call bad drafting.
    Mr. John Fraser: I suppose that it is a matter of congratulation for the right
    1234
    hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that, no matter how late the Bill is published, it does not seem to have been much of an impediment to his putting down amendments. The amendments on the Order Paper are a reflection of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.
    It would be silly to allege or assert that everytime there is a conversion from imperial to metric the cost will not be pro rata. So far, we have had some encouraging examples. I have given the example of cornflakes. Another relates to dried vegetables. The old 8 oz pack costs 13½p the new 250 gramme pack will cost 14½p. Thus, the consumer will get 10 per cent. more product for 7½ per cent. more money.
    The new metric pack for salt will contain 10 per cent. more salt, but the price will increase by only ½p or 1p—an average increase of only 5 per cent.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Is the Minister satisfied that the prices to which he refers are due to the physical metrication of the goods and not to other movements of costs which happen to be brought into line when the change in pack from imperial to metric takes place?
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot say. I am quoting examples of cases in which there is 10 per cent. more in the pack and not 10 per cent. more on the price.
    I received assurances from the sugar manufacturers and packers of a marginal decrease in the price of sugar. I do not exaggerate the importance of this, but there was a small decrease in price of sugar delivered to the retail store.
    One reason why the consumer organisations prefer the 125-gramme pack is that the increase in size benefits the consumer, because the ratio of packaging to product diminishes. There is no heavy balance on either side, but the chances are that there will be a reduction in the price rather than an increase.
    In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) was concerned about increases in prices because of the changeover. In response to the concern expressed both inside and outside the House, we changed the Bill to contain the provision that associates with the changeover from imperial to metric compulsory unit pricing, and so

    1235
    on. We have to give the maximum degree of reassurance to the consumer when we go metric.
    The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) says that I am a convert to Gradualism. I am not a convert to gradualism in this area, but there are areas in which I might agree with the concept of the inevitability of gradualism. I agree that the right way to go about this matter is to take Parliament along with us.
    The right hon. Member for Crosby was critical of the wording, including the phrase "made up for sale". The wording has been weighed extremely carefully. "Making for sale" refers specifically to bread. "Sale" refers specifically to intoxicating liquor. The other words all have their appropriate place.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) asked about weighed-out foods. The drafting of the amendment is not wholly adequate, and I cannot recommend the House to accept it both for drafting and other reasons. Weighed-out foods are not defined in the Bill and it would be extremely difficult to define them. The amendment does not make clear whether the restriction is intended to apply to the making of an order before 1st January 1980 or to the sale of goods before 1st January 1980. The more serious problem—this is not a drafting matter—is that foods which are weighed out are often closely linked to goods which have already gone metric or which are likely to go metric whether or not we have the Bill.
    To give an example, sugar has gone metric on a voluntary basis, facilitated by an order of the House, but it may still be possible to buy weighed-out sugar in certain quantities. That is an example of an item which is weighed-out, though rarely, although the bulk of the product is sold in metric quantities. If we provided for weighed-out sales of every product, those sales might represent only 1 per cent. of the pre-packed sales of the product, and we should start to get into difficulties and might create the very confusion which the Bill is intended to remove.
    I have recognised in answers to Parliamentary Questions and in discussions with consumer organisations that there
    1236
    is concern about weighed-out foods such as greengrocery, fresh fruit, fresh meat products in butchers' shops and fish. In those areas people are most concerned that there should not be early progression to metrication. I want to give the House a firm and solemn undertaking on the principle of the amendment in relation to those products.
    The Government will not use the new powers under Section 9A to impose any cut-off dates for imperial units in respect of the three main retail weighed-out foods sectors. Those are the sectors which have caused the greatest concern and which cover the preponderance of weighed-out foods. They are greengrocers and fruiterers, butchers and fishmongers. No orders will be made to operate before 1st January 1980. This assurance is in line with my previous statements that the Government take the view that these sectors should be the last to change over. This assurance relates to the date of the implementation of possible orders, not to the date for bringing draft orders before the House. Because of the planning periods involved and the need for certainty in the trade, not least among scale manufacturers, it may be necessary to make such orders well before the effective date.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: How long in advance has the Minister in mind for the making of such orders?
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman asking how much time will elapse between the making of an order and its implementation?
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes.
    Mr. Fraser: I repeat, it would be wrong to lay down a rigid timetable. When the Bill has been enacted I hope to give the House and the country a tentative timetable, as I said at the end of my speech in the Second Reading debate. That tentative timetable for the changeover will be decided after background consultations and negotiations inside and outside the House. If we went further than that we should be becoming rigid and arrogant.
    Mr. Stanley Newens: I take it that the Minister still believes that it is necessary to have cut-off orders, and is saying that, although there will be delay

    1237
    beyond that previously envisaged, orders will still be laid and cut-off dates will be fixed. Why should not the imperial measurement merely be allowed to wither away?
    Mr. Fraser: The withering away would take so long that it would not facilitate the needs of the consumer but, rather, work to his disadvantage. That is not simply my view. It is the unanimous view of every responsible consumer organisation in the country.
    The date of 1st January 1980 is not a target date for the metrication of the weighed-out foods I mentioned. It is not a deadline; it is a minimum date. If weighed-out foods such as meat, fruit and vegetables and fish are the last in the queue, their place will depend on how many other products get into the queue in front of them.
    I hope that the House will appreciate both the value of the undertaking I have given and its solemnity. If the Opposition are prepared to withdraw their amendment, the undertaking will have the endorsement of the Government, the Conservative Opposition and, I assume, the Scottish National Party and other parties. The undertaking would thereby be endorsed by virtually every major party in Parliament. If any Minister tried to bring in an order which breached the undertaking, that undertaking could be thrown into the Minister's teeth. For the reasons given, I hope that the House will decline to accept Amendment No. 16 and will endorse the serious and solemn pledge which I have given.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene prior to my hon. Friend who will be winding up the debate. I wish to speak particularly about Amendment No. 16. In accepting New Clause 3 and some of the arguments put forward in Committee, the Government are being both rational and agreeable.
    The Minister stated his intention to exempt meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables but he is, therefore, excluding a number of other things, including confectionery. In Amendment No. 16 we have in mind not only the period of conversion required for the metrication of weighing scales but also the sheer size of the problem. There are about 300,000 retail outlets, many of which have scale
    1238
    sales. Confectioners are typical. The smaller shop carries a large range of goods and frequently sells vegetables and fish, for instance, alongside sweets and cigarettes. It is in such shops that the problem really arises and the cut-off date is, therefore, most at risk. I urge the Minister to consider whether he may not be ignoring the type of shop where the greatest difficulty could arise—the smaller mixed shop, such as a confectioner's, where loose weighed-out goods are sold alongside packed goods. Will the Minister also consult those who are responsible for retail confectionery, for example, and for small shopkeepers?
    Mr. Norman Lamont: We are grateful to the Minister. He has made a substantial concession.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made several arguments which I shall back up. We are sorry that the Minister cannot include confectionery and we urge him to reconsider. As my hon. Friend emphasised, that will cause confusion in shops which sell a mixture of goods including those that are to be exempt and those that are not. Hon. Members have argued that one cannot have one rule for this and another for that because it would cause confusion. That is particularly important for the small retailer who sells vegetables and fish as well as confectionery. I urge the Minister to consider that argument.
    I was not clear of the Minister's meaning when he spoke of goods related to those sold in metric quantities. He gave the example of sugar, but that is an insignificant example. I am sceptical about his argument. The Minister has, however, exempted meat, fresh fruit, fish and vegetables, which are most important products. All those concerned will be grateful for his undertaking and for that reason we will not move our amendment.
    Mr. Newens: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that if there were a Conservative Government there would probably be no metrication at all. Will he clarify the position? If the Conservatives become responsible, shall we still have the cut-off dates or not?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I said that in relation to prescribed quantities we would see what happened. We

    1239
    will tell him precisely what we think of the Bill on Third Reading. We will explain our attitude to the principle of the measure. He was not a member of the Committee but even he must notice that we strongly object to the principle of conversion.
    I return to the amendment. We agree with the Minister's proposal. On the understanding that his undertaking is absolutely copper-bottomed we shall not move Amendment No. 16.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Fraser: It would be discourteous if I did not reply to the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). I know of no shops from which I buy both fish and sweets at the same time. If they exist, I do not buy fish or sweets in them.
    Much of the greengrocery and fruit trade is carried on not by combines but by those with their own businesses, or corner shops. That is also largely true of the sale of fresh meat and fish. I hope my undertaking covers the area about which the public is concerned.
    I was asked to give an example, apart from sugar, of a product which has gone or is going metric but which is still weighed out. Confectionery is a good example. From the beginning of next year most sales of prepacked confectionery will be in metric quantities and they will be sold alongside weighed-out quantities. I agree that there could be confusion if imperial and metric measurements are used side by side.
    The National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers takes the view that there would be a large degree of metrication effort for butchers, greengrocers, fruiterers and fishmongers. It believes that relatively less metrication effort is required in the confectionery and tobacco trades, the reason being that the scales used in confectionery shops are uncomplicated and can be converted quickly. I do not want to make a judgment, but whatever sector is involved there will be extensive consultation and I hope that that will reassure hon. Members.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The Minister must be clear about the size of the problem. About 28 per cent. of confectionery is sold by
    1240
    weigh-out. Even though small shops may use unsophisticated and easily-converted scales, we are talking of nearly 2,000 million sales of quarter-pound quantities. Confusion will be caused particularly if in adjacent shops some goods are sold in imperial quantities and others in metric quantities near the cut-off date. I welcome the Minister's decision to consult.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 1

    SAVING FOR EXISTING CONTRACTS
    No order or regulation made under sections 1, 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) or under section 8 of this Act shall during the period of one year beginning with the date on which the Act is passed affect any contract or agreement entered into before that date notwithstanding that it relates to the delivery of goods after that date.— [Mr. Graham Page.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The clause had to be drafted before the reprint of the Bill as amended in Standing Committee B was available. As a result, there is an error in the second line. It refers to Section 8, which is now Section 10. However, I think that that can be put right. I am in very good company, because on the last page of the Bill as reprinted exactly the same thing has happened. In the top left-hand corner there is a reference to Section 11(4), which should now be Section 13(4). I hope that the Minister will alter that.
    The clause seeks to ensure that the new order-making powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill will not be used in a manner which would invalidate existing civil contracts. It is narrower than New Clause 3, because it refers only to existing contracts. So far as my clause may be unprecedented, so far as it may be a new provision in the law, it is made necessary by the fundamental change in the law that results from the Bill, namely, that by the repeal of Section 10(10) of the 1963 Act an order by the Secretary of State will be permitted in future—to use the words of Section 10(10)—
    "to cause the exclusion from use for trade of imperial in favour of metric units of measurement, weights and measures."

    1241
    Therefore, these are new powers to make such mandatory orders. They will be made under the sections to which I have referred in the clause—
    "sections 1, 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) or under section 8 of this Act".
    Section 1(2) of the 1963 Act is a paving section for Schedule 1 of that Act. Schedule 1 defines units of measurement by virtue of Section 1(2), which states:
    "Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect for defining for the purposes of measurements falling to be made in the United Kingdom the units of measurement set out in that Schedule".
    Schedule 1 had a greater effect than merely that of a definition schedule. Section 10(1) provided that no person should use for trade any unit which was not included in that schedule. The Bill repeals subsection (1) and will leave Schedule 1 merely as a definition schedule—the Minister reminded me of that several times in Committee—but in two respects Schedule 1 may have a greater effect than merely as a declaratory schedule defining certain units. For example, one may use the words "metre" or "litre" in a contract. In Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act both are defined as having
    "the meaning from time to time assigned by order by the Board".
    Therefore, the meaning can change from time to time. If a change is made by order, it could without warning alter the effect of a contract. All that I am seeking in the clause is a warning period before a contract is so invalidated.
    Secondly, Clause 1(2) inserts in Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act headed:
    "Definitions of units which may not be used for trade".
    I presume that that means what it says, and that any of the units set out there may not be used for trade. If one uses such a unit in a trading contract, the contract must be invalid, void and unlawful. By Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State is given power by order to amend Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act
    "by adding to, or removing from, Parts I to VA of that Schedule any unit of measurement".
    He might, for example, by order put the cubic yard into Part VA, with the result that it becomes a measurement which can no longer be used, and thereby
    1242
    invalidate at once a contract based on it, unless the House accepts my new clause.
    A similar position could well arise as a result of orders made under the new Section 9A, introduced into the 1963 Act by Clause 2. The new section begins by saying:
    "(1) No person shall—
    (a) use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Schedule 1A".
    It later refers in the same way to Schedule 3. Subsection (3) of the new Section 9A says:
    "The Secretary of State may from time to time by order amend Schedule 1A or 3 to this Act".
    If the Secretary of State amends the schedules in such a way as to make an otherwise lawful unit unlawful, it seems to me to make invalid a civil contract based on those units. In that case the position is perhaps even worse, because under Section 9A(2)
    "A person who contravenes—
    (a) this section"—
    and therefore an order which has altered the section—
    "shall be guilty of an offence".
    Therefore, an early warning system such as I have suggested is only fair and just to the trader.
    Regulations made under the new Section 9B, also introduced into the 1963 Act by Clause 2, may not be quite so disastrous to existing contracts, but Section 9B(3) is drawn so widely that one cannot forecast what such regulations may contain. They may certainly affect existing contracts.
    Clause 10 creates an entirely new order-making power. The Secretary of State is there empowered to "exclude or modify" existing statute law. If he does so, that may affect contracts based on existing law, and those contracts should be protected, at least for a period.
    The Minister's answer may be, as it was in part in Committee, that orders made under the new order-making powers will contain a saving article similar in effect to new Clause 1. He may give us that assurance, but it is not in the Bill. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to protect existing civil contracts when the orders and regulations are made. If that is the Secretary of State's

    1243
    intention, I ask him to write it into the Bill by means of new Clause 1. It is necessary to make the provision obligatory and not leave it merely to the hope that there will be a saving article or regulation when the orders or regulations are made.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that his clause is in part inadequate, in part unnecessary, and in part inferior to what is already in the Bill.
    Let me deal first with the argument that the clause is inadequate. If protection is needed to save a contract, it needs to be a permanent saving and not a temporary one for one year.
    Secondly, the clause is in part unnecessary in relation to Clause 1 which is linked to Schedule 1, because Schedule I will be the record of definition. One of the reasons that we wish to have a schedule of record is so that we may have set out a catalogue of measures for the purpose of interpreting contract documents.
    The use of a measure that is no longer valid if used by way of trade does not necessarily invalidate the contract. If the definition of a unit is changed, as the definiton of "litre" was recently changed, the statutory instrument always contains savings in respect of the existing contracts. I doubt whether there will be changes in Schedule 1. Indeed, I think that the schedule will remain as an archive for many years to come alongside other measures which are to be, if not put to rest, preserved for posterity.
    Thirdly, the clause is inferior to what is already in the Bill because Clauses 2 and 10 already contain powers to make savings for existing contracts in respect of orders made under Sections 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act. That will be a permanent power—a power which the right hon. Gentleman by a later amendment seeks to leave out—but certainly the power exists to make savings for existing contracts. That kind of power has always been used in the past and always will be used in the future. I hope that in view of what I have said the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's reply, and I shall take his three points in turn.
    First he said that this should be a permanent saving. I am sure that if I were to draft New Clause 1 including the word "permanently", the Minister would shout me down immediately. I was merely asking for a warning to those who have already entered into civil contracts, to make plain that those contracts would be terminated within a year. I thought that was a reasonable way in which to put it. Indeed, I am surprised that the Minister should throw out the clause, because I have been so moderate. I can be far more violent if he wishes, but I have advanced a model suggestion.
    The Minister also said that the clause was unnecessary in regard to Schedule 1. I shall not repeat my argument on that matter. The Minister may read my remarks in Hansard tomorrow if he wishes to do so.
    The Minister then said that an order does not necessarily invalidate a contract. That is correct; but orders making certain units unlawful in use may make civil contracts invalid, and indeed unlawful, if one continues to deliver goods under those contracts at the old weights or measures.
    The hon. Gentleman said that orders always contain a saving clause. He was being contradictory, because he first said that the clause was unnecessary and he then said that orders would have a saving provision. I am not happy to accept a statement that in the past orders have always had this saving. Parliament will now by the Bill impose a mandatory change in weights and measures and units of measurement. In those circumstances we should make certain that orders contain saving clauses, and not merely trust to precedents.
    Question put and negatived.

  New Clause 2

    CONSULTATIONS
    'Before making any regulations under section 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations.'—[Mr. Graham Page.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9, in Clause 2, page 5, line 8, at end insert:
    'and to inform such organisations of the probable contents of regulations which the Secretary of State may consider it expedient to make in connection with or supplementary to the said order.'
    Mr. Page: The clause deals with the question of consultation on orders before they come into effect. By Section 54 of the 1963 Act it was recognised that before making any orders under 10 different provisions of that Act, the Secretary of State should
    "consult … representatives of interests substantially affected".
    I am using the actual words of Section 54 of the 1963 Act, and, indeed, I seek to introduce those words into New Clause 2.
    This Bill, having introduced two new order-making powers in Clause 1 and via Section 9A of the 1963 Act, has added those powers to the list in Section 54 of the 1963 Act. Therefore, it has been thought necessary to make statutory provision for prior consultation with the representatives of people who will be interested in what is taking place.
    I wish now to examine whether it is right that Section 9A orders should require prior consultation but that Section 9B orders should not.
    Mr. John Fraser: I am prepared in principle to accept the right hon. Gentleman's clause. I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I intervene at this point in order to shorten the proceedings.
    Mr. Page: Is the Minister prepared to accept the clause and its wording as drafted?
    Mr. John Fraser: I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I am prepared to accept the principle. There is a conflict between the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts the matter and the recommendation set out in the Renton Report.
    Mr. Page: I am sorry that the Minister did not table his own amendment. He now says that he accepts the principle in
    1246
    mine. It is not easy for Opposition Members to draft the right provisions. The Parliamentary draftsmen dislike whatever we table for consideration.
    I would ask the House to accept the clause as it stands. If the Minister says that he accepts it in principle, surely there can be little wrong with the wording, which I have taken from the 1963 Act.
    The point I was trying to make when the Minister intervened—and I am grateful to him for that intervention—was that consultation on orders made under Section 9B will be even more important than those made under Section 9A. Orders made under Section 9A will make the move from imperial to metric. By the time the Bill reaches the statute book people will be resigned to it as the major change that will take place under the Bill, but the important consideration in a person's mind will be, "How shall I understand the change'? How shall I prevent myself from doing something wrong when I make a mental conversion? How can I stop myself being swindled by the new measures?" Therefore, orders under Section 9B will be of vital importance to the public, and all interested representatives should be consulted.
    Let us suppose that the Secretary of State and his officials become so steeped in the intricacies of conversion that they issue an order that every petrol pump should contain a notice saying that one gallon shall be described as 4·54609 litres or that one litre shall be described as 0·21997 gallons. These are not the sorts of conversion tables that will tell the public anything. It will be no help if one is told that a kilogramme of butter is equal to 2·2046 lb. The public and the House should be consulted before these vitally important matters are put into an order and before the order is laid before the House with no possibility of amendment.
    Matters are even worse with Section 9B. These orders can affect specific and individual cases, specific circumstances and specific individuals. There certainly should be something written into the statute making it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult. There is no obligation at present. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of

    1247
    the clause it should be written into the Bill.
    I must refer to Amendment No. 9, which is being taken with this new clause. The amendment deals with the possibility of an order under 9B being made to supplement an order under 9A. I wish to ensure by this amendment that when the Minister consults representatives of those interested in the contents of an order under 9A he will inform those representatives of what he has in mind to implement that 9A order by the more detailed 9B order. That is a simple statement. I am sure no one can object to it being put into the Bill so that those interested may know what is coming in the later order or the order which will implement the orders under 9A.
    However good and genuine the intention of the Minister may be to consult, there is not that obligation under the statute except in the case of certain orders. I want to extend it so that there is an obligation to consult on orders which, I submit, will be of vital importance to the public.
    Mr. John Fraser: Let me deal with the practice, which must be well known to the right lion Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) from the time when he was a Minister. Most regulations involve a good deal of consultation. I gave some examples in Committee of the sort of consultation that goes on in connection with regulations which are analogous to those which will be made under 9B. The best example I can give concerns the dual-marking regulations. These were negative procedure regulations because the Conservative Government in 1963 decided that they should be so. There was no statutory requirement to consult under the 1963 legislation. I make no party point about this.
    We consulted 253 trade organisations, 19 consumer organisations and 20 enforcement officer organisations, and we held a total of 292 consultations. We were not even required to consult any one of those organisations. When we considered the order dealing with unit pricing of cheese, which used the negative procedure and was enacted by a Labour Government, there was a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 32 trade organisations, 20 consumer organ-
    1248
    isations and five enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 57 consultations. The regulation dealing with price displays in pubs, which again was a negative resolution regulation, embodied a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 19 people in the trade, 19 consumer organisations and four enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 42 consultations.
    I can give further examples. We always consult. In principle, I am happy to accept the new clause. There is a dilemma, however, and since the right hon. Gentleman takes a delight in these matters of drafting statutory instruments perhaps I can explain it to him. The Renton Report dealing with the drafting of legislation recommended that amendments like this ought to be textual and not made by way of a new clause. It suggested that there should be a textual interpolation rather than an addition by way of a new clause. The way in which the new clause is drafted runs contrary to the recommendations of the Renton Committee.
    If the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House would like to take it upon themselves to defy the recommendations of the Renton Report I shall not quarrel with that. I simply say that the responsibility will belong elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman can then have the statutory requirement to consult on 9B orders. I hope that that is satisfactory.
    Turning to Amendment No. 9— —
    5.45 p.m.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about this not being a textual amendment, I am sure that he will realise that it was difficult to table such an amendment when the Bill was not published.
    Mr. Fraser: I do understand that. However, it could have been drafted as a textual amendment to the 1963 Act. I do not want to prolong our proceedings by reading from the Renton Report. I simply draw it to the attention of the House.
    Turning to Amendment No. 9, I have to point out that there is statutory provision for consultation under Section 9A orders. I would have thought that it was

    1249
    not necessary to write this wording into the Bill. Clearly it would be in the forefront of the minds of consumers and of the Government that the supplemental order would be an essential part of the negotiations. It is superfluous to add the requirement contained in Amendment No.9.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 2

    UNITS OF MEASUREMENT LAWFUL FOR USE FOR TRADE
    Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 33, at beginning insert:
    'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
    Mr. Fraser: This is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 3. It amounts to a restriction, to be written into the Bill in subsection (3), of the Secretary of State's powers to amend Schedules 1A and 3. Amendment No. 2 deletes the restriction on the phasing-out from use for trade purposes of certain units which were written into the Bill by an Opposition amendment carried in Committee. The principle has, however, been accepted and a Government amendment has been tabled which will have much the same effect—although not an identical effect—as that Opposition amendment.
    I turn now to the substantial amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 3. This substitutes a new form of words for the words that we seek to delete by Amendment No. 2. I have looked carefully at the effects of the Opposition amendment that was carried in Committee, which related to the inch, the foot, the mile, the pint and the gallon.
    The Opposition amendment would have a number of effects. First, it would prevent the wholesale abolition of the mile, the inch, the foot and the pint and would require further legislation to introduce a power to sweep away these units of measurement, across the board. The
    1250
    Government have decided to accept that principle. Secondly, the Opposition amendment, except in relation to the sale of motor fuel, would not prejudice orders enabling the Government to restrict the measures in particular sectors of the trade.
    The second effect of the Opposition amendment would be to preserve the use of the gallon for the sale of motor fuel. The amendment as drafted would have that effect. Indeed, it was intended to have the effect of preventing the metrication of the sale of motor fuel. The gallon, for the sale of motor fuel, is already phased out except at retail level. The spirit of the Opposition amendment in Committee would have been contrary to existing practice in all but the retail trade in the sale of motor fuel.
    We have some serious problems about the use of imperial measure for petrol pumps. First, virtually every pump now manufactured in this country is metric. We have the cost of converting to imperial, and not the other way round. A second and increasingly serious problem is that the older pumps are unable to cope with deliveries at high unit costs. One day we shall have to convert in the interests of the consumer. Over the past few years about 20,000 new pumps have been sold with imperial-metric facilities in expectation of metrication—about one-sixth of the total number of pumps.
    The added complexity of dual facilities results in a minimum additional cost of £10 for single-grade models and £20 for blenders. Those figures do not include the hidden indirect costs arising from the need to maintain a non-standard United Kingdom production. As exports consist almost entirely of metric pumps, the indirect costs have an effect on the United Kingdom industry's competitive edge in selling to other countries. However, some 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of total production goes for export. Metric provision for the home market would give greater scope for increased exports.
    The problem has become so serious that recently we have had to authorise the sale of petrol from some of the older pumps at half unit pricing. I am not trying to make out an argument for the immediate transition from the sale of petrol in gallons to its sale in litres. I have never

    1251
    proposed to do that in any sector. I have always said that such a decision would be subject to consultation and judgment as to the practicability and desirability of the change. I feel that the House would be imprudent not to recognise the possibility of that change taking place.
    The Government amendment leaves Parliament free to debate the terms of the sale of motor fuel. It leaves it free to debate and deal with the matter on some future occasion, but in the meantime it allows into the Bill a safeguard against the gallon being swept away right across the board in one fell swoop. Of all the items that were mentioned in the Opposition amendment, the only change is in respect of motor fuel. I hope that the way in which I have put the matter will commend itself to the House as a reasonable compromise.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am extremely gratified that the Government have been forced to introduce Amendment No. 3 as a direct consequence of the victory that the Conservative Opposition enjoyed in having a similar amendment carried in Committee. At one time it looked very much as if the Minister of State would not budge an inch, or, rather, 2·54 centimetres as we should have been forced to say if we had not won the amendment in Committee and if the Minister had not accepted at least the spirit of the amendment and produced his own version of it.
    The House should not be under any misapprehension as to the significance of the amendment. We have won for the country the preservation of the foot, the inch, the mile, the pint and the gallon. We no longer depend on ministerial undertakings or assurances, as the amendment is being made to the Bill. This is a significant achievement. It is just as well that this has happened, because as recently as 11th October the Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), said:
    "The completion of the metrication programme will eventually mean changing to kilometres, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not by any means a priority."—[Official Report, 11th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 24.]
    The Minister has made the right conversion from metric back to imperial, and we are grateful, but as I look at the
    1252
    Labour Benches and recall the debates in Committee I ask myself where the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is to be found, the advocate of the CBI, the NFU and other such powerful organisations. The hon. Gentleman is nowhere to be seen, and he was the sole voice in support of the Minister of State. The Secretary of State is sitting beside the Minister of State and looking robust, but he is silent on this occasion. Who is here to support the Minister? I cannot imagine for one moment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has come here to support him.
    Mr. John Page: Or the CBI.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Indeed. Such organisations are now totally bereft of their advocates. We now have the Government, the Opposition and the consumer. Perhaps that is as it should be.
    The Government have substituted their own amendment for the one that we inserted in Committee. As we have heard, they have done so for drafting purposes. The argument was pretty narrow, but that has often been the position when debating these matters. So be it. We shall be magnanimous on this occasion. We have won so much, and if the Government want to make a narrow drafting point we are prepared to accept it. In doing so, we accept the superiority of the Government draftsmen if nothing else. The important thing—the House and the country should recognise this—is that we have won the argument.
    During the debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House the Minister of State professed his perplexity as to how the mile could possibly be used as a term of trade or a measurement of something sold. I remember his saying in Committee—I do not wish to misquote him—that people did not buy a mile of wire or a mile of sausages. That is fair enough, but one thing that is sold by the mile in every city, town and village is the service sold by taxis. I remember the time when they used to sell it at 8d. a mile. That was a long time ago. I hope that we shall have no more argument along those lines from the Minister of State. Although the mile, for the sake of speed limits and road signs, will not come within the Bill, I hope that the precedent

    1253
    created in the amendment will be noted by those who will be dealing with related legislation at a later stage.
    I am still concerned about the gallon of petrol. The Minister's arguments have not convinced me entirely. He said that one-sixth of the retail petrol trade is now using metric pumps and that they are having to be converted to imperial measuring. Clearly, that is a very small proportion of the total number of pumps. Surely we must consider the inconvenience to consumers when, before very long, they will have to multiply by two the price registered on the pumps because of difficulties with the metering equipment. When petrol goes metric they will not only have to multiply by two but carry out an additional calculation to decide how many litres they need to travel a certain distance and how many litres they can afford when making a comparison of price between the litre and the gallon. That is not a small point, and it is unfortunate that the Minister has not accepted that part of the amendment, although I accept that he has moved quite a long way.
    We have a compromise amendment although the batle has been won. A peace treaty has been negotiated. This is a historic amendment in the annals of metrication. It means for the British people that the mile, the foot, the inch, the pint and the gallon can remain in legal usage as long as the people, through their elected representatives, wish them to remain. Through the amendment, we have avoided the statutory ban. Above all, we have shown that when the people really want something, and when their representatives in this House put their case and stick to it through thick and thin, despite all the representations made by the high-pressure organisations, the CBI, the NFU, the TUC, and so on, and their advocates, that case must prevail. I hope that in some small way this victory will renew the jaded faith that some of our people have in parliamentary democracy. I thank the Minister of State for his contribution through the amendment.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. George Thompson: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that the amendment was due to the Tory Opposition. It should be put on record that it was very
    1254
    much due to the Scottish National Party Opposition in this House. It was also due to my own humble efforts by voting in the right direction—a vote which struck a blow for the people who have not yet been brainwashed into metrication. It shows that, once in a while, with a bit of luck in a Standing Committee, Governments can be made to shift their position. To that extent, this case vindicates parliamentary democracy, and I am glad that I was there to add my weight in the right direction.
    Mr. John Page: I feel that we are witness to a new edition of "Dr. Finlay's Casebook". I acknowledge that it was through the assistance of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that this important blow was struck for British traditions and the weight of public opinion.
    It is particularly disappointing for me that the Secretary of State left in a huff a few minutes ago. I was going to say some extremely nice things about him. I was going to congratulate him on being appointed Secretary of State. I debated on so many occasions with him when he was at the Department of Employment that I am glad to see that he has received what I consider to be a just reward in a very difficult Department.
    I was also going to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, through the Minister of State, he had become a standard-bearer for British imperial traditions. I was going to point out to him that some people are born to greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, through the agency of the Minister of State, has had greatness thrust upon him as the Secretary of State who took this right and important decision. But all that the right hon. Gentleman did while my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) was speaking was to sit looking grumpy and disapproving in a superior way, rather like a bishop looking in the window of a sex shop. I thought that that was hardly worthy of the occasion.
    We are grateful to the Minister of State for the complicated way in which he introduced the amendment. I do not quite understand the new aspect of the position of the gallon. As I understand it, the gallon will be able to remain permanently,

    1255
    not only in connection with the sale of petrol but in connection with the sale of any other articles. Is that correct?
    Mr. John Fraser: The position is that the Government are denied the opportunity even of putting an order to the House to disqualify the use of the gallon universally across the board, without prejudice—indeed, the Opposition amendment in Committee was on the same lines—to the power to introduce particular restrictions, but then again only with the affirmative consent of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Page: I am grateful that that has been made clear to me. Unfortunately I seldom buy a gallon of beer, although I expect that the hon. Member for Galloway often buys a gallon of whisky. That is something that we can now usefully continue to do. However, it is no part of my objective to waste the time of the House by over-indulgence in satisfaction. I think that this is the end of the present road. It is the end of the present road on which we were not sure whether we would be continuing in kilometres or miles. Now we are entering a new road, the measurement distances of which we know.
    The decision which the Government have sensibly made today is among the few which, during my 16 years in this place, have been totally in accord with the views of the ordinary man and woman in the street. I am thankful to say that at least, thanks to the Conservative Front Bench, the Union Jack has been nailed to the mast in the pubs and petrol stations of this country.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that occasionally there is merit in hon. Members who did not serve on a Standing Committee, and, therefore, who do not aspire to any expertise in the matter under discussion, commenting on the achievement of their colleagues who did serve in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) knows, I have not been entirely in agreement with the attitude that she and her colleagues have taken through the Bill, but in this case I congratulate her most warmly on a signal victory for common sense, for public opinion and for the future of the
    1256
    pubs, the motorist and many other people.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I were at the then transport part of the Department of the Environment during the Conservative Government, we discovered that preparations had already started on the repainting of signs in kilometres in anticipation of the possible will of the House of Commons. He and I found this extraordinary, and I think that I can quite properly reveal that he put a stop to it—at least, he did his part in doing so. It is right that, now that the Conservative Party, with such assistance as the Scottish National Party was able to provide, has succeeded in retaining the mile, the foot and the inch, that should be properly recorded.
    Presumably, subsection (3) of the clause allows the Government
    "without prejudice to the power … to add. vary or remove any restriction—".
    The Minister of State has made plain how he sees that, but I hope that he will feel it appropriate to intervene again if only to help one who was not a member of the Standing Committee by underlining what I understand to be the case—that it is not within the intention of the Government to seek to vary the sale of goods in gallons, feet or inches. I understood him to say that.
    Mr. John Fraser: Perhaps I may make the position clear. Leaving motor fuel aside for the moment, the effect of the Opposition's amendment would have been to prevent the Government from removing for use for trade across the board generally the inch, the foot, the mile, the pint and the gallon. We have accepted that principle, but without prejudice to the right—used in the past in other circumstances—to restrict the use of one of those units of measurment in a particular sphere of trade. Right up to the retail level, the gallon is not used for the sale of motor fuel, and it might one day be sensible to restrict its use right up to the retail point.
    The amendment is without prejudice to that power and without prejudice to asking for a further restriction on sale at retail level. But that would still be open to debate, and it would still require

    1257
    the affirmative consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
    Mr. Griffiths: That explanation makes it crystal clear. The reasons for the Minister's reservation are perfectly apparent, and they are acceptable to me.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester again. She will be able to remain "five feet two with eyes of blue" for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Erie S. Heller: I think that the Government also should be congratulated, in the sense that at least they are accepting the amendment without having any particular argument against it.
    I understand what happened in the Committee. For very good reasons, one of the members of the Government side was not there. I am absolutely delighted that he was not there, because anyway I think that the whole Bill has been a bit of a nonsense. I voted against it on Second Reading. I am not sure whether I shall do so on Third Reading, because I think that there will be collusion between the two Front Benches to ensure that the Bill goes through, and I do not particularly want to waste my vote. But the Bill really is a bit of nonsense, and anything at all which helps to mitigate that nonsense is a good job well done.
    If there are to be congratulations, let me congratulate the Conservative Front Bench and those hon. Members who voted in a particular way. I also congratulate the Government now on putting forward the amendment and accepting the arguments that were made.
    I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in the House this afternoon. I have tried to accept some of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have tried to believe that something positive is being achieved in this measure. I regret to say, however, that I cannot find anything positive whatsoever, and in that sense I am an old imperialist—an unashamed imperialist—in this matter. Nevertheless, despite the unnecessary nature of the Bill, there is something positive in it that is worth supporting. If there were a vote on it—which there will not be—I would willingly vote for that part of it, if not for the Bill as a whole.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 37, leave out from 'measurement' to end of line 39.
    No. 3, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
    '(3A) An order under subsection (3) above shall not remove from Schedule 1A—

    (a) in Part I the mile, foot or inch, or

    (b) in Part IV the gallon or pint,

    but this subsection is without prejudice to the power under paragraph (c) of the said subsection (3) to add vary or remove any restriction on the cases or circumstances in which, or the conditions subject to which, a unit of measurement, measure or weight may be used for trade, or possessed for use for trade'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'transitional or other supplemental or incidental' and insert
    'consequential, incidental or supplementary'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 11, in Clause 8, page 9, line 41, leave out 'incidental or supplemental' and insert
    'consequential, incidental or supplementary'.
    Mr. Page: The amendment is put forward merely to achieve consistency in drafting and to avoid doubt about whether there is any substantial difference between three provisions in the Bill, all of which appear to have exactly the same purpose but each of which is differently worded. I have chosen the wording from section 9B(3)(d) of the 1963 Act—which is Government drafting—as the most happy form of words.
    By Amendment No. 11 I have tried to bring the other two wordings into line, so that we have consistent drafting throughout, with nobody asking whether there is any substance in the difference in the wording in three provisions which seem to have the same purpose.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Fraser: 'The effect of the Amendment No. 4 would be to omit the word "transitional". When orders are made they will certainly have to have transitional provisions. One of the transitional provisions which they ought to have relates to contracts, which the House discussed for about half an hour quite recently. If the word "transitional" were missed out, it could well be that that kind of provision would have to be omitted.

    1259
    With regard to Amendment No. 11, I understand that it does not matter a tinker's cuss whether we put in "supplemental" or "supplementary". As it makes no difference at all, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page Mr. Graham Page I cannot understand why the example that the Minister has given is not consequential and why we have to have the word "transitional". Surely it is entirely consequential. To have these three provisions each differently worded, but each intending exactly the same thing, is shockingly bad drafting. I do not think that it is bad drafting on the part of Parliamentary draftsmen. Probably three draftsmen took the separate clauses and did not get together on them. It is the Minister's job to get them together and to have consistent wording in the Bill.
    Although I would not wish to divide the House on this—because I do not think it will have tremendous repercussions—it is annoying to have a Bill worded in such a way that people may well ask what is the difference between these differently worded clauses or why they are differently worded. It causes quite unnecessary doubt. I should have thought that the Minister could have put it right between Committee stage and Report. However, having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 11 to 13.—[Mr. John Fraser.]
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, after first 'the', insert 'classes of'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 6, in line 8, leave out 'persons' and insert 'classes'.
    Mr. Page: We discussed this matter in Committee, when I pointed out that orders under Section 9B of the 1963 Act could, by reason of paragraph (c) at the top of page 4, prescribe the individuals to whom those orders should apply. It is not only a matter of cases and circumstances or the classes of persons. By the use of the words "the persons", this
    1260
    provision could apply to any individual person.
    I pointed out in Committee—I shall not repeat the whole argument here—that when we are legislating by a Bill which will become an Act we should make certain that, if we deal with any individual person apart from the general public, such a person or persons should be given an opportunity of petitioning the House against the Bill. It has to be a Private Bill or it has to be a Hybrid Bill which will allow petitions. When the Secretary of State makes orders, as he is given power to do under the new Section 9B, there is no such procedure. Orders under Section 9B will not even be subject to the affirmative procedure. They will merely be subject to the negative procedure, and it will be pure luck if they ever get debated in the House at all. If they are really to affect individual persons, it is quite wrong to legislate in that form.
    I thought that the Minister made it clear in Committee that he did not intend to make orders affecting individuals and that he intended orders to be against a class of individuals. He said:
    "'Persons' could refer to retailers dealing with a particular class of commodity. If there were to be a changeover in respect of, say, the sale of confectionery, it might be necessary to apply the regulations only to those who sell confectionery. That is why the word 'persons' was chosen.
    If there is a changeover from imperial to metric which proceeds in chronological stages—which applies first to manufacturers, secondly to wholesalers, and thirdly to retailers—it may be necessary to specify that the persons affected by requirements of regulations under Section 9B should be, in the first instance, the manufacturers, in the second instance the wholesalers and in the third instance the retailers.
    The word 'persons' enables us to take a class of persons to whom the regulation would apply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28th October 1976; c. 60–1.]
    I invite the attention of the Minister to that last sentence. If that is his intention, let him restrict the provision to that. As it stands, it could go far beyond it in picking out individuals for some purpose—the use of these regulations merely for classes. My amendment would restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to naming a class of persons by reference to what they do—manufacturers, retailers or wholesalers—or any of the goods with which

    1261
    they were dealing and the circumstances in which they were dealing with them.
    Although I have intentionally in this amendment sought to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State, if the amendment is accepted I do not think that those powers would be restricted any more than the Secretary of State and the Minister intend they should be restricted in practice.
    Mr. John Fraser: I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I have not the slightest intention of making capricious use of the powers conferred on the Government or of going round victimising individuals by making them display conversion charts or obey dual marking regulations.
    The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) caught me with my own words when I described the practice which would be normal in making orders in respect of a class of persons. The only reason why the word "class" has not been inserted in this provision is that it raises a problem in that the insertion of a reference to "class" would be too limited in its effect. It might be desired to require the display of conversion charts and, in a case where the number of persons concerned would be too limited to form a class—for instance, where a single nationalised industry was concerned—the amendment would prevent the use of the powers.
    That is the only reason why we did not put in a phrase like "class of persons" and have used the single noun "persons". There is no hidden intention to make capricious use of these powers against individuals. Indeed, if such a capricious exercise of the powers were undertaken, it would be an unexpected use of the powers, it would probably be ultra vires, and certainly it would be subject to the hybrid procedure in the other place.
    Mr. Graham Page: I accept the Minister's assurance that he has no intention of using these powers capriciously, but that is no answer for putting them in this form in the Bill. The one case which the hon. Gentleman said would be restricted if the word "class" were inserted is if lie wished to make an order affecting merely one nationalised
    1262
    industry. Surely that would come within a class, although it might be one nationalised concern. It is covering wide circumstances and a wide class of people. But to refuse to put the word "class" into this provision merely because he might wish to apply these orders to a nationalised industry is not a good answer to the amendment.
    If the Bill stands as it is, it gives the opportunity for an order to be made against perhaps one firm or one manufacturer. One nationalised industry can stand up against it. But it may act very unfairly upon one manufacturer. He will be faced with an order which is subject only to the negative procedure, which is subject to some hon. Member spotting it in time and putting down a Prayer, which would be subject to time being found by the Government for it. Obviously, the Minister cannot envisage something like that happening. But there may he one individual who will be affected or who may be overstepping the line in some way. It can happen, and while the power remains in the Bill it can always be used for that purpose.
    I think that it is reasonable to ask for the power to be restricted to an order against a class of persons, and I ask the Minister to think again about this.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 39, at end insert
    'and for the word "twenty" there is substituted the word "fifty"'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 8, 18, 19, 15 and 20.
    Mr. Page: The Minister accepted the principle of this amendment in Committee, and on that basis he asked me to withdraw it. I am grateful to him for putting his own amendments on the Notice Paper. I move my amendment formally, and invite the hon. Gentleman to address the House on his own amendments.
    Mr. John Fraser: My amendments do what I promised they would. They meet the convenience, the principle and the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they bring intense satisfaction to him.
    Mr. Page: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
    '(c) in the said section 52(1) for the words '£20' there are substituted the words '£50', and the amendment of that subsection in Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by this paragraph) shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

  Clause 7

    FEES FOR PERFORMANCE OF COMMUNITY BLIGATIONS
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'certificates or other documents' and insert 'or certificates'.
    This, again, is a probing amendment. Usually one describes an amendment as "probing" in Committee. Unfortunately, I did not table this one in Committee. However, I probed the matter on the Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill". The probing brought out nothing, so I decided to table this amendment on Report.
    The amendment asks the Minister what he means by saying that inspectors can charge
    "for services or facilities provided by them, or for authorisations, certificates or other documents issued by them".
    That might mean a letter, a note or any other little communication.
    I hope that the Minister will explain this to enable me to withdraw the amendment, but he must put on record what he means by "or other documents".
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. John Fraser: The Community obligations referred to arise from various EEC directives on the harmonisation of laws so that technical barriers to trade can be removed. These directives already go far wider than what we understand as the weighing or measuring equipment with which the 1963 Act deals, and we need to be ready to cope with new directives as they are adopted. For example, there are already directives on the calibration of ships' tanks, on instruments for measuring the volume and weight of grain and on devices to be incorporated in petrol pumps and similar equipment. All these types of equip-
    1264
    ment, and the more well-known examples of weights and length measures, need to go through the process of testing to qualify for various marks or documentation in one form or another which act as "passports" into the other EEC member States. Not to be able to prescribe the fees may hurt this country where it can least afford it—in its potential to export—since the local authority inspector will not do the work unless he can charge a fee.
    An example of the sort of documentation which can arise in these directives is in the one on calibration of ships' tanks. In the directive there is a series of annexes detailing the papers to be prepared—not just a certificate, but various supporting diagrams and tables concerned with the layout and features of the cargo or fuel tanks. It is this sort of requirement which needs to be covered by the regulations under Clause 6 so that the United Kingdom is not in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis its EEC competitors.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 8

    CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS OF LAW OF NORTHERN IRELAND
    Amendment made: No. 18, in page 8, line 9, at end insert'—
    (a)'.
    No. 19, in page 8, line 11, at end insert
    ',and
    (b) for the words "twenty pounds" there are substituted the words "fifty pounds", and the amendment of that subsection in Part I of the Schedule to the Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (which is superseded by this paragraph) shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

  Clause 10

    ORDERS FOR ALLEVIATION OF FOOD OR OTHER SHORTAGES
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 10, line 7 after 'amending', insert 'or suspending'.
    I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because he let us into the secret in Committee that on his brief he

    1265
    originally had the word "accept". However, someone had scratched it out and put "think again". The Minister said he thought he had better think again.
    I explained to the Committee in the course of moving this amendment in Committee that the Statutory Instrument before the House relating to the licensing of bulls referred to suspending the parent statute under which every bull had to be licensed. After explaining that with great care to the Committee, I said that the Minister might think that I was talking a lot of—then I corrected myself and said "A lot of that animal". Yet Hansard, in its magnificent way of interpreting what I said, recorded me as saying that the Minister might think I was talking a lot of "fandanelo". It may have exactly the same meaning as intended, but it was not what I said. This amendment is not a lot of fan-dangle.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the bull he had in mind was to be licensed by the pound or the foot?
    Mr. Page: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. I would if I could. I said in Committee that I knew the Minister was on the horns of a dilemma and that I hoped he would look at the right end of the bull.
    In making the orders under this clause, however, the Secretary of State may well wish to suspend the Act of Parliament, but giving him power to amend or modify it does not give him the power to suspend it. We have the precedent in the Statutory Instrument about bulls, so let us follow that precedent and give the Secretary of State power to suspend the statute.
    Mr. John Fraser: I must advise the House that as the clause is drafted it is wide and adequate enough to permit

    Permitted imperial quantities in Schedule 4 to the Act of 1963

    1. The following provisions in Schedule 4 to the Act of 1963 so far as they permit the use of quantities expressed in the imperial system—

    paragraph 3 of Part IV (bread),

    paragraph 3(a) of Part V (milk),

    paragraphs 2 and 3(a) of Part VI (intoxicating liquor),

    paragraph 2(b) of Part VII (potatoes),

    paragraph 3(a) of Part VIII (miscellaneous),

    paragraph 3(a) of Part IX (miscellaneous).

    In this paragraph references to provisions of Schedule 4 to the 1963 Act are to those provisions as amended by any order made under section 21 of the Act of 1963 before the passing of this Act.

    a suspension if necessary. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
    Mr. Page: It may be unnecessary, but I am tired of that word. If it makes the Bill clearer and if it follows a precedent already before the House, the addition of two words can do no harm. Personally I think it is necessary, hut even if it is not the two words make the Bill clearer.
    I would hate the Secretary of State to say that he had to bring in an amending Bill in the future because the parent Act did not allow him to suspend it. We might be frustrating the powers of the Secretary of State by not adding these two words. As we are all getting so nice and friendly and pally, I think that the Minister should give way and let me have my two words.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 13

    SHORT TITLE, ETC.
    Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 11, line 17, leave out from "sections" to "3" and insert:
    "(pre-packed or other goods), 6 and 7 and Schedules (pre-packed and other goods)".
    I have given the Opposition notice of this and I mentioned it during the first debate. It is purely a consequential amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: I express the opinion that this is quite unnecessary. It the Minister wants these words in the Bill just to please himself, he should let me have mine in as well.
    Amendment agreed to.

  New Schedule

    PRE-PACKED AND OTHER GOODS
    Permitted imperial quantities in Orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963

    2. The following Orders so far as they specify quantities in the imperial system—

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Pasta) Order 1973

    S.I. 1973/1967

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973

    S.I. 1973/1968

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) Order 1974

    S.I. 1974/1166

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cereal Breakfast Foods and Oat Products) Order 1975

    S.I. 1975/1177

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Flour and Flour Products) Order 1975

    S.I. 1975/1178

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Vegetables) Order 1975

    S.I. 1975/1179

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Biscuits and Shortbread) Order 1976

    S.I. 1976/111

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Edible Fats) Order 1976

    S.I. 1976/430

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits) Order 1976

    S.I. 1976/431

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Tea) Order 1976

    S.I. 1976/1294

    The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976'.—[Mr. John Fraser]

    S.I. 1976/1297

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 6

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 15, in page 23, line 38, at end insert:

    '1967 c. 80.

    Criminal Justice Act 1967.

    In Schedule 3 the amendment of the 1963 Act'.

    No. 20, in page 23, line 38, at end insert:

    1967 c. 29 (N.I.).

    Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

    In the Schedule the amendment of the 1967 Act'.

    —[Mr John Fraser.]

    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the Minister moving the Third Reading formally?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am, but with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply to the debate.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: I thought that the Minister was trying to move the Third Reading furtively and without saying anything, but I retract that suggestion since we have an assurance that he will reply to the debate.
    We have a Bill before us on Third Reading which is very different from the Bill which the House considered on Second
    1268
    Reading on 18th October. It would be more appropriate now if the Short Title of the Bill were "Metrication Muzzled". The Bill was amended twice in Committee and subsequently in a manner which goes a long way to meeting the spirit of the amendments that were moved in Committee.
    It is fair to say that it is a greatly improved Bill, and we may take justifiable pride in the fact that our efforts on each of the major points have met with either a total or considerable concession on the part of the Government. Important measurements have been preserved. The statutory metrication of basic foodstuffs, particularly important to poorer families, is to be delayed—not as long as we should have liked, but on a far wider range of items. Therefore, I think that the Minister has been fairly generous on this point.
    We have also had acceptance from the Minister of the spirit of the amendment

    1269
    moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) with regard to weighed-out goods, so that small shopkeepers and consumers alike will be spared that change for some considerable time. At the same time, a number of the points raised in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading have been met as a result of the amendments that the Government have agreed to and the concessions which have been made.
    Here, however, I should like to refute—I am sure that the Minister would want to do this as well—the imputation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that there was some sort of collusion between the Government Front Bench and ourselves. I thought at one point that I could hear violins playing when the hon. Member for Walton was speaking. For one moment, I thought that he was actually going to support the Government. However, I am not quite sure whether in the end he had got, as the Minister said, quite as careless as that.
    I should like to make it clear to all interested parties, both inside and outside the House—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—that, by the amendments and the concessions, the delays and exemptions that we have obtained have in no way added to the uncertainty of business and industry. Far from it. They have afforded a greater degree of certainty in some cases, and particularly in one case, because an assurance is no longer so much an assurance but is actually written into the Bill.
    The Minister of State has wisely adopted a strategy of appeasement—wisely because if he were to do otherwise he would not only be flying in the face of amendments carried in Committee but flying in the face of public opinion. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has made such concessions as he has made gracefully, and for that we are extremely grateful.
    Having said that, I must say that we do not like the Bill. Speaking for myself —I make no bones about it—I do not like metrication at all. However, our main objection to the Bill is that it involves the statutory imposition of metrication. As I have said many times, I do not think that this is necessary or desirable. If people want metrication, let
    1270
    them have it. If they do not want it, do not ram it down their throats. If business and industry want to go metric, they can do so, following consultations with the Government, by voluntary agreement. As I said in Committee, trade and industry will always have to take into account, in doing so, the wishes of their customers in a free enterprise society. That is the important reason, among others, why we do not think that statutory metrication is necessary.
    As I have also said many times, in many cases those who want compulsion in business and industry want it because they fear that metrication will be unpopular and they would like to be able to say to their customers "The Government forced us to go metric." I fear that with this Bill the Government are falling into that trap.
    We object to the principle for which the Bill stands. We still do not believe—although the concessions that we have won will mitigate against this—that it will be possible completely to avoid confusion and higher costs to consumers. We call upon the Government to proceed with the utmost caution. Our Standing Committee debates have shown them to be still very largely unprepared on a number of important points. We ask them not to act until the fullest preparations are completed or before the businesses and industries concerned are absolutely ready, and, above all, before consumers can be adequately safeguarded.
    For our part, we shall want to scrutinise very closely any orders made under the Bill and to reserve the right to oppose them whatever the circumstances may be if we consider it necessary to do so. Fortunately, as the first order cannot be laid before April 1978, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames has said, the problem is largely academic, because by that time we are likely to be the Government of the day and we shall be in control of the situation.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Neubert: It is still a relatively rare parliamentary phenomenon that only a fortnight after we have had the Second Reading of a Bill we have reached its Third Reading. When we recall what progress has been made in between, it is even more remarkable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim)

    1271
    said, it has been a great triumph for common sense and in the interests of the shopper as well as, one would think, the shopkeeper.
    Unfortunately, one has to put these minor triumphs in their perspective. Last week was the week in which we managed to save the mile, the foot, the inch, and the pint—but failed to save the pound. A drop of 6 or 7 cents in the value of our currency is a much more significant factor than any that we have been discussing in relation to the Bill in its implications for the economy and the people of Britain. It will have the effect of pushing up prices, very fast and high. That is why we have been concerned, throughout the passage of the Bill, to urge caution and natural evolution on the Government. We are naturally delighted that the cogency of our arguments has achieved such effect and that the Minister has been prepared to recognise the points put.
    The case for the Bill always was an overstated argument. It has been overstated in many ways. It has been overstated in terms of the simplicity of the system. It will be a continuing irony that many of the new weights which are being introduced, such as 125 grammes and 250 grammes, represent vulgar fractions of one-eighth or one-quarter, which have little relation to a simple decimal system of measurement in units of 10.
    It has also been overstated that this combining of two systems of measurement at the same time will cause great confusion and bewilderment among the public. Here particularly has been taken in aid the many hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who have been educated in the metric system. I can only speak as I find. My son is a modern mathematician and is as metricated as anyone, yet he finds no difficulty at all in the pleasure of recording his height as 5 ft. ½ in, no difficulty in identifying and locating a pint of milk in the refrigerator, and no difficulty in bowling a good length on a cricket pitch of 22 yards. Just as some children become bilingual as they grow up without even knowing it, just as Molière's Bourgeois Gentilhomme was speaking prose all his life without realising it, so people cope with two systems of measurement and will continue to
    1272
    do so. There is no reason at all for the Minister to rush headlong into metricating our way of life far beyond the wishes of public opinion.
    I should like to draw attention to what is a mini minor triumph for many people in outlying areas of Scotland. In his mood of generosity the Minister was able to accommodate an amendment that was moved in my name to allow coal to be sold by volume rather than by weight. This demonstrates the independence of the people of the outlying islands of Scotland and their common sense. Here we have a situation in which, if the Minister were to press his principles to the limit, it would make coal more expensive for those people. It might also make coal unavailable to them.
    The present rather old-fashioned system—charming, none the less—is very suitable to their needs. There are steamers puffing to the islands and the less accessible parts of the Scottish mainland with coal on board, which they then offload. There is no cheap means of packing it in prescribed weights on loading and there is no weighing machinery available on unloading for the weight to be calculated, so the people in the islands are very happy to buy coal by volume because they depend upon these supplies. Therefore, on behalf of the people of Scotland, I am happy that the Minister has accepted our amendment.
    I should like to express my personal pleasure at this because in preparation for moving the amendment I spent three weeks in Scotland during the recess, visiting such places as Tobermory, Craignure, Iona and the outer islands of the Inner Hebrides, such as Coll and Tiree. I also absorbed most of the late lamented Sir Compton Mackenzie's book "Whisky Galore". When one has the atmosphere of Scotland one understands that these practical matters are paramount and that we should not, from our ivory fastness here at Westminster, seek to undermine another way of life: and, as we so often discover in our discussions of consumer affairs, progress in consumer protection very often means a higher price. The people of Scotland and the outlying islands do not wish to pay higher prices and we have no wish to make them pay higher prices faster than they will have to anyway because of inflation. I am

    1273
    delighted that in two short weeks—at almost the speed of sound—so much common sense has been incorporated into the Government's proposals.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. George Thompson: I congratulate the Minister on remaining urbane throughout the Committee stage, even when he was defeated, and I put on record my appreciation of his conciliatory attitude to the problems of the remote areas of Scotland—which have a distinctive way of selling solid fuel—and over amendments passed in Committee. The Minister is an example to his colleagues, and I hope that they will follow that example.
    I cannot pretend that I have ever believed in metrication or decimalisation. I do not see why the French Revolution should still be dictating to us 200 years later.
    Charlemagne's librae, solidi and denari were good enough for him and would be good enough for me. They provided two barriers before reaching the pound, whereas the present system provides only one. I do not know whose foot provided the measurement for a foot, but it is good enough for me, and I am pleased that it has been decided that it will be good enough for us for a long time. These measures were also good enough for the people who placed certain standard measures in the wall of the staircase leading from the Principal Floor of this building to the Committee Floor. I am pleased that the statute of Lord Palmerston will not have to be removed and disposed of in the River Thames, or wherever the inconoclasts or Red Guard would like to throw it.
    I cannot give my blessing to the Bill, though I dare say that some of my hon. Friends—the lovers of new things—will bless it. The ordinary consumer will bless it all right! Hon. Members will be able to receive those blessings as they go about their constituency business.
    Like the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), I am puzzled to know why decimalisation and metrication were not wedded. If we are to have goods packaged in 125-gramme containers, we are thinking in halves, quarters, eighths, and so on. This seems to be a clear sign that the human mind works in vulgar
    1274
    fractions, even though we have 10 fingers and 10 toes. I sometimes think that the only reason that the presence and absence of SNP Members is reported in the Press with such assiduity is that it is possible to count to 10 without taking off one's shoes.
    It would have been better if we had allowed the imperial system to wither away, if the people of this country so wished. Some years ago I was arguing with a girl in Brittany that she ought to speak her native language more often. She said that her people could not use it for official purposes because they did not use the metric system for counting in their language. Even 200 years after the French Revolution, the parts of France with their own language have not adopted the metric system.
    We should not force the well-tried imperial measures down the road to extinction as we are, at least in part, by this Bill.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. Joan Evans: I am pleased that the House has reached the Third Reading of the Bill and that the Government will be given the enabling powers to bring in metrication in an orderly way.
    I said on Second Reading that I thought that the Opposition were taking an opportunist line on metrication. Having listened to them since, to me they seem to have a Jekyll and Hyde approach—a split personality—on the subject. It is difficult to know whether it is Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde speaking.
    I was unable to be here for the Report stage, because I was meeting a deputation, but I understand that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) chastised me for quoting the CBI. I did not quote only the CBI; I quoted also the views of consumer organisations, the Retail Consortium, the TUC and most of the organisations that have recognised that there should be an orderly transition to metrication in this country. I challenged the hon. Lady to mention one organisation on whose behalf she was speaking.
    Mr. Nigel Lawson: She spoke on behalf of the British people.
    Mr. Evans: It is true that when we introduce changes there is sometimes a

    1275
    reaction from people who are unwilling to see such changes. However, the argument now is how to bring in metrication. The Conservative Party is committed to the principle. The Treaty of Accession to the EEC says that we should accept a system of metrication. When the Conservatives were in power, they said on a number of occasions that they wished metrication to be introduced.
    Some of my hon. Friends held up the Second Reading of the Bill because they were not satisfied that there had been enough consultation with consumer organisations. I praise the Minister for the way in which he has since consulted outside organisations. There has been a great deal of consultation about the reservations of some of these bodies.
    It is no use hon. Members talking vaguely about speaking on behalf of British housewives when there are organisations in this country—recognised consumer bodies, the CBI, which represents large sections of industry, the TUC, which represents trades union organisations. and the Retail Consortium, which represents a large sector of retail trade—which have made serious representations to the Government and which hope that the enabling powers in the Bill will be approved by the House. We should take careful note of these representations.
    Of course, we are sometimes conservative, with a small "c". We wish to carry on with the old imperial system rather than change to metrication, but we must recognise that children are being taught metrication at school and are told that although their school books include problems involving imperial units they should not attempt these sums. They are not learning the imperial system.
    We shall get into grave difficulties if we teach our children metrication and they then go into shops having to purchase goods measured in imperial units.
    We have had arguments about the mile and the pint. Some hon. Members have been like Don Quixote—tilting at windmills. The Minister has given assurance after assurance, and the amendment now included in the Bill should satisfy those who were trying to suggest that
    1276
    there was to be a change in the measurements.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member said that we should not be vague. Does he draw a distinction between compulsory progress towards metrication and voluntary progress towards it? They are completely different, and the hon. Member's failure to draw that distinction totally vitiates his remarks.
    Mr. Evans: We had that argument in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat it. Decimalisation was compulsory. We cannot have two systems operating. The metric system is being introduced. If we have large packets with small contents, some being sold under the metric system and others under the imperial system, the consumer will face tremendous difficulties.
    We are not suggesting that metrication will come in from an appointed day. The Government are taking enabling powers to bring it in in an orderly fashion. I appeal to the Opposition not to attempt to make political kudos by creating false fears among people that metrication will be brought in within a month. That is not so. The Government are taking enabling powers which will enable them to lay orders before the House to bring in metrication in an orderly fashion. Parents are concerned about their children knowing the metric system. We must go forward. The rest of the world has gone metric. The Opposition may still crave for the old Empire and want to hang on to the imperial system, but things are changing. We cannot afford to get off at this time.
    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: It is a fair distance in either miles or kilometres from Aberdare to Pudsey, but in many instances I must agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).
    I have not balked the principle of metrication, but I take issue with the hon. Gentleman that we have ill served the consumer by this process. We have gone a fair way to restore some sense of public credibility in the metrication process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the public are ill favoured towards it. I know that the Minister is deeply conscious of this fact.
    The discussions that we have had have gone over the ground time and again.

    1277
    The Bill will probably achieve its Third Reading tonight. The Minister then has the consultation period within which to try to proceed industry by industry or sector by sector. I encourage him to go through this process with reasonable speed so that there can be an orderly programme sector by sector. The hon. Gentleman will not find many industries wanting in providing the time or the opportunity to agree on the correct and most orderly way to make the transition. The transition will involve an enormous lead time in terms of machinery, information and communication. A substantial lead time is equally involved in seeing that the precise ranges of metric weights, as translated into their new form, meet the most obvious consumer needs. I am fearful that a whole range of different prepacks could be offered at different metric equivalents rather than the simple imperial measures of 4 oz., 8 oz. and 1 lb. units.
    I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of having in each industry or sector dates by which the change can be achieved. The amendments relating to April 1978 and 1980 provide the ground work to enable this to be done. I believe that it is necessary for him to work on that basis.
    I hope that the Minister will stiffen the resolve of the Metrication Board to realise that the problem only now begins—namely, that it must have the resources with which to guide the public at the time of conversion irrespective of what it has already spent.
    Finally, the Minister has already accepted the need for consultation with the various trades. On weigh up, I ask the Minister to consult the confectionery industry before deciding whether to omit it from the list of industries whose products are to be exempted.
    The inevitability of metrication should be carefully cultivated industry by industry to ensure that there is less muddle, more order and more preparation. That is the best possible ground work to safeguard the consumer.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. Newens: As I said on Second Reading, I do not regard this Bill as a desirable and necessary measure. I recognise that metrication has gone a certain way and had gone that way prior to this measure being thought about, but
    1278
    I see no reason for endeavouring to force the pace. I think that we have been quite mistaken in taking the steps we have taken to give the Government power to cut off the use of imperial measures. Therefore, I wish that this Bill had not come before the House.
    I recognise, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) pointed out, that many august and important organisations support metrication and argue in favour of the Bill. I pay full tribute to the erudition of all the experts, but at the same time I maintain with complete confidence that the majority of ordinary people accustomed to the use of imperial measures would not, if they could be properly consulted, regard these organisations as speaking for them. In my opinion, ordinary people will find the change to metrication extremely confusing and difficult to cope with. I am sure that, over the years, there will be many complaints about the effects of this measure.
    Many people will never grasp the new system of weights and measures. They will be left in a state of continual confusion. I think that it would be much better to allow the imperial system to wither away in its own time.
    The Opposition have failed to oppose this measure in principle, as was perfectly clear from their amendment on Second Reading. I am opposed in principle to what the Bill seeks to do. We should not have legislated for this change at all. None the less, I recognise that the Minister has taken no end of pains to make this measure less pernicious than it might otherwise have been. I know from the consultations which many of us have had with him, apart from discussion on the Floor of the House, that he has been most concerned to mitigate the worst effects of this measure. At the same time, I still feel extremely unhappy about what we are proposing to do. Therefore, I appeal, even now, for some caution to be exercised by the Government when fixing the cut-off dates. I believe that, even with the lengthening of the period now proposed, the situation is not satisfactory, and that whoever happens to be in charge of these affairs at the time ought to proceed with extreme caution.

    1279
    I certainly do not welcome the Bill. I regard it as a mistake. In these circumstances, if there were to be a Division, I certainly could not support the Bill.
    7.9 p.m.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) put my views so accurately that I need not repeat them. My hon. Friend wants this measure brought in in an orderly manner and, it is fair to say, with deliberate haste. I believe that is a correct description of his views. It certainly is of mine.
    I found myself for the first time in this House abstaining on Second Reading of a Bill. I abstained consciously, because it confronted me with a conflict of right with right. I believe that this Bill is right in principle and that the Government have shown courage in bringing it in. Indeed, I believe that any Government, in present circumstances, would have brought in a Bill of this kind.
    I believe that there was right, and still is, on the side of the Bill. It is a right which, in my view, arises from the needs of British industry. If all of us wish to be credible in giving support to British industry then I believe we must support this principle.
    Secondly, I believe it was right on much broader European grounds. We committed ourselves under the Treaty of Accession and I believe that it is right that we should honour that commitment.
    Thirdly, I believe it is right to give to our people, however unpalatable a matter might be, a sense of definitiveness so that the necessary preparations can be made by our industry and by the public.
    Although I found that the principle of this Bill was right on Second Reading, I had severe reservations about some aspects of it. I think the Government and their advisers were misguided in having brought into the Bill the gallon, pint, mile, foot and the inch. This was one of those cases where the desire for tidiness and for a systematic covering of everything—which unfortunately underlines so much of our legislation—went beyond common sense.
    I can remember several times, in the various Departments of Government in which I served, when the desire of civil
    1280
    servants to be logical and comprehensive, estimable qualities in their own right, conflicted completely with the common sense of the British people. I believe that it is the role of politicians, and particularly of this House, to weigh the logic, reason and the comprehensiveness of official advice on the one hand and at the other end to weigh the needs and desires of the British public. I believe that the Bill ends up a better Bill because it has merged the two rights together.
    However, I believe that there was a moment when it became a conflict of wrong with wrong. There was a wrong on the Government's side in bringing in the gallon, mile, inch and the rest, which they did not need to, and there was a wrong on the Opposition Benches whenever it appeared as though we were going to resist the whole process—irrespective of the effect on British industry—simply because we were not prepared to swallow the removal of the gallon, the mile and the inch.
    Fortunately, as so often happens in Committee on Bills such as this, and with a reasonable Minister and someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who has managed consideration of this Bill with grace and effectiveness, the Committee was able to change a conflict of wrong with wrong into a negotiated settlement so that we now have a Bill which best meets the needs of industry and the public.
    I would make three points to which, 1 hope, the Minister will reply. The Bill, as its Short Title indicates, is not just about metrication. I quote the relevant phrase, which states:
    "to make provision for the alleviation of shortages of food and other goods."
    I doubt if these matters, which are technical, and which merely revise previous statutes, commanded very much attention either in Committee or in the public. I draw attention to the short title and to Clauses 10 and 11 because, in my view, this country may be facing shortages before we know it. I believe that we shall be facing shortages of food because we are not treating our agricultural industry properly. I believe that we shall be facing shortages because we are simply not able, on foreign exchange, to afford to import the food we shall need. Therefore, it may well be that, while not in the least intending to raise anxieties of

    1281
    that kind, the Government, because there was a tidying-up exercise to be done, have equipped themselves with powers to deal with a problem not clearly visualised as yet but which could arise in this country before very long. It is right to put on record that this Bill equips the Government with powers to deal with shortages of food and of other goods which could arise in our country.
    The second specific point that I would put to the Minister concerns one related industry—the weighing machines and scale makers. I have no interest to declare in this industry whatsoever, but I have read its literature and I have been approached by it in my constituency. I direct my remarks to the Minister, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who may well find herself in office when it comes to putting the Bill into effect. I take it that the date of 21st April 1978, in respect of prepacked goods, means that the Minister will do nothing before that date. I hope very much that he will get cracking soon after that date. It is important that the industry and the trade should know precisely that this is the target date at which they ought to be aiming.
    The date of 1st January 1980 reflects some effective negotiations by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I congratulate her upon that. I know it is a date which is somewhat earlier than she herself would have wished. I hope that the Minister will regard that date before which he cannot act as being a specific date at which point he would propose to act. Whether that is so or not I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that he have in his mind a date so that there can be certitude in the industry.
    What I am essentially saying is that it the weighing machine industry and the scale makers are to tool up, equip themselves and make themselves ready to build the new metric scales and new metric weighing machines, they must have a reasonable certainty that at some point in future the switch is to be made. Otherwise we shall find ourselves in a position where they have not tooled up or made preparations and the date will come out and most of the new metric scales will have to be imported from the long-run productions of Germany and France.
    1282
    That cannot be in the interests of this country or our balance of payments. I hope that the Minister will at least give an assurance that he has it in mind that there shall be "M" days so that the industry and trade will be able to work to them. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of what I am saying.
    I recognise the repugnance of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for metrication, and I feel much of it myself, but I hope she will not commit herself, or the next Conservative Government, to refusing to bring in the necessary orders so that there can be certainty in this matter. I realise that she preferred the whole matter to happen voluntarily and gradually as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) does. It would have been much better if it had been done that way, but I have grave doubts whether it would have happened in an orderly way if it had been left to the untidy voluntary procedures which are the only alternative. I am reminded of a certain African leader whom I once went to and who said that he was going to stop cars driving on the left and change to the right. There were so many casualties that he said it should be done gradually.
    I realise that the change from left to right is not exactly the same thing as a change from one kind of measure to another, but there needs to be clarity and certitude in the minds of the trade and manufacturers and I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will not commit the next Conservative Government in such a fashion that they will not be able to carry this out.
    I hope that the Minister will say a word about the Metrication Board. It appeared from the original Bill—I think I am correct—that it has cost £900,000 in one year. Will the Minister say how the Board has spent that amount of money and how much it will spend in the years to come? We should be able to handle these matters with more prudence and economy.
    Overall, the Bill has been massively improved. As one who abstained on Second Reading, I shall support the Third Reading, thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. John Fraser: I should like to answer the three questions raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). He was being far too dramatic in forecasting shortages. In the Second Reading debate I gave the example of the temporary shortage of sugar which occurred a couple of years ago and said that it was necessary to have a relaxation in case a similar occurrence made it necessary to import packs not strictly within our weights and measures legislation. It would be to attach too much importance to Clause 10 to suggest that it was necessary because we expected shortages in future.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me to get cracking with weighing machines. As a Minister, I find that half the people ask me to get cracking and half ask me to slow up. I try to steer a course somewhere between the two. I cannot dictate the programme. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that I had not prepared a timetable. I am not a metrication dictator and neither are the Government, certainly not in the interests of one group. When the Bill is enacted the Government have to consult all interests involved. After these consultations, bearing in mind the balance of payments question involved with weighing scales, the Government will lay down a timetable that will be in the best interests of consumers and the country as a whole and will bring certainty and reassurance.
    The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked me about the Metrication Board. I do not propose to start a lengthy debate on that subject. I pay tribute to the Board for having gone a long way on a voluntary basis. Much of its work is below the surface and perhaps not fully appreciated by the average consumer. The sooner we complete the metrication process the sooner we shall wind up the Board and thereby save public money.
    I am grateful for all the congratulatory remarks that have been made. Had
    there been more congratulations, my reputation would have been totally in ruins. I should be less than fair if I did not pay tribute to the constructive spirit with which hon. Members on both sides of the House of all parties have approached the Bill during its passage through the House and in Committee. There were some almost euphoric moments towards the end of our debate. It seemed likely that the country as a whole would be congratulated on taking about 15 years to achieve a fairly simple change. I feel that it is perhaps a weakness in our national character—not a matter for congratulation—to take so long to adjust to change.
    On reflection, I feel that it is a pity that Governments of both complexions did not put the principle of metrication to the House of Commons earlier and did not have the courage to seek a legal framework when this process was started. That is a criticism of previous Labour and Conservative Administrations.
    In passing the Bill the House will demonstrate that it accepts the principle of change and will provide the legal machinery to bring about that change. Of course, there have been concessions, which reflect my personal predelictions. The Bill has brought reassurance and certainty. It does not sweep away the imperial system. It does not conclude the process begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in 1965. It merely provides a framework for moving towards that goal. The Government and I are not metrication fanatics. We have not been seduced by the European Community. We believe, on reflection—my conviction has been strengthened as I have watched its passage —that the Bill and the framework it provides are, at the end of the day, in the best interests of industry, the consumers and the country.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 35.

    Division No. 364.]

    AYES

    [7.25 p.m.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cartwright, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

    Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Buchan, Norman

    Cohen, Stanley

    Bean, R. E.

    Canavan, Dennis

    Coleman, Donald

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Cant, R. B.

    Concannon, J. D.

    Boardman, H.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Corbett, Robin

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Judd, Frank

    Reid, George

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Kelley, Richard

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Lambie, David

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Deakins, Eric

    Lamborn, Harry

    Rooker, J. W.

    de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roper, John

    Dempsey, James

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Doig, Peter

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Ryman, John

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Selby, Harry

    Drayson, Burnaby

    McCartney, Hugh

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Shore, Rt Hon Peiler

    Eadie, Alex

    McElhone, Frank

    Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deplford)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Stiverman, Julius

    Faulds, Andrew

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Small, William

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McNamara. Kevin

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Magee, Bryan

    Snape, Peter

    Ford, Ben

    Mahon, Simon

    Spearing, Nigel

    Forrester, John

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Stallard, A. W.

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mendelson, John

    Stott, Roger

    Freud, Clement

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Strang, Gavin

    Golding, John

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Gourlay, Harry

    Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiltery)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

    Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Molloy, William

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Hardy, Peter

    Moonman, Eric

    Ward, Michael

    Harper, Joseph

    Morgan, Geraint

    Watt, Hamish

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Weitzman, David

    Hatton, Frank

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Horam, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Whitlock, William

    Howell, Rl Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Hughes, Rt Hon c. (Anglesey)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Hunter, Adam

    Ovenden, John

    Woodall, Alec

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Woof, Robert

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Penhaligon, David

    John, Brynmor

    Perry, Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Prescott, John

    Mr. Ted Graham and

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Mr. All Bales.

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    NOES

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Kerr, Russell

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Beith, A. J.

    Lamond, James

    Sillars, James

    Body, Richard

    Lawson, Nigel

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Budgen, Nick

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Carson, John

    McCusker, H.

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

    Madden, Max

    Thompson, George

    Crawford, Douglas

    Marten, Neil

    Welsh, Andrew

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Moate, Roger

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Molyneaux, James

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Par doe, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rooker, J. W.

    Mr. Stanley Newens.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Clause 3

      PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TRANSFER SCHEMES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 23, leave out "has" and insert "have".
      7.35 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may discuss Lords Amendments No. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
      Mr. Barnett: These are drafting amendments designed to ensure that the Bill is consistent in using the plural form when referring to districts and corporations.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 5, after "scheme" insert
      ",in addition to the matters referred to in section (Right of tenants to purchase dwelling houses) of this Act,"
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments No. 4, 25 and 26.
      Mr. Barnett: The Opposition have sought to amend the Bill at every stage of its passage throughout both Houses so that it provided for new town tenants to have some kind of power to buy the houses in which they were living when the new town housing stock was passed to the local authority. The Opposition have striven hard and the Bill has returned from another place with a new clause.
      It is an odd provision which is so out of keeping with the rest of the Bill as to require an amendment to the Long Title. It is out of keeping with the moderate and considered approach of the
      1288
      Bill which concerns the responsible management of a considerable slice of the public sector housing stock by public authorities. It is out of keeping with the rights of local authority tenants who will not be affected by it. It is out of keeping with the future responsibilities of the local authorities to which these assets are being transferred, and it is also out of keeping with the rights of new town tenants at large since it will apply only to those who are affected by housing assets transfers.
      That the amendment has been repeatedly moved at almost every stage of the Bill demonstrates that the Opposition are preoccupied, if not obsessed, with the sale of council houses. They have taken every opportunity, however marginal or misconceived, to indulge that preoccupation. The Bill has placed the Opposition in a dilemma. They want to push sales, but the Bill is mainly about something else—the future management of new town houses. The Opposition can find no better vehicle for their proposals. Their amendments would produce an arbitrary and peculiar statutory right to purchase for certain tenants in certain places at certain times.
      On each occasion that such an amendment has been proposed, we have had to point out a number of difficulties in the drafting. We have never wished to make too much of this, because Oppositions inevitably have difficulty in drafting an amendment free of any defects. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some interest that each time the amendment has been moved it has contained defects.
      I believe this to be the result of two factors. First, fundamentally the amendment does not belong in the Bill. Secondly, I believe it extremely difficult to provide in legislation a statutory right for people to purchase the house in which they live, let alone to do so when a transfer of houses from new town corporations to local authorities is taking place. In view of that, rather than concentrate on the amendment I intend to deal once again with the Government's policy on sales of corporation and council houses as a whole, which is the real point at issue.
      We on the Government Benches are opposed to the indiscriminate sale of publicly-owned dwellings. Our belief is that sales are not an end in themselves.

      1289 Rather, in any considered policy, the selling of council or corporation houses should he the consequence of an overall approach to housing, an approach moreover, which goes beyond the public sector's contribution. The selling of council houses and new town rented dwellings is only one part of the whole picture of the local housing requirements and should be seen as such. Any decision as to whether to sell should be considered in the light of the contribution which it would make to meeting those requirements and the effect it would have on the capacity of the local authority to provide good, attractive housing for those who have to look to their local council for a home.
      Indeed, I am particularly worried about the degree to which the amendment would pre-empt the right and duty of the local authorities that will acquire these considerable assets to consider and apply their future housing policy. They will take on a considerable responsibility. Certain local authorities may wish to make certain dispositions in the light of the consideration of the housing needs of their areas. Together with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would want to rely on the perception of a democratically-elected local authority, chosen to represent the district, to make the right dispositions to meet the housing problems and needs of its area.
      I can see great advantage in the Bill in so far as for the first time in the areas about which we are talking it will be possible for a local authority, once the transfers have taken place, to look at its area comprehensively. In the very nature of things, that has not been easy as long as management has been split between the new town corporation and the district council that has built houses of its own accord.
      It follows that where it is clear that in a particular district the public sector stock is more than adequate to deal with pressing housing needs it will be right to sell, provided that the terms are realistic and do not involve a loss to the public purse. The number of such localities will increase as further progress is made in eliminating housing shortages. That is why we have relaxed the ban on sales in new towns. We agreed with the new town development corporations that sales could be resumed in those new towns
      1290
      where this would be without detriment to those who could not afford to buy a house.
      It is our policy within the public sector to ensure that locality by locality, a balance is maintained between the desire for extended owner-occupation and the needs of those for whom owner-occupation is not the right or even a possible form of tenure. We have therefore advised local authorities when contemplating sales to make a careful assessment of their own situation, and in particular of the need for rented accommodation and how the supply to meet it can best be achieved.
      That is the kind of responsibility that will rest with the district councils when the transfer schemes have been completed. I am anxious to see them shoulder that responsibility. I do not want to see their ability comprehensively to appreciate the problems minimised as a consequence of the amendments.
      7.45 p.m.
      The new clause would undoubtedly cut right across this approach. In considering the needs of its district, a process which the presence of the new town will have made all the more complex, the local authority would be hampered by the anomaly that some tenants had, by law, a power to buy their homes, while others, for very good reasons, had not been given the chance to do so.
      Therefore, the new clause would distort the options available to a local authority to which new town houses are to be transferred. It could even pre-empt those options and deprive existing tenants of receiving authorities of the chance that the authorities could otherwise give them to buy their homes, because in some places selling on a small scale might be acceptable while massive selling would not be acceptable. Why should the law give some tenants what in practice would be an unfair preference over others?
      The Opposition have had a good run for their money. Perhaps I should say "the Tory Opposition", because the new clause and the associated amendments were carried only because of predominantly Tory votes in another place. The Opposition have made their point. This House has consistently and wisely rejected

      1291
      what their amendments seek to do. I am confident that it will do so again now.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Minister said that the Opposition were obsessed with the sale of council houses. It seems to me that the Minister and his party are obsessed with enforcing their view against the wishes of those who live in the area concerned.
      During the passage of the Bill the Government have said from time to time that they are not opposed to owner-occupation. The new clause, for all its possible defects, gives them an opportunity to show that that is so in practice.
      What is wrong with giving those who live in new town houses the right to buy their own homes? The Minister told us today that that right would be out of keeping, because it would not apply to local authority tenants. I should like all local authority tenants to have the right to buy their own homes, but the Bill is limited to new towns, and therefore the amendment provides the statutory right for those in new towns to buy their houses on the transfer of the assets.
      The Minister said that the Government had been flexible, but, through Whitehall, he is telling the Runcorn Development Corporation that it may not sell a single house to a tenant even if he wishes to buy. The hon. Gentleman talked about the elected local authority being given the opportunity to make decisions and said that the amendment would take away that opportunity by giving, instead, a statutory right to buy. What the Government are doing, not by legislation but by directive, is to tell the new town development corporation "You may not sell houses, even if you wish to".
      I stand firmly by the view that I have expressed many times during the passage of the Bill, that those of my constituents who wish to buy their new town houses should be entitled to do so. I have no reason to believe that the development corporation's view has changed in any way since its chairman, with the chairmen of the other development corporations, pressed on the Government the desirability of their being able to sell new town houses if they wished. I do not see why the Runcorn Development Corporation should not be able to sell
      1292
      new town houses to tenants who wish to buy.
      Mr. Stanley Newens: What is the waiting list in Runcorn for the tenancy of a development corporation house? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if houses were sold to sitting tenants it would lengthen the waiting list, because the houses thus sold would go out of the pool of available housing?
      Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a substantial waiting list for houses in Runcorn New Town because it is an attractive town and there is a demand from people to live there, but it is wrong to say that the effect of the clause would be to lengthen the waiting list. Those who want to own the houses which they now rent have no alternative accommodation. There is no other stock in the area for them to buy. If they have changed their jobs and moved to the area, their only opportunity lies in buying a house in that new town. I believe that people should have the freedom of choice to buy such a house if they wish. I am not saying that they should be forced to buy, but merely that they should have the opportunity to do so. That is also the view of the Runcorn Development Corporation.
      Nobody would dispute that there is now a desire for owner occupation, particularly among young people who wish to own their own houses. We must remember that the new towns are largely populated by young people. In a time of inflation young people wish to take advantage of contributing to a capital asset that will help them to fight that inflation.
      The Government, in refusing in general terms to permit development corporations to sell new houses, are, for dogmatic reasons, stultifying the desires of those people. It is only Socialist dogma that prevents people who wish to do so having the opportunity to buy these houses. I hope that such an opportunity will shortly be afforded to them.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I have some feelings of trepidation about New Clause A because I see both sides of the argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that

      1293
      waiting lists play a large part in the attitude of local authorities towards the selling of their houses. My own local authority, which has a Conservative chairman, has concluded that it should not sell council houses, because the waiting list grows monthly.
      However, in respect of the situation in the new towns, I believe that the Opposition's view is more correct than the Government's view. I made inquiries of a number of new town chairmen and found that most of them wished they could sell houses in their towns. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that although there were waiting lists in the Runcorn area, there were not alternative houses available in the private sector for would-be purchasers to occupy. We believe that it would be much better if local authorities gave cash grants to council house tenants to enable them to move into the private sector where houses are available, so that the council properties thus vacated were left for members of the lower income groups to move into. Obviously that makes sense.
      I agree with the Minister that these matters should preferably be left with the elected authorities, which is where the decisions should be made. I am sorry to hear that the Government have not yet given the flexibility to new towns to sell. Apparently, if that is correct, Runcorn has been forbidden to sell its houses.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: No.
      Mr. Ross: No doubt we shall hear more about that later. Is it a fact that the authorities at Milton Keynes and Stevenage can sell their homes? Is it now Government policy that they are entitled to do so, if they wish?
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I thought that that position was very clear. The former Minister for Planning and Local Government had a conference with new town chairmen at which agreement was reached whereby new town corporations, whose housing list waiting periods were less than three months, and where there was an obvious desire to sell a number of corporation houses, could put proposals to the Minister to enable them to make sales. I understand that two new town corporations have already taken advantage of that situation. However, it was
      1294
      suggested that the district council should be consulted before such a decision was put to the Minister. The Government do not operate an inflexible policy against sales by a corporation.
      Mr. Ross: We have not yet had a final decision. Schemes have been put forward, but we have not yet heard the outcome. That is the present position.
      I believe that the clause brings the matter to a head. I see no objection to sales of new town houses. It seems to me that there should be a discount, that these houses should not be sold below cost, and that there should be restrictions to that end.
      Sir Thomas Williams: I understand that the Opposition are suggesting that authorities should induce new town corporations to sell houses if they wish to do so. That is a different proposition from what is contained in the Lords amendment. The amendment seeks to insert New Clause A, providing that a scheme
      "shall include the statutory right for a tenant of a dwelling house to purchase".
      If all the Opposition are seeking is that the corporation, if it so wishes, shall have the choice of selling, it is a wholly different position from that adopted in the Lords amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman dissent from that point of view?
      Mr. Ross: No, I do not dissent from it, but up to now the fact is that the Government have not come clean on this subject. They are saying, "Yes, basically where waiting lists are short the new town corporations should be entitled to sell, but they must put up schemes to the Minister". We have not yet heard what has happened in the case of those who have presented schemes.
      These provisions bring the matter to a head. I would rather there were no statutory rights, because I believe that the matter should be left to local authorities. I believe that, once the transfer has taken place, it is better for the new authorities to deal with the situation. The Government are dragging their feet, and in this instance I believe that the Opposition have got the balance right.
      I am worried that there is no provision in the clause for local authorities to step in and repurchase. Nevertheless, I

      1295
      believe that the whole matter is something of a red herring. With mortgage rates of 12¼ per cent. and 12½ per cent. people will not be so anxious to buy their houses. I understand that in Slough the local authority is seeking to sell its houses but that the take-up is relatively slow. I do not think that there will be a rush for these homes while money is so dear. The experience in Stevenage some years ago was an unhappy one, because people who had purchased houses at flexible rates found the figure rising to as much as 14 per cent. and eventually returned to the local authority with the plea "Please buy my house back."
      The merit of this proposal is that it brings finality to the matter. If the Government will not take action the tenant will have the power to force an authority into selling. In present housing and financial circumstances there has to be a much greater changeover to private occupation and tenant management. There have to be schemes enabling people to take a far greater share in the maintenance of their homes. This will all come out in the Housing Finance Review, which we hope to see in about a month's time. I think that, on balance, the Opposition have it right.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Eric Moonman: I had not intended to speak, but, as in previous debates on new towns, some strange things have been said during the course of the exchanges, and I have therefore been prompted to rise. The most curious thing is the suggested amendment from their Lordships. Because they may take leave of their sense there is no reason why we should follow suit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who began by saying that there might well be a need for discussion of the whole question of council houses being sold to tenants. But has that got a place in this Bill? That is what the issue is about.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is right to refer to the question of flexibility. I am sure that he will agree with me that when we are trying to ensure the passage of a piece of major legislation relating to the transfer of assets from the development corporation to the council—a massive exercise—we should not be hampered by the
      1296
      political knock-about that we have seen on previous stages. This does not help those who live in new towns.
      A number of hon. Members who are present tonight represent new towns. On every occasion that we debate this subject we fail to produce the clarification that it is suggested is required. Nothing is brought to a head. This means that we are letting down our people because of this political knock-about. I have no time for this, irrespective of the side of the Chamber on which I am sitting. New towns are precious to me, as they are to other Members. There are many things that we need to put right in new towns. We must ensure that we get a proper, integrated approach to housing and jobs. We ought to look more seriously at the development of unemployment in new towns. In my new town there is 10 per cent. unemployment, and I am worried about it. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I appear to be less than tolerant of any excursion into the realms of politics.
      Basically we need to use our resources and energies to solve these problems. The Minister has rightly said that there is an element of flexibility. If people feel strongly about this they should take it further with the Minister. At the same time, the main element of concern in this Bill must centre round vesting date, when the local councils will take over responsibility for this major area of operation involving staff and the transfer of houses. In my constituency I am being asked at what date everything goes over to the local council. That is a fundamental question. There are others of the same nature. It does not help our credibility as Members of Parliament or assist with our concern for new towns if we constantly raise a question that is totally irrelevant to the state that we have reached with new towns.
      Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) is quite right to say that new towns are precious to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is because they are precious, because we are concerned about those who live in them and because the Bill has to do with the transfer of assets that it is appropriate for us to consider the options for those who are affected by the transfer. We have to ask whether they should be

      1297
      transferred into council housing or be given the option to become owner-occupiers.
      I return to the Government's observations on this Lords amendment, an amendment which the Under-Secretary was right to say has been changed a number of times since it was originally moved in this House. It has been changed because we have tried ad infinitum to meet the points of Government comment and criticism. It was changed in the other place at least once to meet the Government's wishes. It is a sad reflection that if the Government wanted to meet us they could have removed the technical deficiencies and ensured that the amendment was correct.
      What we have seen is a rearguard action on the part of the Government, attempting to shore up what they see as their interests in public housing. The Government have consistently said that, in their view, if the amendment were carried we would be restricting the flexibility of district councils in their housing management. Council housing today is probably the most inflexible area in all our housing stock. We all know that a person in a council house will hang on to it because he will be unable to get a transfer unless he is particularly fortunate in his advertising and manages to exchange with someone in another part of the country. It is pretty difficult to move within a housing authority area even where waiting lists are short. People will not move. They believe that they have an asset and they want to hang on to it.
      If we are honest, we know that part of the unemployment problem rests on the fact that people are not willing to leave their council houses. Far from encouraging flexibility, it is in the nature of council housing, more than new town housing, to create inflexibility. In the other place the Government Minister said:
      "Need should be determined locality by locality in the light of housing needs and conditions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th July 1976; Vol. 373, c.255.]
      We all know that the housing waiting list is a notoriously poor indication of need in an area. I am surprised that an organisation like Shelter should so recently have devalued its case on the
      1298
      housing cuts by using the waiting list as an indicator of need.
      We are here dealing not with local authority housing but with Government housing. This is housing that has been created by Government funds to set up a new town or provide jobs in a new area. On the whole, the investment has not been made by the local authority. I and other hon. Members have consistently suggested that local authorities should not have to make any investment. The Government have met us in large measure by making sure that the costs of development were borne by the Government. We are not denying anything to a local authority. In transferring the assets to local authorities, we are providing them with a bonus. We are not giving them anything that they had necessarily as of right.
      Mr. Newens: I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that waiting lists were not reasonable indicators of housing need. I find that difficult to understand. Then he went on to talk about locality. Surely he is aware that, for example, the London satellite new towns were built in part to deal with the housing problems of those who lived in London. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that waiting lists provide a good indication of housing need in an area. How can he justify the position he has taken up?
      Mr. Morris: I have been the chairman of the housing committee of a London borough. I have reviewed the list on occasions when I was chairman, and whenever that was done we found that about 10 per cent. of those on the list were dead and that at least 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. had moved elsewhere. It must be remembered that the list is open to everyone. It is not necessary to prove housing need to go on the list. The hon. Gentleman and I could put our names on such a list. Such lists are not a good indication of need. The sooner the hon. Gentleman and his party understand that, the sooner we will begin to face up to the housing problem.
      The Government have consistently said that there would be enormous administrative problems in arranging for a statutory right to sell at the point of transfer. We have heard about problems of specification, loan debt, compensation payments

      1299
      and sensible management, for example. The Opposition take the view that it is the job of the officers and those concerned with transfers to ensure that they meet the public's need and make arrangements to suit the public.
      The Government, have said that it would be unfair to certain tenants if they were denied the statutory right to buy at the time of transfer. For instance, someone living in Crawley might have the right to buy at the time of transfer while someone living in my own town of Northampton might be denied that right. It is said that it would be unfair for Crawley to be given such a right while the people of Northampton were denied it. I do not think that is a realistic argument.
      I also question whether the time that the Government envisage between the transfer of first, second and third generations of new towns will be as long as they have suggested. It seems to all my hon. Friends as we have gone through the months of debate on this subject that the Government's objections have been getting weaker and weaker. We started in May, when the Government were resisting the sale of any form of new town houses anywhere. In the summer we had the statement from the Secretary of State who was formerly masterminding the Bill that in certain circumstances he would allow the sale of new town houses. The Government have said that they are not against owner-occupation. The country awaits the day when they will say that they are for owner-occupation.
      In considering the positive reasons for the amendment, I shall place on record one or two of the background facts. First, it is a pity that the Bill will get on the statute book rather later than we had hoped. It left Committee in May and was held up. It did not reach another place until 29th June. Consideration was completed in another place inside a month—namely, on 22nd July. I believe that the Opposition in both places have done their job in welcoming the Bill in principle, considering it in detail and moving the amendments that they consider right. The delay—there has been a delay—does not necessarily reflect on the Ministers now occupying the Govern-
      1300
      ment Front Bench but reflects on the Government's management of business in general. I hope that we shall have a statement from the Minister that in no way will there be a change from the original schedule.
      When considering the amendment, it is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of sales in the past before the right hon. Gentleman put down the chopper. In 1971 there was the sale of 2,700 units. In 1972 15,500 units were sold and 7,200 were sold in 1973. It is relevant that against the total background, especially the present financial situation, we have seen a significant cut-back in public sector housing this year. It is a cut-back that I personally welcome, but its significance should be noted. It has been cut back from a forecast of 110,000 per annum in May 1976 to 90,000 for 1977 in August 1976. That is the latest forecast, and, as we all suspect, it may well be cut again. That is a 20,000 cutback, saving about £200 million, on top of which there are the restrictions on new towns and housing associations.
      Another background factor in considering the merits of the amendment of which it is right we should remind ourselves is that about 53 per cent. of the homes in England and Wales are owner-occupied and about 31 per vent. are in the public sector. It is also right that we remind ourselves that about 75 per cent. want to own their own home. It is our job to mirror that desire.
      Why have we pressed the amendment so strongly? We have done so because the tenants in the new towns want it. I shall quote from the Cullingworth Report. It is no good the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) shaking his head in dissent. It is the most recent definitive evidence that we have about the desires of tenants in new towns. I am setting out not my prejudices but the desires of new town tenants.
      Mr. Newens: What date is it?
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Morris: The report was published near enough 10 years ago; the Committee reported in 1968. Since that time the desire for owner-occupation has increased considerably. As an example I shall select two towns at random in page 67 of the report—namely, Crawley and Stevenage. Both towns serve the London

      1301
      area and are probably of greater relevance to the majority of Members in the Chamber. When tenants were asked how many believed that development corporation houses should be sold, 75 per cent. were positively in favour and 16 per cent. gave a qualified "Yes", while 9 per cent. were against in Crawley and 7 per cent. were against in Stevenage. That was in 1968. If the Government honestly felt that the attitude had changed, the least they should have done before presenting the Bill would have been to carry out a further attitude survey in those towns.
      I am willing to wager that the attitude has not changed one iota. Labour Members know that just as well as my hon. Friends and myself. If we take into account the stock of public housing in the new towns and take the older towns of Stevenage and Crawley as reasonable examples in 1968—in this instance I concede that the figures may be a little out of date—it emerges that in 1968 only 11 per cent. of Stevenage was owner-occupied and 26 per cent. of Crawley. Those percentages are so far away from the national average and from the desires of the majority of people in the new towns that the House has a real obligation to ensure that owner-occupation is increased to somewhere near the national average.
      We must remember that those who live in the new towns are no different from those living in other areas. They are ordinary people who want the ordinary things of life. We need to speak plainly in the House. We need to say plainly that it is our job to meet their aspirations, not to put difficulties in their way. We need to understand, as I am sure the majority of Labour Members appreciate, that people want a house with a garden. I think we all accept that. On the whole, that is what they want. The vast majority want to control their own home. They do not want a tenancy agreement and rules and regulations. They want to shut the front door and know that they are in their own home and will not have busybodies interfering with them. People want those conditions because they offer some independence of mind and some peace and quiet. They want the absolute security of tenure that will give them and their families a sense of freedom.
      The majority of people in this day and age, or at any other time, want to
      1302
      benefit from any growth that takes place in the economy. There has been all too little growth in the past two years, but they want to benefit from any growth that takes place. They also want to benefit from any increase in the value of property. They want to have the benefit of the tax relief on mortgage interest, and that is no bad thing.
      It is our job to ensure that public money is spent wisely. Probably we have all read with a gasp the report of a recent House Committee that upwards of £1,000 million was misspent by the Government in general. Labour Members know that selling is financially attractive. Indeed, the Secretary of State admitted that selling would be financially attractive. That is because at present levels we are not covering repairs and maintenance, let alone making a return on contribution on houses now being built.
      The average rent for a three-bedroom five-person house in Northampton is £7·34 and the average cost rent is between £40 and £50. Therefore, it is costing the average taxpayer about £2,000 per annum per dwelling for new property now being built.
      Mr. Newens: And the hon. Gentleman wants to sell the old ones.
      Mr. Morris: I want to sell them all. Whichever way we look at the issue, whether it is in terms of newly built local authority housing versus the first-time purchaser or any other situation, the local authority house is costing us about £1,300 in subsidies compared with the first-time purchaser's mortgage relief costing us £290. If our proposals make sense to the tenant and if the Government believe, as they should, that they make financial sense to them, they should recognise that their responsibility is to use central Government money wisely.
      We want to press home on the Government how important it is that they should use this money wisely. All the evidence suggests that we should take every opportunity to encourage people to buy. Transfer of these new towns is an ideal time. Then there are economies of scale, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) can confirm, in terms of the production and transfer of deeds. The process is simpler then. The survey I have referred to showed that there are worries among

      1303
      the tenants about the prospect of becoming council tenants, and it is morally right that we should, on transfer, give them the option to buy or to become council tenants.
      By our amendment, no one would be compelled to buy. If a tenant did not want to buy, he would not be forced to do so. But it would give the opportunity to those who wanted to buy to do so. It is not too late for the Government to change their mind. The Government were ready to slap on a ban in 1974, and they are beginning slightly to relax it now. The facts are irrefutable. The tenants want what we propose, and it would be financially beneficial to the public, who invested the money in the first place. Labour hon. Members know, too, that the move towards greater owner-occupation is in everyone's interest, if not in the Labour Party's interest. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made some astonishing statements, one of them about the unreliability of the housing list. As any London Member knows—and the hon. Gentleman must know it, too—the vast majority of the people on the housing list are there for very good reasons. We are not on it. People in such positions as ours would not be on a housing list. Naturally there are people with a greater claim and with greater need than others. The point that the hon. Member was making is irrelevant to the one that we have been trying to put throughout the Bill on this issue.
      It is not the housing list that is of concern here; it is the average waiting period, which is a very different thing. It is the average waiting period not of anyone who happens to put himself on the list, but of very carefully worked out categories of people—and that means, as far as the new towns for London are concerned, Londoners in need. That is the issue with which we are concerned.
      I recognise the Opposition's enthusiasm for home ownership, which is shared by most, if not all, those on the Government side of the House. No matter what the hon. Gentleman says, we are keen on home ownership. I make that statement
      1304
      clearly because some people suggest that we simply do not mind it, or are not against it. On the contrary, we are in favour of it. But we recognise also, as Government and party, that we have a responsibility to people in London and other major cities who live in housing need—for example, the elderly and disabled—and for whom the right housing cannot be found in the areas in which they live but can be found in new towns.
      If there is a dogmatic attitude it is that of the Opposition. We have taken a flexible attitude, designed, as far as possible, to equate the needs of those who are in desperate straits with the natural desire, which we want to encourage, of people to own their own homes.
      That is reflected in our sales policy, about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding among hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) told us that his new town was apparently forbidden to sell houses. Without advice, I do not know precisely what the waiting period situation is there, but if it is less than three months, and if the new town corporation wishes to do so, it can do what, for example. Milton Keynes and Northampton have done—obtain consent for the resumption of sales of houses in its area.
      Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps the word "forbidden" was a little unfair. The corporation did not achieve the criteria laid down by the Government.
      Mr. Barnett: That is precisely the point I am making. I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. These are the criteria that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture tried to observe when he was Minister for Planning and Local Government, and which the Government continue to try to observe.
      The hon. Member for Northampton, South raised the question of the current delay which he says is taking place in our consideration of the Bill. I do not think that his case is tenable. An attempt was made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—who even went to the extent of writing to The Times because that newspaper appeared to agree with the Government rather than with him—to show that the

      1305
      delay in the Bill was the consequence of action by the Government rather than by the Opposition.
      I do not want to get involved in that argument, but I want to be generous to the lion. Member for Northampton, South. There may be a case for certain elements of delay. Perhaps the original plans to get the first transfers going next year could have been difficult in the light of such considerations as the commitment of staff and the drawing up of transfer schemes. On the other hand, as the Bill now appears, and with the plans that we now have, I think that it will almost certainly be possible to effect a considerable number of transfer during the coming year, with a view to seeing that they take place early in 1978.
      So, if the matter can be generalised, perhaps one of the side effects of the delay, whosever fault it was, is to give at least first generation new towns the chance to draw up transfer schemes and make proper arrangements for staffing, and so on, with the result that we can hope to see proper transfers taking place at the end of the first three months of 1978. But I can do no other now than again recommend that we disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 160.

      Division No. 365.]

      AYES

      [8.27 p.m.

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ashton, Joe

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hatton, Frank

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Bates, Alt

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Newens, Stanley

      Bean, R. E.

      Horam, John

      Oakes, Gordon

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Boardman, H.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Ovenden, John

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hunter, Adam

      Perry, Ernest

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Buchan, Norman

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cant, R. B.

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cartwright, John

      John, Brynmor

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roper, John

      Cocks, Rt Han Michael

      Jonas, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ross, Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ryman, John

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sandeison, Neville

      Concannon, J. D.

      Judd, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Corbett, Robin

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Selby, Harry

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Kelley, Richard

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Kerr, Russell

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lambie, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Sillars, James

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman, Julius

      Dempsey, James

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Small, William

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Eadie, Alex

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McGuire. Michael (Ince)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Faulds, Andrew

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Madden, Max

      Tomney, Frank

      Ford, Ben

      Magee, Bryan

      Torney, Tom

      Forrester, John

      Mahon, Simon

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

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

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ward, Michael

      Ginsburg, David

      Mendelson, John

      Watkinson, John

      Golding, John

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Weitzman, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Whitlock, William

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Molloy, William

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Moonman, Eric

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Woof, Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Woodall, Alec

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      NOES

      Arnold, Tom

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hannam, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert

      Hawkins, Paul

      Penhaligon, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Percival, Ian

      Bitten, John

      Holland, Philip

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Body, Richard

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      James, David

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Brotherton, Michael

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

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Budgen, Nick

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jopling, Michael

      Rost. Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Burden, F. A.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Kimball, Marcus

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Carlisle, Mark

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Clegg, Walter

      Lamont, Norman

      Shepherd, Colin

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Silvester, Fred

      Cope, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sims, Roger

      Costain, A. P.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Crouch, David

      Lawson, Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Crowder, F. P.

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spence, John

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sproat, Iain

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Luce, Richard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Drayson, Burnaby

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanley, John

      Durant, Tony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Farr, John

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mather, Carol

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fox, Marcus

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Freud, Clement

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mills, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Miscampbel1!, Norman

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Glyn, Or Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Wall, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Walters, Dennis

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mom's, Michael (Northampton S)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gray, Hamish

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wells, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Nelson, Anthony

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Neubert, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Newton, Tony

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grylls, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. W. Benyon and

      Hall, Sir John

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. John Corrie.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Pardoe, John

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 4 disagreed to.

    Clause 6

      EFFECT OF TRANSFER SCHEMES
      Lords amendment: No, 5, in page 8, line 20, leave out "except that" and insert
      "but—

      (a) the Secretary of State may direct that any land shall not be so treated if, in his opinion, it is inappropriate to do so; and

      (b)"

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 20.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment, together with later consequential amendments, was tabled in response to the views of local authority representatives on the Finance Sub-Group of the Official Working Group on the Bill. Clause 6(6) requires that all buildings or other land transferred to the district council or managed by it,

      1309
      shall not be treated as having been provided under Part V of the Housing Act 1957, if in the Secretary of State's opinion, it would be inappropriate to do so.
      The objective of this provision was to ensure that the expenditure in respect of the property was chargeable to the council's housing revenue account and thus qualified, where appropriate, for subsidy. However, it was pointed out that some of the housing related assets which may be transferred or managed under the terms of the Bill are not eligible for housing subsidy and, had they been provided by the district council, would not necessarily have been included in the housing revenue account. Examples are meeting halls and recreational facilities. To require the district council to include them in its housing revenue account could be contrary to its normal practice and could create anomalies in administration.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 6 to 12 agreed to.

    Clause 9

      FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 10, line 37, leave out from "relevant" to end of line 39 and insert
      "portion (for the time being determined) of the corporation's total capital loan debt (so determined)".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 16 to 19.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The effect of these amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to determine that a specific amount of the development corporation's total capital loan debt, rather than a proportion of it, is to be attributed to the assets which are transferred to the district council or are subject to management arrangements.
      I make it clear that nothing in these amendments changes the basic principle behind the financial arrangements in the Bill, namely, that assets will be transferred on the basis of outstanding loan debt. Their purpose is to clarify the detailed application of the basic prin-
      1310
      ciple and to remove some doubts expressed by representatives of both the local authorities and the new towns.
      These doubts stemmed from one fundamental problem, namely, that development corporations do not formally allocate their borrowing to specific purposes. During any one year a corporation may, for its general development requirements, including housing, receive a number of separate advances from the National Loans Fund, each repayable over a fixed term of 60 years at a stated rate of interest and by equal annual instalments of principal and interest. The amount spent on housing in that year may, therefore, derive from several different loans, and this process continues from year to year. Thus after, say, 30 years' work the total spent on housing will derive from a whole range of different segments of borrowing.
      For subsidy, rent and other purposes, however, the annual revenue consequences of that expenditure must be determined and each development corporation therefore maintains a housing account under rules laid down from time to time by the Secretary of State. In this account loan charges notionally reflecting the year's housing capital expenditure are debited at interest rates based on the average rate of borrowing during the year. This account therefore gives a fair picture of the annual cost to the development corporation, but it is based on notional figures, rather than specific attribution of each segment of borrowing used for housing purposes.
      Because the total accumulated housing capital debt, which under Clause 9 is to form the basis for the determination by the Secretary of State of the annual amount payable by the district council, is in fact made up of all the various segments referred to, doubts were expressed whether the use of the concept of "proportion" would require detailed examination in every year of each segment of borrowing, taking account of the period of that particular segment of loan remaining outstanding compared with the total. It was also suggested that the use of the word "attributable" might actually require such a detailed examination of historic borrowing.
      A further complication in relation to attribution of debt is that the proceeds

      1311
      of houses which have been sold by development corporations have not generally been used to redeem the original capital borrowing. Instead they may have been used to finance further development, which may or may not have been housing. Thus the original segment of "housing debt" remains but the moneys which it now represents may have been recycled for other purposes.
      These complications would render a detailed attribution of actual use of borrowed money an immensely complicated task. Therefore, it has always been the intention that there would be an arithmetical attribution of capital loan debt for the purposes of Clause 9 and that the annual payment by the district council would be based on average rates of interest. The representatives of the development corporations and district councils have pressed, however, that the annual payment by the council should, as far as historic debt existing at the date of transfer is concerned, be a fixed sum over a known period—this period to be the average of the repayment periods for the corporation's various outstanding loans at the time of transfer, between 40 and 50 years for most corporations. This has been agreed and these amendments enable this to be done.
      There is one final point. Under the provisions for management arrangements, a development corporation may continue to incur expenditure on house building and this will clearly increase the portion of debt to be attributed to the provision of housing. But this new debt will be readily identifiable, and these amendments will mean that it can simply be added, year by year, to the "historic" figure instead of involving a full recalculation of the proportion of the total debt attributable.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 agreed to.

    Clause 14

      NEW TOWNS STAFF COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 14, line 25, at end insert—
      "(1A) If the Secretary of State accepts any advice given to him by the New Towns Staff
      1312
      Commission under this section which he thinks should be brought to the attention of all the relevant authorities (that is to say, every new town corporation and the council of every district within which any part of the area of a new town is situated) or to one or some of those authorities, he shall notify the Commission of his acceptance and shall direct them to take such steps as they consider appropriate to bring the advice and its acceptance to the attention of all the relevant authorities or, as the case may be, such of them as may be specified in the direction."
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords Amendment No. 24, in page 14, line 31, at end insert—
      "() give directions to any relevant authority whose attention has been drawn to any advice under subsection (1A) above requiring them to take such steps as may be specified in the directions to implement any of that advice so specified".
      Mr. Barnett: The effect of this amendment is that if the Secretary of State wishes any advice given to him by the New Town Staff Commission to be brought to the attention of the new town corporations and the district councils within whose areas a new town is situated, he can direct the Commission to take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the advice and the fact that it has been accepted by the Secretary of State to the attention of the authorities. He can then require that all such authorities are notified of the advice or specify certain authorities who are to be told.
      The amendment removes a slight deficiency in the provisions of Clause 14 by providing that where the Secretary of State so directs, the New Towns Staff Commission shall bring to the attention of new town corporations and relevant district councils advice which it has given to the Secretary of State which he has accepted. It is expected that the Staff Commission will probably do this by issuing circulars, as did the Local Government Staff Commission. This will enable the Staff Commission to promulgate to the corporations and councils the detailed recommendations which my right hon. Friend expects to receive from them for the protection of staff affected by transfer schemes.
      The Staff Advisory Committee—the Staff Commission designate—has been

      1313
      undertaking extensive consultations with representatives of employers and employees about the effect on staff of the transfers and have been giving top priority to the question of "ring fences"—that is, restrictions on recruitment—and arrangements to minimise staff uncertainty. It will be clearly helpful if my right hon. Friend can direct the Commission to bring its recommendations to the attention of the relevant authorities.
      This amendment links with Amendment No. 24, which provides that when the Staff Commission has notified relevant authorities of advice it has given to my right hon. Friend, which he has accepted, and it becomes clear that a particular authority is reluctant to implement the advice, my right hon. Friend will be able to use his power of direction under the amendment to require them to do so. The Government hope that the mere existence of this reserve power will help persuade authorities to follow advice which the Staff Commission has brought to their attention and that therefore it may not in the event prove necessary to use it.
      The proposed power is well precedented—in each of the enactments dealing with the local government and National Health Service reorganisations, there were similar reserve powers. It further strengthens those provisions of the Bill which are designed to ensure full and fair protection of the interests of staff of both the new town corporations and the district councils which may be affected by transfers.
      Mr. Michael Morris: We welcome this useful amendment, but we are concerned that the latest return of manpower statistics shows a 4 per cent. increase in housing management staff.
      If there are to be surplus personnel from the new towns at the time of transfer, we have agreed that they should have priority, but if there is this considerable increase at a time when there is supposedly no increase in staff levels, it will prejudice the new town employee's chances of getting another job.
      Perhaps the Minister will bear in mind that some of the third generation new towns already have joint management schemes with district councils doing the housing management. Is it the Govern-
      1314
      ment's intention to suggest to the New Towns Staff Commission that second generation and other third generation towns should move rapidly towards joint management schemes?
      Lastly, I think that it would be fairer to those involved if the Government were to make it clear that, whilst they will do all in their power to ensure that those who have jobs at present will be found jobs, inevitably some degree of redundancy will have to be faced.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: I should like briefly to answer the two points made by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr. Morris). I can give him a definitive answer about joint management schemes. I know what he is talking about. I can see the desirability and justice of the idea that joint management schemes should be recommended in second and third generation new towns. However, I should prefer to write to the hon. Member on that matter.
      I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the manpower implications. Inevitably, as a consequence of certain transfer schemes there will be redundances. The proposals, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are designed to protect the interests not merely of those appointed to serve as members of the staff of district councils to which housing activities have been transferred, but of those who, unfortunately, will be made redundant as a consequence of these schemes. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the provisions should—as we hope they will—be relatively generous. That is my reading of the work that is being done by the New Towns Staff Committee at present.
      I hope shortly to be in a position to give my reaction to the first report which we have received from that Committee and to announce our proposals and recommendations on the basis of the useful and valuable service that the Committee has given. We are extremely grateful for the amount of consultation that it has undertaken. For this reason, I am studying its recommendations with close attention. I have already made a decision on some of the issues, but on others I have still to make my final decision on the basis of certain consultations that I still need to hold. Shortly after the passage of this Bill into law, I hope to be in a

      1315
      position to announce our recommendations on the basis of the Committee's report.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 24 agreed to.
      Lords Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 disagreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Benyon, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Michael Morris: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  BAIL BILL [Lords]
  Lords amendments to Commons amendments considered.
  Schedule 1

    BAIL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in page 15, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert:
    '2. The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied, that it is probable that the defendant, if released on bail'
    with the following amendment: leave out 'it is probable' and insert
    'there are substantial grounds for believing
    9.0 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 2 to the Commons amendment.
    Mr. John: The first amendment goes back to the drafting of the Bill as it originally left this House and was started in another place. The formula was that the court, before refusing bail under Schedule 1, had to be satisfied that it was "probable" that the accused had done one of the acts set out in Schedule 1. In the other place, at the insistance of Lord Hailsham, a test was substituted that an unacceptable risk should be the criterion that magistrates should adopt.
    We believed then, and we believe now, that this would be far too low a duty upon the magistrates and would in practice lead to no greater granting of bail despite the promise of bail contained in Clause 4. That is why, when this House previously considered the matter, the decision was to reintroduce the word "probable". When the matter went back to the other place, substantial doubts were cast upon this definition.
    The Bill is an important one and, therefore, in the interests of getting it on to the statute book—and giving in statutory form a general right to bail for accused persons—it was felt that we

    1317
    should move towards a formula which would satisfy both sides. The agreement that I now seek from the House is to insert, instead of "it is probable", the words
    "there are substantial grounds for believing".
    I would make two points. First, there is the presumption in Clause 4 of the right to bail. That is an important point. The second point is that the court must be satisfied that there are substantial grounds. I have heard many fears expressed as to what the courts will have to take into account, but I believe that the combination of the statutory right to bail—unless circumstances are to the contrary—and the need to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds will impose upon the courts a very high duty indeed before they will be able to refuse bail.
    It may be argued that in percentage terms it may be a slightly lower duty. Nevertheless, I believe that it is still a substantial duty and will in practice mean that those who are entitled to bail will not be deprived of it. I think that the formula which has been devised, which received a rather grudging welcome from Lord Hailsham but a rather more warm welcome from Lord Wigoder, will commend itself to the House because it is something to which the other place has taken an objection perhaps rooted more in heat than in light. Nevertheless, it means that the duty upon the court is a high one if it is to refuse a person bail.
    The second amendment is a modification to Part II of the Schedule 1 which relates to the granting of bail to defendants accused or convicted of an offence not punishable with imprisonment. The effect of Part II, as amended, is that such a defendant need not be granted bail if he has failed to surrender when granted bail on a previous occasion and the court believes, in view of that failure, that he will fail to surrender if released on bail on the present occasion. This was an amendment which was put down with consistency of wording.
    I believe that the words now in the Bill do not undermine the principle of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: The presumption in favour of the grant of bail created by the Bill without proper
    1318
    safeguards would have left the public at severe risk from accused persons who took advantage of their continued freedom to commit more crimes. Originally, the only safeguard provided by the Government against that risk was a statutory formula so dangerously narrow and restricted that in most cases the court would have found it impossible to refuse bail and remand an accused person in custody. It would have been a weakness in the law that would have made the hair of judges and police, and, I suspect, the public, stand on end.
    The alternative acceptable and workable formula provided by Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone was substituted in another place but was rejected and replaced by the original form of words when the Bill came back to this House. Now, after further consideration by their Lordships, the Bill returns with a compromise formula to which we can give our approval and, indeed, welcome, if not with enthusiasm at least with a sense that there is now in the Bill a reliable and practical safeguards against the abuse of the general right to bail which will not disturb the basic principles of the Bill.
    The Opposition, therefore, welcome the Government's decision to accept this compromise solution, which demonstrates once again the indispensable function of a revising Chamber which can improve and make acceptable what otherwise might prove to be defective legislation without being in any way provocative on a wholly non-party Bill. May I dare to hope that the Government will give an equally agreeable reception to amendments to Bills which are in future sent back from another place?
    Mr. David Weitzman: The House will remember that in Committee and on Report we discussed and gave considerable thought to the words which should properly set out the position. The Minister of State moved the amendment in Committee, and the House, after discussion, accepted the words "unacceptable risk". We all had misgivings when the House of Commons accepted the substitution of those words. I fully appreciate and agree with the compromise that has been reached in the amendment before us but I want to draw attention to what I regard as a serious matter.

    1319
    The House having passed the amendment, Lord Hailsham, in another place, actually accused the Minister of State of complete arrogance in daring to put back the original formula which the Lords had disapproved. He actually suggested that as the other place was the revising Chamber it simply was not good enough for what he called the "Jacks in office" in this House arrogantly to put back words which the Lords had deliberately changed. In other words, the noble Lord was saying that as the Lords had decided on a certain formula this House should not dare to alter it. I think it is right that the attention of the House should be drawn to this. I am sure that all hon. Members, including those on the Opposition Benches, will deprecate as strongly as possible any suggestion of that kind.
    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I support my hon. and learned Friend, and go a little further than he did. As he said, the probability risk formula was debated in Committee and on Report, and on both occasions, on a Division, the probability risk was written into the Bill, despite attempts by hon. Members, who happened to be on the Opposition Benches, to change it.
    It is surprising that the Minister who on these occasions, initiated the change and made a detailed and lengthy defence of the probability risk, should abjectly accept a botched-up compromise worked out not in the Lords but behind the scenes before it got there. It is surprising that he should almost turn a somersault and reject an important part, if not the core, of the Bill. The amendment goes to the core of the Bill and demands and deserves a more intensive debate than it has had either in the House or in another place.
    Mr. Weitzman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a threat by Lord Hailsham that if this was not done we might not get the Bill at all. If that is so, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State acted properly.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. and learned Friend is right. From the remarks in another place by Lord Hailsham it seems clear that he acted arrogantly and petulantly. I take exception to and feel resentment towards the noble Lord's re-
    1320
    marks about this House. It is right that this House should look at legislation that comes from the Lords. It is no good at all for Lord Hailsham to say, in a tantrum, that this House has no right to interfere in his legislation and draftsmanship. It is improper for him to say that it is sheer arrogance for us, "the Jacks in office", to change his wording. It is clear that he made a behind-the-scenes threat to kill the Bill unless the Government acceded to his requests and the amendments made by the Lords on a previous occasion.
    It is disturbing that a non-elected person, speaking only for himself and what he called "informed opinion"—which, by implication, does not exist in this Chamber—should seek to legislate on his own and tell us what this House shall alter or revise in legislation that comes from the other place. It is deeply offensive to hon. Members and to the House as a body.
    I want to ask the Minister about the cobbled-up compromise. He has admitted that there was a compromise, but it has not been discussed by the House and we have not had an opportunity substantially to change anything. With whom was the compromise conducted and concluded? What kind of behind-the-scenes manoeuvres went on to buy off the hostility and juvenile resentment of Lord Hailsham? Who was consulted on the redrafting of this crucial and important part of the Bill?
    What does the amendment mean? What do the words, "substantial grounds for belief" mean in practice? Is that not as subjective a formula as that which we proffered previously. What criteria would the court have before it? What specific grounds would it consider in determining whether there were "substantial grounds for believing"? The House deserves a much more comprehensive answer from my hon. Friend than he has given so far.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Labour Members should not let their enthusiasm for the destruction of the House of Lords and their desire to find every opportunity to criticise the activities of noble Lords who participate in the deliberations of that House lead them into using this opportunity for an attack upon Lord

    1321
    Hailsham for what he said. If they do use the opportunity, they should not be allowed to get away with it.
    Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the House of Lords makes a decision we should not interfere with it? Those were the words of Lord Hailsham.
    Mr. Lawrence: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not put words into my mouth. If he will do me the kindness of waiting to hear me develop my point, perhaps he will have less to say in interventions.
    The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. It performs that function never so well as when it is concerned with legislation to do with the operation of our courts. That is because it is full of the most distinguished and successful practitioners in the law. Many of them are judges and some have risen to a distinguished pedestal in our judicial system. For example, Lord Hailsham has served in the office of Lord Chancellor with outstanding distinction.
    That being so, in matters where that sort of expertise is available the advice which that House gives should be listened to by this House. Few of us have anything like that wealth of experience—even fewer among those Labour Members who have opposed the amendment, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who has served the courts for many years with distinction.
    In order to save time and to put this Chamber right, the House of Lords has made suggestions. I do not think that it matters very much just how irritating the form of words used may or may not be understood to be; the important thing is that the House of Lords sought to improve the Bill. The Minister now concedes that the improvement in the Bill introduced by the House of Lords is acceptable to the Government. If the Lords amendment had been accepted earlier, perhaps time would have been available for more debate on some of the other matters which have arisen in this House.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Are we not right to be suspicious about the words of anyone who wants
    1322
    to denigrate and diminish the influence of this House? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to what he said in the House of Lords the noble Lord made a statement on television about wanting to see a constitutional system with a type of Supreme Court, where judges, rather than the House of Commons, would make the laws? I thought that that matter—the rights of this House—had been settled in the period of the English revolution. I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will fight staunchly for the rights of this House against the Lords or anyone else.
    Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point made by Lord Hailsham in his Dimbleby Lectures when dealing with the problem of an elective dictatorship. He was suggesting not that the judges should make the law but that they should interpret the law according to the wishes of the majority of people in our society.
    Mr. Heffer: That is the same thing.
    Mr. Lawrence: It is nothing like the same thing. Although I accept, and indeed appreciate, the compromise concession made by the Minister, I believe that the public will be misled if they feel that this Bill makes a substantial contribution to the system of criminal justice. Nothing in the Bill will make it more likely that people will be released on bail who might not otherwise have been released.
    If only the Government had devoted more attention to what else could have been done to improve the penal system, particularly in improving the working of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in accordance with the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure set up to consider its ineffectiveness, the cause of penal reform and justice would have been much better served and the time devoted to this Bill would have been better used.
    Mr. John: With the leave of the House, may I point out that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) delivered himself of an amazing series of misunderstanding statements about the Bill. He said that nobody wanted the Bill, that it would not change anything and that what was needed was

    1323
    criminal law reform. He thought that we should have devoted our attention to other matters. He ignored the fact that a working party on bail procedures recommended these measures and that that body was composed of academics as well as of distinguished practitioners in the law. Furthermore, the hon. Member said that if we had accepted the earlier formula it would have saved a great deal of time. No doubt it would, but the earlier formula involving the concept of unacceptable risk is nowhere near as strong as the formula now in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) drew a sharp distinction between the words "probable" and "substantial". I hope to convince him that the division is not as great as he thinks and that the test in the Bill is a strong one.
    I did not pay a great deal of attention to the words of Lord Hailsham, save perhaps where he expressed his views on the constitutional place of the House of Commons. If his words are to be taken as being the only constitutional doctrine, I would disagree with them. I believe that Lord Hailsham was profoundly wrong and that he did a great disservice to those who served on the Standing Committee when he drew attention to the care with which we canvassed these matters. We may disagree with the noble Lord, but when the occasion arises that imputations are made against the good faith and good sense of members of a Commons Committee it is surely a legitimate matter for criticism.
    The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said that the formula as it left the Commons was defective. I disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk said that we must have regard to the parliamentary situation. Again, I agree that we should be foolish to ignore the realities of the parliamentary situation. I can tell my hon. Friend that the consultations about the formula put forward by the Government in the other place were between members of the Government, among others my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
    Thirdly, my hon. Friend asks what the phrase
    "substantial grounds for believing"
    1324
    means. He asks what criteria would be adopted by the court. When he talks of a subjective test, it is true to say that almost every test is subjective. Even the word "probable" would mean that the test which the court made on the word "probable" would be subjective. There would be a subjective test of the words
    "substantial grounds for believing".
    The words mean, first, that the court has to be satisfied, not with speculation, not with a convenient "get-out" for denying a person bail, but that there are substantial grounds for believing that a person will, for example, fail to surrender to bail or will commit another offence. That is more than mere speculation. It is more than ordinary chance. There is a strong duty upon the court. If that has not been understood by those who have read previous debates, I am happy to emphasise it tonight.
    The criteria are those which will be built up in practice. There are no criteria laid down in the Bill, except in Schedule 1, which suggests the type of thing which might entitle a court to deny bail to an accused person.
    Clause 4 of the Bill, like so many other clauses bearing that number in other legislation, enshrines an important principle, namely, the right of an accused person to bail. That right can be taken away only if the high degree of responsibility which falls upon the court under Schedule 1 is discharged.
    What I had to bear in mind was that, if the word "probable" was objectionable, no amour propre on my part—I accept that I believed that "probable" was a good word—should be allowed to stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. The formula now in the Bill lays an onus on the court which it will find intelligible but which will not allow it to evade its responsibilities to grant bail as a right. That onus will permit the court to refuse bail only when there are substantial gounds for believing that the accused will either not surrender to his bail or will commit another crime.
    Mr. John Ryman: Will my hon. Friend deal with this practical problem which, I anticipate, may well arise? Since the granting or refusal of bail is always a discretionary matter, and since the courts when refusing bail do not

    1325
    normally deliver any form of judgment but simply say that the application is refused, how will a person or his legal representative making application and invoking the proposed section know whether the court has followed the suggested formula? When submissions are made on the lines of Clause 4, how will a court, in granting or refusing an application, discharge the duty laid upon it?
    Mr. John: If my hon. Friend examines the Bill, he will see that, for the first time, written records of such bail applications and the reasons for decisions are to be made. The difficulty he sees will not arise.
    I commend this proposition to the House, not in any spirit of what has been described as abject acceptance but believing that we have been reasonable in saying that what we are wedded to is the principle and not necessarily the word. We have upheld the principle, and I hope that the House will do the same.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 2 to the Commons amendment agreed to.

  POULTRY MEAT HYGIENE
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1209), dated 29th July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th August, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the following food and drugs Prayer:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1221), dated 30th July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th August, be annulled.
  Mr. Jopling: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I merely move the motion now, and I hope that it will be possible for me to speak a little later in the debate.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am grateful for the opportunity of inter-
  1326
  vening in this debate, because it is of the greatest importance that these regulations should be seen for what they are—a threat to some extent, however limited, to the way in which we in this country organise our environmental health services.
  I begin by a declaration of personal, though not financial, interest in the sense that I was President of what is now called the Environmental Health Officers' Association and am now one of its several vice-presidents. No financial consideration is involved, but I have been interested in this work for a number of years and my greatest concern is that these regulations interfere with the way in which we organise our environmental health services.
  In the past, we have always organised our community health services on the basis of having a general purpose officer, as it were, covering a very wide range of community health problems. The situation is different on the Continent, where people tend to work through a series of separate specialised bodies. We believe that our general purpose officer has proved to be the most successful.
  We claim, rightly, I believe, that our environmental health services are amongst the best, if not the best, not only in Europe but perhaps more wildly. Our environmental health officer of today has a very wide range of duties and is trained and qualified to be responsible for them. He covers such things as the improvement of housing and the problems of slum clearance, air pollution, industrial and factory hygiene, noise, food poisoning, meat inspection and poultry inspection, which is the subject of these regulations.
  We have always insisted that it is only by having an officer responsible for this very wide range of duties that we are likely to understand the way in which our problems interlock. It has been our practice, in legislation passed under both Governments, to insist that it shall be the responsibility of the local authority to decide who, in a particular case, should be the responsible officer. We have therefore become used to the term "authorised officer" in some of our legislation rather than specifying individual persons for particular duties.
  Thus, recent legislation has taken away such terms as "town clerk", "medical

  1327
  officer of health" and "public health inspector". Yet these regulations, for the first time in our recent experience, may introduce a specific officer—the veterinary officer—in place of the normal term "authorised officer".
  I am seeking to impress upon the House that the regulations do not merely involve a matter of professional pride or argument between two sets of highly-qualified people on whom we rely, the veterinary officer on the one side and the environmental health officer on the other. We are dealing with a matter that is very much more important to the way in which we organise our services.
  When we come to the specifics of the regulations and the inspection of poultry meat provisions, the regulations are consequent upon a European directive. Although in most cases the directives turn their attention to the objectives that they seek to achieve, they do not normally specify in detail the particular officer who is to carry out the duties. The normal concept is that it is left to the individual countries to determine the precise way in which the objective will be achieved. That is not so in this case. We have particularisation to a remarkable degree. Although I welcome the fact that the regulations are considerably different from the draft orders that were circulated earlier for discussion, which went into even greater detail and which to the minds of many of us were even more offensive than the present regulations, we still have a greater degree of particularisation than is common or normal.
  Mr. John Roper: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the particularisation in poultry meat parallels what already exists for red meat?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend rightly raises a warning note, because no doubt it will be argued by my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are concerned purely with poultry meat and that there will be no suggestion of extending these provisions to enable the veterinary officer to deal with red meat.
  It is already the case that for export purposes a veterinary officer's certificate is required. That has been the position for some time for poultry meat and red meat. We have always relied upon our own provisions for home consumption. We
  1328
  have had repeated expressions from Ministers, of both parties, about the high quality of work that is done by qualified and experienced health inspectors who are responsible for the carrying out of the inspection in slaughterhouses and in the processing of the meat. It is our concern not only that the health inspector is to be withdrawn from work that he has done throughout the years to our great satisfaction but that the veterinary officer is to be brought in to engage in work that he has not been accustomed to undertaking.
  The veterinary officer has rightly been in charge of the live animal and everything concerned with it. In any matter concerned with the live animal, the health inspector has always approached the veterinary officer for advice, very rightly and absolutely. However, when it comes to the carcase and inspection at the slaughterhouse, the position is different.
  Indeed, that is acknowledged in these regulations because now, as distinct from the original draft regulations, the health inspector is accepted, under the term "authorised officer", as one of those entitled to determine whether the premises are suitable for the purpose of the slaughter of poultry and the passing of poultry through the poultry meat house. If he is to be accepted for that duty, one would naturally think that he should be entitled on equal terms—not necessarily exclusively, but on equal terms—to be available and responsible also for the inspection, but under these regulations he is not.
  It is that form of particularisation of the veterinary officer that alarms us so severely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper)—perhaps not altogether understanding the implication—has so rightly warned us, this is the process that might very well be extended also to red meat and, indeed, to other forms of processed meat much more generally.
  The health inspector—rightly, to my mind—has always been trained to be the responsible and qualified person in charge of hygiene work in processing factories of a very wide character. It is, therefore, a matter of very much concern to very many of us—on both sides of the House, I am sure—that these regulations introduce a new type of provision which, on the one hand, will endanger the whole

  1329
  organisation of our environmental health services in this country, and, on the other hand, particularise as to which officer shall carry out certain duties to which we have not been accustomed in the past.
  I declare myself as a supporter of the Common Market and not as an antagonist to it, but that does not mean that I accept automatically the views that it expresses, nor do I in these circumstances believe that it is essential for us to accept the recommendations sent to us in the directive in the precise form in which they appear. Indeed, I welcome such amendments as my hon. Friends have managed to secure in the regulations as against those originally drafted and circulated.
  I ask my hon. Friends to carry on with their good work and to secure the relatively modest further amendment to enable the health inspector, as we have always known him, or the environmental health inspector to be on equal terms and authorised to do the work that he has always done to great satisfaction in this country rather than have his place taken by a new officer at very great expense. It is almost impossible to calculate how much expense would fall on the local authority concerned and how much would fall on the consumer.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: I apologise for not being here when the debate started but I had not anticipated the speed with which the earlier legislation would be completed.
  These regulations were tabled on 4th August—almost at the last minute before the Summer Recess—and I reacted immediately by tabling this Prayer with my hon. Friends, to ensure that a full and proper debate would take place upon the subject, after all the controversy that has surrounded the regulations.
  Community Directive No. 118 of 1971 was the initiation of a new regime in poultry hygiene. It was in existence, as the House knows, when we joined the Community. Subsequently, that directive was amended by Directive No. 431 of 1975. The important part of the process still to be completed is the introduction and implementation of the directives in the member countries, including in particular the United Kingdom.
  1330
  In December last year the Government produced their first proposals and, as the House knows, and as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said, those proposals were greeted with widespread criticism and condemnation.
  There is no need here to rehearse the details of the proposals, but almost all the interested parties objected to them. For example, the British Poultry Federation produced a 24-page document of submissions against them and proposals for amendment. The National Farmers' Union was also completely dissatisfied, as were many other interested organisations. As a result, as we know, the Government held a lengthy and continuing series of discussions, which went on throughout the summer, and the regulations now before the House represent the result of those discussions.
  The regulations are vastly different from the originals. Numerous changes have been made, all of them acceptable and welcomed. Some of us wonder how and why the original proposals ever came to be formulated. They were not wanted they were not justified, and they proved to be unnecessary.
  I shall not weary the House by listing all the changes. Many hon. Members, myself included, were determined, for example, to reprieve the sentence passed on the New York-dressed sector, especially. That is only a small sector of the whole, but it is of great significance for many farmers and small producers, and for turkeys for the Christmas trade. Certainly we are extremely glad that this trade, small though it is in proportion to the whole, can now continue without time limit.
  It is fair to say that with the exception of the environmental health officers the whole poultry industry and the interested organisations are broadly in favour of what is now proposed, and the House will want to weigh that fact carefully.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: It is also still true that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has very strong views about it.
  Mr. Pym: That is so, but these regulations raise a number of important questions. Obviously, there is a strong case in principle for improving hygiene standards. Just as more or less everyone is against sin, I suppose that more or

  1331
  less everyone is for better hygiene. It is important for our export trade. For poultry and for other meat it is indispensable that hygiene standards should be internationally accepted. In the case of poultry, the export trade is small but potentially significant. Therefore, these regulations are important from that point of view. If improvements in hygiene standards can be achieved for the home trade as well, that, too, is desirable.
  There are two main outstanding controversies, which relate to the cost of the whole exercise and to the position of the environmental health officers. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions and to seek certain assurances from him. These are of direct relevance to the attitude that hon. Members will wish to take. We know that some will be against these regulations, anyway, on an anti-Community basis—
  Mr. Neil Marten: No.
  Mr. Pym: Some will be, but that is no basis for deciding the matter, as the hon. Member for South Shields said.
  First, as to costs, what is the truth about the additional cost per bird? I appreciate that apart from £5 million of Government money for modernising slaughterhouses the consumer and not the taxpayer or the ratepayer will pay the additional cost. In recent weeks the Government have been saying that the additional cost will be about 1p per bird. However, that figure is disputed. A letter produced by the NFU yesterday refers on page 2 to the smaller processors, and it says that 4p to 5p per bird has been quoted as the likely cost. The House will definitely want to know what justification the Government have for saying that it is 1p, and whether the figure suggested by the NFU is accurate or inaccurate. What is more, as this is an additional imposition on food prices, albeit a small one, the House will want to be satisfied on that point now.
  The Government are still undecided about the cost of training poultry meat inspectors. They have been asked to underwrite and pay for the cost of training new inspectors. We want a statement from the Minister on that aspect.
  The National Farmers' Union, in the letter to which I referred earlier, raised a particular matter in the last paragraph when it mentioned paragraph 22(2) of
  1332
  the regulations and the Minister's power to direct local authorities about charges. We want to hear from the Minister on that aspect tonight.
  There is the question of phasing in. If these regulations are phased in gradually, obviously they will work better and are more likely to be successful and practical. Also, they should make the whole process more economical. If too much is expected too quickly it is bound to cost more. We want an assurance on that point.
  Then there is the environmental health officers' case, and the first question that arises relates to the number of veterinary surgeons mentioned in the Ministry's own explanatory note. In paragraph 13 it says that the equivalent of 100 full-time veterinarians will be required ultimately to operate the regulations. When the environmental health officers met my hon. Friends they said that they thought that 100 veterinarians would be required within a year and that the number would probably build up ultimately to about 300 or 400. Will the Government tell us the real position?
  The environmental health officers service will not be withdrawn, as the hon. Member for South Shields indicated. It will play an important rôle in the whole process, but the veterinarians will be added to it in a supervisory capacity.
  By far the biggest fear of the environmental health officers, and the most important aspect to them, is the implication for the future of this new policy for poultry meat inspection. I quote from a letter that most hon. Members received from the Environmental Health Association. It said:
  "The significance of the new regulations goes far deeper than poultry. They are seen by officers as the thin end of what could be a very thick wedge."
  It went on to say:
  "The regulations will establish the further principle that the EEC may not only decide the conditions under which we can export poultry to other member countries, but can dictate what we must do for the protection of our own consumers."
  Do these regulations imply, and do they contain the possibility, that what is proposed for poultry can be applied to other meats? This is a vital question for environmental health officers and they have a practical professional interest.
  Paragraph 14 of the Ministry's explanatory memorandum says that the Govern-

  1333
  ment have already given assurances, both in Parliament, and to the Association. It says:
  "They (the Government) will oppose any move to extend veterinary supervision beyond the slaughter house to domestic food hygiene."
  But that does not go far enough and does not meet the point about the thin end of the wedge.
  The environmental health officers have served this country well for a century. There is no equivalent on the Continent; therefore we can understand the officers' anxiety. They have an important role to play in poultry meat hygiene, in these regulations. What assurance or undertaking can the Government give us?
  Are there other Community directives waiting in the wings, as it were, to be wheeled in to apply to other meats? As my hon. Friends and I understand the position, no such other directives exist. Therefore, our environmental health officers' position can be fully protected. However, they are extremely worried, and I know that the House will pay careful attention to what the Minister has to say about this very important issue.
  There are other issues in relation to EHOs, but those are the two main issues that I single out in this opening speech.
  Finally, the House will wish to hear what is the justification for these regulations, on public health grounds. There has been no opportunity yet for the Government to present the case for them in the House—which is one reason why I put down this Prayer. It is the first statutory scheme for poultry meat inspection, and if these regulations are to operate, with all the costs involved and the extra staff, the House will want to be satisfied that what is laid down here is the right and proper way to proceed, and the best way.
  We know that the poultry industry is extremely keen to have these regulations implemented; indeed, it has forecast extremely serious consequences if they are not. We know that the NFU is now in favour of the regulations, although its letter of yesterday cannot exactly be described as wildly enthusiastic. We know that the Government and the veterinary profession believe that these regulations are a valuable advance for hygiene standards, which is an objective that the whole House would share. However, I
  1334
  am convinced that this debate is absolutely necessary, not only so that hon. Members can express their views but also, and in particular, so that the Government can deal with the items of main concern that I have listed.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call any other hon. Member to speak, I should like to say to the House that this debate will last probably until 11.30 p.m. I have a list of Members with urgent constituency interests who obviously want to be called and I shall be able to call everyone who wishes to be called only if we have brief speeches.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I shall try to be very brief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should not imagine that my vote tonight against the regulations has anything to do with my being anti-Common Market. I shall vote against them because I am a Conservative and because I think that this proposal is an unnecessary expenditure of public money, which we are advocating should be cut. This is my basic reason.
  I do not believe that these regulations are necessary for health reasons. For generations, for centuries, we have eaten our fowl as we wanted, and this has not caused very much trouble to the health of the people of the United Kingdom.
  I recently tabled a Question to ask
  "how many people in each of the last three years have become ill through eating diseased or unwholesome poultry meat or food which has been contaminated by the guts or other viscera from poultry."
  The reply was:
  "1972, 29; 1973, 34; 1974, 29".—[Official Report,11th March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 298–9.]
  Therefore, it is a minuscule health problem.
  The argument that suddenly we need this simply because we have joined the Common Market is not a very serious reason for advocating these regulations. I take the view that, if we go on like this and other regulations are put forward by the Common Market to deal with purity of water and this, that and the other, as a nation we shall become so cosseted that when we step outside the tariff barriers of the EEC into a foreign country we shall all collapse with diseases. If one goes

  1335
  to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, for example, if it is held in a hot climate it is remarkable how many people collapse. I have always followed a good rule that I learnt during the last war.
  Mr. John Hannam: Boil the water.
  Mr. Marten: It is not to boil the water. If one goes to a place such as Cairo, which is not the healthiest of places, the first thing one does is to go into one's bathroom, turn on the tap and drink a glass of clean, Cairo bath-tap water. If one does that throughout one's life, one becomes immunised. I have always done that and so far, touch wood, I have not fallen ill. I think that the health reason is spurious.
  It is said that the regulations are needed for export, but according to figures from the Department of Trade the export market in chickens in the 12 months to April this year totalled £828,000. This is a minute amount and there is no evidence that exports will increase. The export argument is very weak.
  I am against the regulations because the Government will be putting in £5 million capital cost for structural improvements. The expenditure is unnecessary in this context.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire wrote earlier this year
  1336
  that increases in costs of a result of EEC poultry hygiene regulations would have to be borne by the consumer. He added:
  "The present Government has already saddled the public with rising food prices, with the prospect of further inevitable and horrific rises. All this is a totally unnecessary burden on this sector of the agricultural industry and it will cost the consumer dear."
  I am not sure whether it will cost the consumer 1p a pound or 4p a chicken, but it will be quite a lot. The people who have addressed our Committee have given us to understand that the running costs will be £10 million to £14 million a year—which will be passed on to the consumer.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) raised the question of public employees. I have here a letter from my local council, which is concerned about the level of inspection required and the cost which will have to be borne by the consumer. The council reckons that the present proposals for inspection services are excessive.
  We were told that the number of public employees would increase by 1,000 to 1,500, of which between 100 and 400 would be veterinary surgeons and the rest public service employees. It is Conservative policy to cut down the number of public employees.
  I shall vote against the regulations on grounds of increased costs and increased number of public servants. The regulations might be all right if they were optional for those who wished to export, but why must we have them for those who do not wish to export?
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I do not go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in his reasons for rejecting the hygiene purposes of these regulations. There are arguments on both sides. My hon. Friend said that 28 or 30 people were taken ill each year with various types of poisoning as a result of eating diseased chickens. But they are only the cases which have been reported; there were probably many others that were not reported. However, this is not the basis of the argument. The basis is that we are improving hygiene regulations to safeguard the health of people in this country and throughout the Community.
  I have a great deal of difficulty over these regulations. I assume that they are meant to follow the Community regulations and directives of 1971 on hygiene, with the amendment of 1975. If so, there are discrepancies which must be cleared up tonight.
  I accuse the Government of deliberate misrepresentation, not only in the House but outside. Ministers have been saying that, because of these regulations, New York-dressed poultry will continue indefinitely. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) picked this up and reiterated it in his speech. But it is not so, and the Member knows it. The amended regulations show quite clearly that eviscerated chickens can be a derogation up to 1981 and no further. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me on 24th August—I have his letter here—after these regulations were laid, and said:
  "Although the directives place a limit of August 1981 on the provisions for New York dressed sales by producers beyond the 'farm gate', we have not put a similar time limit in our regulations thereby allowing for the possibility that the Community provisions may eventually be changed."
  The reality is that they are not changed now. The Minister's predecessor, now Lord Peart, and the right hon. Gentleman himself have been gambling that between now and 1981 they will be able to renegotiate these directives. They have no right to do that. That was what the Parliamentary Secretary said; anybody can see the letter. It is not private Therefore, the view circulated through-
  1338
  out the country that New York-dressed poultry will be allowed indefinitely to continue to be sold at retail level, not across the farm gate from the producer to the consumer but via a third party, is quite erroneous, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. I questioned Commissioner Lardinois about that matter at the European Parliament, and it was confirmed.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, when he becomes Minister of Agriculture within a short time, will be able to renegotiate that regulation. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to mislead the House and the country by saying that that can be done. I find it difficult to accept these regulations as they stand. I shall not go into the details, Mr. Speaker, because you have asked us to be brief. Schedule 4 is the crux of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman in his reply looks at Regulations 3 and 4, he will see that the exemption lasts only to 1981. Let him study his own regulations. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House, producers and processors about this issue, because he is wrong.
  I turn now to another matter which concerns the environmental health officers. There has been a certain amount of controversy over this matter. It seems that we have got ourselves into a misunderstanding over what is involved. When I first saw this regulation from the Community and the regulation from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, it was drafted so that only veterinary surgeons could do ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections not only in big but in small slaughterhouses. This seems incredibly wasteful and expensive. My right hon. Friend said that cost would escalate. It seems an unnecessary imposition. We have well-trained EHOs in the country, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said. Therefore, why should they not undertake these inspections?
  I have spoken to members of the veterinary profession in this country. Indeed, I had the pleasure of opening their international conference only a month ago. They persuaded me that there are certain functions which only veterinary

  1339
  surgeons can fulfil—for example, microscopic investigation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that what was originally in the regulations would vitiate any environmental health officer making a career for himself in that calling.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will explain why he was convinced that it was necessary to have training of a veterinary surgeon in order to make these microscopic investigations?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because I was not particularly clear on the subject. I am not a veterinary surgeon, nor am I a scientist, and one can be baffled by science. Nevertheless, a good case was made by British Veterinary Association members that some cases of salmonella poisoning cannot be detected by the eye and need proper investigation. Presumably that would explain the need for microscopic and bacteriological knowledge which understandably the ordinary environmental health officer does not possess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He is not trained to that level. If I were asked whether he could be trained, that would be a different issue.
  I tried to find out the exact intentions which Commissioner Lardinois would be putting forward to the Council of Ministers and what his interpretation was of the regulations which had been passed by the Council and which the British Government are now to implement. He made quite clear in a letter dated 18th July, which I sent to the Minister, that the kind of supervision which he, as Commissioner, envisaged being adopted in this country was having one veterinary surgeon in charge of perhaps a county or a region with the environmental health officers working under his supervision. There was no question, as the Minister said in a subsequent letter to me, of a veterinary surgeon being required to do post-mortem and ante-mortem inspection at all large plants throughout the country.
  The interpretation of Mr. Lardinois was that there would be one veterinary officer per county, or perhaps even one per region, which is cutting it down enormously. I understand entirely that the veterinary profession does not quite see eye to eye with that interpretation. It
  1340
  obviously wants to have closer supervision. But there simply are not enough veterinary surgeons available at present to fill all the vacancies when they occur. In this particular case, there would have to be veterinary supervision by the veterinary surgeon himself.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will make it quite clear that a proper career structure is available for environmental health officers, that there will be only the necessary veterinary supervision and that at best this will mean only one veterinary officer per county or one per region. I hope that that is what will happen.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the observation that the scheme will require no more than 500 extra vocational or professional staff?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I sincerely hope that it will be a darned sight less than that. Unless my mathematics are at fault, and as far as the counties are concerned, there are slaughterhouses which will require only something between 30 and 40 if that is the method by which the Minister decides to implement the directive and the regulations. That is all that is necessary. It need not be more than 20 or 30, but I fear that it may well be between 500 and 1,000. That would be wrong, and that was why I put my name to the motion. I do not believe that the scheme will be implemented in the way I have suggested. I believe that the environmental health officer should have a proper career structure.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields that what happens to poultry meat and white meat may well apply to red meat. Why not? It is right that it should be done on a European Community basis. Let us get it right tonight. If we do not, we shall be in a dreadful mess later. That is why it is absolutely essential that the 1975 directive is properly interpreted.
  Mr. Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend, serving as he does in the European Parliament, is a specialist in these matters. He said that between 400 and 500 veterinary surgeons might be involved. If that is so, it could have a grave effect on the way we vote. Some

  1341
  of us are concerned about the duties of environmental health officers.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is not for me to say how the Government will implement the regulations. The Minister in a letter to me dated 14th October said that he expected a veterinary surgeon to be employed in every large plant. That means, presumably, that for ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections the total could be 500 at least. It is not for me but for the Government to reply to my hon. Friend. I fear that that is the way the Government intend to implement the regulations, but they will be wrong to do it in that way. There need be no more than between 30 and 50 veterinary officers involved at the most, and that is how I hope the Government will implement the regulations. For those reasons, I support the motion.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I never cease to be amazed by Conservative Members who, having swallowed the entire camel of the common agricultural policy, on issue after issue strain at a gnat—or, in this case, a chicken.
  I am in the peculiar position of not being a great lover of the Common Market and, at the same time, not straining at the gnat of these regulations, bearing in mind all the lunacies of the common agricultural policy. The regulations are not without merit, despite the arguments used by the Conservatives. I wish that they would stop this nonsense. They brought us into the Common Market without proper consultation of the people and without proper consultation of the House. They raise these issues for no other reason than to make cheap political capital.
  In attacking the lunacies of the common agricultural policy, I am not prepared at the same time to refuse a welcome, however grudging it may be, to certain aspects of improvement. There are certain merits in the regulations, regardless of their origin. I exempt from all my strictures the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
  The regulations contain improvements which the Government might have considered in the past. I am in favour of any regulations which lead to an improvement in animal health regulations and
  1342
  in the food which is produced in this country. There are such elements contained in the regulations. There are also questions to be asked, and we shall ask them.
  My first view was that environmental health officers were largely to be superseded. I understand now that that is not so. I hope that we shall receive some clarification about that. I am concerned that the regulations should not lead to loss of jobs or to loss of status.
  I understand that veterinary officers will be used in a supervisory capacity but that environmental health officers will sometimes be used in fairly senior positions within the administration. I should like verification of that. I hope that on the administrative side there will be no need for any loss of status. I wish environmental health officers to have an equal involvement, but, if the standards are changed, by definition that will alter the present position. There may be no loss of status, but I should like the Government's comment on that. I am not prepared to push this to the point that there can be no improvement in hygienic conditions because of the necessity to bring in a higher level of expertise. In that way no progress is made.
  We are dealing with the future of the industry. Whether we like it or not, many markets will be blocked to us if we do not adopt regulations such as these. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) nods his head in agreement, but I wish he had not been so grudging in his speech. Hon. Members have raised the problems of the EHOs and veterinary surgeons. They have said that international trade in many areas demands this veterinary involvement. The Swann Report stressed the importance of the relationship between the abattoir and farm and the resulting following up of health aspects.
  Having argued over the years for that, it is difficult for me to object to regulations, whatever their source. I am not in the same hypocritical state as Opposition Members who swallowed the entire camel of the Common Market.
  Hon Members want the Minister to comment on the role of veterinary surgeons and EHOs. Do we have enough veterinary officers? There appears to be a pattern of increasing age in the service. If we are not to have sufficient veterinary

  1343
  officers, can we involve the EHOs in supervision? I do not accept some of the exaggerated numbers which have been suggested, but I can see difficulties even if the minimum number were correct. One of the reasons for the difficulty is that so many young veterinary officers have moved into the private domestic sphere—as we read in the stories by Mr. Herriot—and they prefer that to the public service.
  Where will the cost lie? I am not happy about that aspect, but I approve of the £5 million public subsidy for slaughterhouses. I am in favour of improving health conditions in our abattoirs, but I wonder to what extent the cost of supervision will be borne by the consumer. Such questions require an answer.
  My previous doubts about the regulations were based on my fear of their effects on the small man, because that is particularly important in this industry. There is also the question of "New York-dressed". There are one or two curious phrases in the regulations. For instance, what is meant by "neighbouring authorities"? Many authorities are surrounded by half a dozen others. Are we talking in terms of distances or of time between killing and when the product reaches the market? Are we right to say that accepting "New York-dressed" will benefit the small man by allowing him a monopoly of fresh-killed poultry? Is the industry's welcome for it merely an endorsement of the big man's case?
  My acceptance is partially grudging. I hate health regulations or anything else to be dictated by the exigencies of the market, but the Government should have taken action a long time ago. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, particularly that about the status and future of the environmental health officers.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Having read the regulations, I came to the conclusion that the nation could not afford to use people with six or seven years' university training to look up the backside of chickens to see whether they were edible. Some hon. Members have said that that is not so, and that the veterinary officers will not do any of the in-
  1344
  spection but will employ assistants to do it.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) seemed to imply that one of the arguments for employing veterinary officers was that certain work required to be done which an ordinary environmental health officer was not qualified to do. Yet it appears to me that the highly-qualified, expensively-trained veterinary officer will, in areas such as mine at least, be at best 15 or 20 miles from the nearest killing house. I do not know what his involvement with the chicken will be if that is the arrangement. Why the whole business cannot be given to the environmental health officers, and thus save money and university training, I do not know.
  The general improvement of regulations must be treated with sympathy, certainly from the Liberal Bench. Having been brought up in a rural environment, I can assure hon. Members that improvements in hygiene in the killing of animals are required. I have been at one end of the pigs' house killing chickens and helping to gut them while the pigs were doing whatever they chose to do at the other end. The fact that that will be made illegal is to be welcomed.
  I do not understand completely the question of the marking of the birds to show that they have been passed. When the cover is removed from the bird, the mark will be destroyed. Will it therefore be illegal to sell parts of chicken? If the butcher will be allowed to hack up a chicken which has already passed the test somewhere and sell parts, he will immediately destroy the marking. If that is to be made illegal, well and good. If not, I wonder what is the purpose of putting on the marking in the first place.
  My final point concerns what I suspect to be the cause of many of the health dangers in the selling of poultry—the freezing and thawing, freezing and thawing, and so on, that goes on in the butcher's shop. Whether or not the chicken has a fancy mark under the cover, I suspect that four freezings and thawings can do more harm than anything else.
  I admit that I know very little about the regulations, although I tried to read them. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make clear exactly what the veterinary

  1345
  officer will do. If that officer is not involved in the judgment, why employ him anyway? I hope that the Minister will also comment on the dangers of thawing and freezing.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: It cannot be denied that there is much in the regulations that is good and extremely desirable. The general public have a right to the highest standard of cleanliness in the production and preparation of their foodstuffs. But there is still much about the regulations that worries me. The first matter is the whole principle of Common Market interference in the minutiae of everyday commerce and everyday life. It seems that by the regulations the Common Market is trying to harmonise and standardise all preferences and tastes at regional and national level throughout the Common Market. That could be a mistake, because there are individual preferences and tastes which are to the benefit of everybody. However, the constant standardisation and harmonisation continues. The neat and tidy bureaucratic mind likes neat and tidy regulations with which to standardise everybody. If we take the process too far, everyone will be the loser.
  There seems to be in the regulations a kind of overkill in the name of safety, with every chicken inspected. Perhaps this is all very well in theory, but can it be fulfilled in practice? We must bear in mind the extra expense that will be involved in new buildings, in the training of inspectors and in creating adequate numbers of veterinary surgeons. The cost of the regulations will be borne by the poultry industry, which has taken a fair hammering financially. Its feeding costs have escalated rapidly. We know the extra burdens which have been placed on agriculture by the EEC's skimmed milk provisions. Those provisions alone have meant a massive increase in costs to the industry.
  The Government's concessions in respect of dry plucked birds will be of more use to the turkey producers aiming at the seasonal Christmas market than to the full-time, all-the-year-round chicken processors.
  I ask the Minister to consider extending the 50 per cent. grant to producers with fewer than 200,000 birds, because
  1346
  that would help the medium-size business. The Government have tended to miss out in help to that group.
  The argument that United Kingdom firms must raise themselves to EEC standards if they are to be fit to take part in export markets tends to fall down in many cases in a Scottish context. I have in mind the medium-size firms which do not export at all and whose efforts are aimed at the home market. They will find themselves in the worst of all possible worlds since, although they do not export, they will still be required by the regulations to raise their buildings to the required standards at considerable expense. I ask the Minister to examine the situation of such firms in Scotland.
  I am concerned about the practical effect of the regulations on manpower and the costs to the industry and also to the housewife. Many conflicting figures have been given in this debate. The Government put the average cost of inspection at 1p per bird, but the NFU instanced a figure as high as 3p to 4p per pound of finished product. Which is the correct figure? May we be told on what the Government figures are based so that we may reach a judgment? The Government should seek to reassure the poor housewife, because she is the one who will end up paying for these changes.
  Fears have been expressed that some smaller firms may be driven out of business. Does not the Minister accept that there are differences in scale and that rules based on requisites for large firms might not be applicable to small firms? The small firms can operate effectively and hygenically without the massive outlay on plant required in the larger companies. Again, I ask the Minister to examine that aspect of the matter.
  I wish to mention one point of definition. On page 2 of the regulations we see the word "fresh" as including "chilled" or "frozen" meat. I notice that some supermarkets are advertising "fresh frozen chickens". That surely is a contradiction in terms and could be misleading. Does it mean "freshly frozen" because it has been frozen within a short time, or does it mean merely "frozen"? To my mind, a chicken is either fresh or frozen—there is no area in between. I hope the Minister will examine these matters of definition.

  1347
  If the Government are determined to force these regulations through, will they pick up the financial obligations created by their own measures? Certainly, more Government help is needed to meet the costs. The figure of £5 million is fine, but will it be adequate to help the industry—and will it be taken to the places where it is needed? There must be careful regulation of its effects in the Common Market. I hope that the Minister will keep an eye on the situation in the EEC to ensure that its members raise their standards in the same way as the United Kingdom is expected to raise its standards, otherwise we shall face unfair competition if we obey the rules and they do not.
  I also ask the Minister to watch the position in a United Kingdom context and ensure that the small and medium-size businesses are not drowned in extra costs. I hope he will also ensure that the supply of veterinary surgeons and poultry meat inspectors is adequate and available where needed.
  Let us remember that the customer—the housewife—is always right. I hope that the Minister will guarantee the situation long beyond 1981 and will devote a great deal of thought to these matters.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I am no great expert on either agriculture or on the Common Market. In my constituency chickens are eaten rather than raised. This is only the second time that I have spoken in a Common Market debate. I want to make the same point as I did on the first occasion, which was a debate about Common Market attempts to make it more difficult for us to train postgraduate doctors part-time. The same principle is raised in these regulations.
  I, too, have been subjected to the same sort of pressures as other hon. Members, as Vice-President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In addition, my own environmental health officers have made representations to me. My point is that what we are discussing is symptomatic of what we shall see in regulation after regulation from the Common Market as it attempts to impose a European professional attitude—which does not necessarily accord with the
  1348
  development of the professions and our way of doing things in Britain—upon the law and, therefore, the economy of this country.
  When we were discussing the postgraduate medical training regulations, because doctors do not train part-time for post-graduate medicine in Europe it was assumed that they should not be allowed to carry on in Britain with a pattern of training which was traditional. Eventually we managed to make some dent in that argument. Here again, because on the Continent there has not been the growth of the profession of environmental health officers, there is this attempt to impose upon us an expensive and absurd system of inspection which has nothing to do with the way we go about things here.
  I am particularly concerned because I am interested in the development of training and in the teaching profession in Britain. I am proud of our flexible system of development as against the inflexible system in many Common Market countries. If it had not been for Britain's entry to the Common Market, that system might have gone on with an absurd set of regulations based on hours of study and attempts to correlate them between different countries. Common Market countries can be thankful that we saved them from that.
  The attempt to put expensively trained veterinary surgeons in charge of a process which is inappropriate to them is a sign of something we shall see coming to this House again and again. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins said that he was of this opinion until somehow the veterinary officers persuaded him to think otherwise. He was asked how he had been persuaded, but he did not seem to tell us what the arguments were. We have to use our imagination. I certainly have not been persuaded.
  Environmental health officers are members of one of a number of professions which we have developed on a pragmatic, sensible basis to meet a need as opposed to operating on a traditional basis, allowing the professions to dig themselves in and demand privileges which inevitably mean increased expenditure for which the consumer pays. It is right that we should draw attention to

  1349
  this symptom as it is manifested in the regulations. Over the next few years I can see a whole range of other areas where we shall be asked to absorb what are fundamentally alien systems of inspection. I hope that we shall resist them on each occasion, as I intend to resist the regulations tonight.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The House will have observed from the Order Paper that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of both Houses to these Instruments
  "on the grounds that they make an unusual or unexpected use of the powers".
  conferred by the statutes under which they are made. I draw the attention of the House to the Thirtieth Report of the Committee.
  The preamble to the regulations states that the regulations are made
  "for the purposes of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 ….in relation to the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community … in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by the said Section 2(2) and in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Sections 13 and 123 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955".
  In a few respects the regulations go beyond the order-making power given to Ministers and Secretaries of State under the Food and Drugs Act. They therefore rely for vires on the order-making powers in the European Communities Act to take up the Food and Drugs Act powers, and for the enforcement of the provisions of that Act there is Section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act 1953 which allows right of entry to inspectors to premises where they think that poultry-dressing may be taking place.
  The proviso to Section 100 is that if entry is to be into a private dwelling 24 hours' notice must be given. That does not permit a right of entry or enforcement under the provisions introduced by the European Communities Act. Therefore, in the regulations there is Regulation 25, which gives inspectors a right of entry for the purpose. However, for some extraordinary reason the proviso of 24 hours' notice in the case of a private dwelling has been left out. Although it is clearly in Section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act it has not been repeated in the regulations. The House has always been careful to examine rights of entry
  1350
  into people's homes, and there is no good reason for the omission of the proviso in the regulations. There is no reason for entry without notice.
  The Thirtieth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, having taken evidence from officials of the Department concerned, found the following:
  "The Department … admit that there is no reason why such a proviso should not be included. The Committee consider that it was unnecessary to grant wider powers to inspectors than were granted by the Food and Drugs Act and that this was not necessary in order to implement Article 6 of the EEC Directive under the European Communities Act. Consequently, they consider that the regulations make an unusual use of the powers granted under the Acts."
  I must ask the Minister to give the House an undertaking to introduce an amendment to the regulations to attach that proviso, the protection against immediate entry into a private dwelling by the provision that there shall be 24 hours' notice. I ask him to give the House an undertaking that he will bring in an amending order to add that proviso to Regulation 25.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I address the House as one who in 1974, on the balance of argument, was a pro-EEC person. For that reason I have grave recriminations about the present situation. It is possible that had I then appreciated the implications of the legislation in greater detail my judgment might have been different. I say that openly and willingly. I have no doubt that the EEC is doing itself considerable harm by trying to get this sort of detailed harmonisation. It is ridiculous that there should be a requirement for such harmonisation.
  I have a strong constituency interest in that a number of firms, partnerships and sole traders operate there who could not only be affected but could be killed off. I agree with what the hon. Member for Derbysire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said about the position of New York-dressed poultry after 1981: that that trade may well be killed off. We all agree on the need for hygiene, but if we have £12 million or £14 million to spend on food safety and hygiene there must be other ways in which the money could be used to greater benefit—for example, research

  1351
  into food additives. No overwhelming case has been made for the regulations. The Consumers Association in March 1976 raised substantial questions about them which have not been answered.
  Secondly, I believe that these regulations are unnecessary for export trade development since we already have considerable export trade in poultry. Indeed, the regulations have been accepted by the export trade. But the fact that they are necessary for the export trade does not necessarily mean that they have to be applied to the home market.
  Thirdly, I challenge the authenticity of the EEC directive. It was drawn up when we were not a member, so it could not have given consideration to our circumstances, which are quite different. Our agriculture methods are different. In this context, factors such as temperature are different, as are the distances between producers and markets.
  Fourthly, the regulations are impracticable in calling for the time of 100 veterinary surgeons and possibly 900 inspectors. That is ludricrous. People trained to such tasks can be used in ways much more beneficial to the community. These are bureaucratic regulations and should be rejected. I support the case of the environmental health officers. These could be the first of many Common Market regulations going down a bureaucratic path. The House should make a stand tonight and reject them.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: I have only two questions to put. First, is it true that a veterinary surgeon in this country is quite a different animal from a veterinarian on the Continent? Are we speaking of like and like? My understanding is that a veterinarian in Europe is a nice chap with a short training, well qualified to look at chicken guts through a microscope.
  Secondly, is the Minister aware that there are 33 export establishments exporting red meat where British veterinary surgeons, not European veterinarians, have been required to carry out inspections, and that four actually do the work, 14 do part of the examination and nine merely put a stamp on the carcase after the environmental health officers have done the work? This quite clearly in-
  1352
  dicates to me that those veterinary surgeons who are charged with doing the job are unwilling to do the physical work, which they think is not their province. They believe that the environmental health officers can do it more practically and better than they would themselves.
  I hope that the Minister will look at the whole position of veterinary surgeons as we understand it in this country and that of veterinarians as the Europeans understand it. I hope he will look at these two different professions and realise that the British environmental health officer is far more akin to a European veterinarian.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: These regulations represent the culmination of three years' hard work by the veterinary profession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has stressed the need to bring our standards of veterinary inspection in this country up to the level of the standards throughout the European Community.
  We are facing tonight what virtually amounts to a demarcation dispute between the environmental health officers and the veterinarians. The environmental health officers argue that a veterinary surgeon should deal with an animal when it is alive and that an EHO should deal with the carcase once the animal has been slaughtered. That is a completely out-of-date argument and does not take into account the relationship that the normal livestock farmer has today with his veterinarian—the most important argument for the House to consider tonight.
  If an environmental health officer condemns something in the slaughterhouse, that is the end of it. There is a problem with the carcase but there is no feedback to the farming industry. Today, what any livestock farmer wants is to have his veterinarian see his carcases through the slaughterhouse so that there is the necessary feedback to the farmer. The veterinary surgeon is the only person competent to deal with livestock both before it is dead and after it is dead. From the farmer's point of view, the EHO who is dealing with dead livestock is of no help whatsoever. The only

  1353
  person who can really help the livestock farmer is the veterinarian if he knows the past history of the flock, the herd or whatever it might be beforehand and then sees the results in the slaughterhouse.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Is not the hon. Gentleman assuming first that the veterinary surgeon who examines the carcases will be the one who also deals with the fanner's animals on the land, and not one who is employed by the local authority, as is likely in this case? Is not the hon. Gentleman also assuming that the veterinary surgeon will be carrying out the inspections?
  Mr. Kimball: It is the feedback from one professional to another that is important—that the veterinarian employed in the slaughterhouse feeds back effectively to another member of his profession. Half the diseases mentioned in the regulations can be masked with various inoculations. Unless the veterinarian knows what inoculation the flock or herd has received, he is not likely to be able to give a proper analysis. This is another problem with which the EHO is not competent to deal.
  This whole matter is a veterinarian's responsibility. The only certificate that is accepted for meat inspection throughout the world is a veterinary certificate. That is the stamp of the veterinary officer. That is the professional mark indicating that the inspection has been properly carried out.
  I welcome the regulations as a means of raising the standard of public health inspection in this country.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It has been said that this is a matter of job prospects and status, but why should not the environmental health officers be concerned about their job prospects and status? If any other kinds of regulations were to be introduced in this House affecting other professions in the same sort of way, those other professions would be equally concerned. Therefore, I have listened with some attention to the EHOs who have made representations to me and to my hon. Friend when he gave an explanation to them at a public meeting in the House, and I have read the letters that he has written on
  1354
  behalf of his Department as well as having listened to this debate so far.
  At the end of the argument, I ask myself why the EHOs should not do the inspection both of the meat and of the slaughter houses inside this country and, if need be, let the veterinarians deal with it for export. I see no reason why that should not be done. The speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) confirmed my view that the vets are concerned only to expand their empire and that there is no real professional reason why the EHOs should not continue to inspect meat.
  The only reason why we are asked to change that situation is that there is a directive from Brussels. In my view, that is not good enough. Therefore, my hon. Friend has to say why the work should not be split in the way that I have indicated. Why should not the regulations be taken back and amended accordingly? If the answer is only that the directive has already been made, I think that this House should reject the regulations, that the matter should go back to Brussels for reconsideration in the light of English needs and English experience and, accordingly, that the matter should be changed in that way.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have a number of poultry producers in my constituency. As far as I have been able to judge, they have no objection to the implementation of the regulations. They are badly needed for our export trade at a time when, in the case of anything concerned with the export of this kind of produce or of any manufactured goods or electrical goods, if we are to have inter-Community or world-wide trade, we find more and more conditions have to be adhered to by producers, whether they be farmers or manufacturers in industry. There is no objection, provided that Community-wide laws and regulations are applied fairly.
  As some producers see it, the Community has set up highly-trained meat inspectors, but that is no reason why the Community should regard as the equivalent in this country a seven-year highly-trained vet. When EHOs look at the costs, they see that this proposal would impose an obligation which seems to them to be unfair, with a vet getting £11

  1355
  an hour, and an EHO, say, £2·50 an hour. That is one reason for the resentment.
  The other reason stems from the fact that EHOs to whom I have talked think that too literal an interpretation is being placed upon the relevant EEC directives by the Ministry of Agriculture and that this opinion is shared by members of the European Commission. I should like to know whether that is the view of the Minister. The feeling also is that the Commission believes that the directives need be complied with only insofar as their effect is met, the method of enforcement being left to the member States.
  One other point made by the EHOs to me is that there is no objection to the hygiene standards imposed by the regulations. That view is shared by the poultry meat producers. The objection is only to the derogation from the EHO of his traditional role in the food inspection service.
  If, as I suspect, it is thought that the standards and training of our EHOs are not up to those of meat inspectors on the Continent, we should see to it that the EHO standards are improved. As I understand it, there is no objection from that quarter to any improvement of the inspection criteria. Therefore, if we pass these regulations, we should like to know from the Minister whether it is possible to give us the assurance that EHOs will be able to play a significant part in this sort of meat inspection, provided that standards are improved. It seems silly to me to stop the EHOs continuing their traditional role when the directive was made by the EEC before we joined the EEC and when there was no comparable officer status in the EEC.
  If the Minister will give us that assurance, I am sure that he will satisfy a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: As one who had the privilege of having an Adjournment debate on this subject at the height of the problem many months ago, at which time I was highly critical of the Government's proposals, I wish to say on balance that I support the regulations as they are now drafted, with one
  1356
  exception, and that is on the question of inspection. I believe that something can be done in that field with good will on all sides. These regulations are a far cry from the previous draft regulations.
  I believe that we have protected the New York-dressed birds' position, at least for the present. We must fight to continue this. The small producer has been protected, and that is extremely important in the South-West, which I represent. The previous regulations were complete nonsense, and totally unfair to the small producers, particularly those who produce New York-dressed birds.
  We shall be able to export once we have brought these regulations into force, and that is most important. I do not take the view or accept the argument that we are now just sending abroad a few chickens—I want to see a great export drive in this area. That is why we must have these regulations. Certainly, we in the South-West want to take advantage of the Roscoff-Plymouth ferry in which much of the poultry meat can be exported back to the Community. We should seize opportunities that the Community offers. We should start a real export drive and move into the Community's markets, just as the members of the Community are moving into ours in various other fields. Whether we like it or not—and I like it—we are in the Community now and we should make the best of it.
  These regulations will result in better standards of hygiene, which is important. As the demand grows for the cheaper type of protein in white meat, so our health and hygiene regulations should be improved.
  I do not believe that these regulations were brought into force only because of the Common Market. I believe that the Ministry would have done this anyway. When I was a junior Minister we were already talking about it, so hon. Members cannot blame the Common Market for this.
  There is only one aspect of the regulations about which I am unhappy—the whole business of inspection. I am not happy about the in-fighting between the environmental health officers and the veterinarians. It is about time that they got together with the Ministry officials and sorted this thing out. We cannot

  1357
  afford this atmosphere in our slaughterhouses. Sensible men can get together over this problem and get it right. It must be solved. I do not believe that large numbers of vets are needed to do this work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that one vet per county, or one per region, supervising the whole organisation is about right. Environmental health officers could be trained up to the standard required and they should do it. Some of the functions must be carried out by a vet. It is a pity we cannot vote against certain parts of these regulations. I would do so. But we cannot, and I feel that the good parts outweigh the one thing that is wrong—this inspectorate.
  I conclude by saying that while I am highly critical of the past regulations, I believe that the Government have made some real changes which are right.
  11.5 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): We have had a very useful debate about these regulations. I want to spend the vast bulk of the time available to me in replying to the many important points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  It is quite clear that the matter that is giving hon. Members most concern is the question of veterinary responsibility and the relationship of the vets to the environmental health officers. It is a fact that one of the requirements we must satisfy if our poultry meat is to be acceptable to others is veterinary responsibility for its production. There is nothing new in this requirement. Veterinary certification has been accepted international practice for many years for trade in all types of meat, and we have required it for exports to us just as others have demanded it for our exports to them.
  Veterinary surveillance, when fully applied, involves the linking together of information on the live and dead condition of the bird. If carried out promptly and effectively it can benefit the poultry farmer as well as the consumer. Hitherto, we have provided veterinary certification for our meat exports by superimposing ad hoc veterinary supervision over whatever system of inspection
  1358
  already existed. For poultry meat exports we have had to put in a whole team of vets to deal with an export run because no other inspection system is in existence.
  This is not a situation that we wish to perpetuate, and what the regulations will enable us to do is to deploy our resources sensibly and effectively. We want non-veterinary inspection to deal with the routine tasks in the slaughterhouse and a veterinarian to keep a general control over the whole operation and to watch for disease conditions in batches of birds at both the ante- and the post-mortem stages. This seems to us to be a sensible and effective use of veterinary resources.
  Let me now turn to the position of the environmental health officers. These local authority officials exercise a general responsibility for food hygiene together with a wide range of duties outside the food hygiene field. It is fair to point out that as a percentage of their total work, visits to poultry meat plants have hitherto been of minimal significance. We must ask ourselves why the EHOs are so upset by the regulations, especially in view of the fact that there are several hundred vacancies for EHOs across the country.
  I believe that there are two main reasons for their concern. The first is a fear that the regulations are the thin end of a wedge that will eventually put veterinary surgeons in control of the whole area of food hygiene. I accept that there are currently some problems of veterinary supervision to be solved in the comparatively few red meat slaughterhouses that are approved for export; but outside of that area I can see no cause for the EHOs' anxiety.
  The Government have given assurances—and I repeat them again tonight—that beyond the poultry meat or red meat slaughterhouse we have no intention of requiring or agreeing to any extension of veterinary involvement in the duties that are now the responsibility of EHOs, and we shall vigorously resist in Brussels any proposals for such an extension. Indeed, I can go further and assure the House that we want to strengthen the EHOs' position in these areas. In other words, there is no thick end to the wedge, and we intend to keep it that way. I am sure that the House will accept these assurances.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Is that a Government guarantee?
  Mr. Strang: Indeed, it is.
  I believe that the other main anxiety of the EHOs is the belief that the general introduction of another profession into local authority employ will cause interprofessional strains that will operate to the detriment of all concerned. A number of hon. Members have raised this point, including my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). This question has also been raised with me by the Association of Meat Inspectors. We are anxious to allay the fears of environmental health officers and to this end we wish to put forward two suggestions tonight.
  The first is that local authorities, while retaining their full responsibilities under the regulations, should be able to call on the Ministry to provide them with the necessary veterinary services on a repayment basis as an alternative to taking veterinarians into their direct employ. It would be up to a local authority to decide whether it wanted to take up the offer. I believe this would go a long way to meet the worries of the EHOs.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Does this mean that local authorities will be able to choose what services they operate and whether to rely on the EHOs or bring in the service of veterinarians?
  Mr. Strang: I must make clear that, under the regulations, overall responsibility will remain with the authorised veterinary surgeon, but my proposal goes a considerable way to meet the anxieties of the EHOs on the implications of bringing veterinarians into environmental health departments and also meets the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on the requirements for local authorities to employ a particular type of officer for a particular function.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend has given assurances to the EHOs, but what assurances has he for all the councillors who object to the increased costs?
  Mr. Strang: I shall come to that important point in a moment.
  1360
  Our second suggestion to alleviate the worries of the EHOs is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should chair a meeting of representatives of the disciplines involved in meat inspection—the veterinarians, the environmental health officers and the meat inspectors—with a view to ironing out their differences.
  Hon. Members have raised a number of points regarding the position of local authorities. I shall try to deal with them all briefly as time is running out.
  I can assure that right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that we intend to phase in the regulations and that our estimate of the number of veterinarians required is 100.
  The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) was correct when he said that veterinary qualifications varied throughout the Community, but the general period of study is between four and six years.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) implied, and a number of other hon. Members seemed impressed by the argument, that we had interpreted the directives more strictly than we need have done on the question of veterinary supervision. To remove any doubts, we asked the Commission for a clear statement of its attitude and have received this reply:
  "The requirements on supervision by official veterinarians necessitate the effective intervention of the latter, at each slaughterhouse and cutting premises. in the task for which they alone are responsible. Although Member States may choose to employ official veterinarians exclusively for all operations prescribed by the directives, for certain operations only the official veterinarian may be helped by assistants working under his supervision and responsibility.
  It is clear that Member States must ensure that there are sufficient official veterinarians available to guarantee effective application of the directive.
  In all cases the responsibility of the veterinarian presumes an effective intervention which is not purely theoretical."
  Important points have been raised on the question of cost. We have estimated the cost of the service when it is fully operational in 1979 at about 1p per bird and that estimate is supported by the British Poultry Federation. There will be no cost to local authorities. The total cost will be borne by the industry which,

  1361
  at the end of the day, means the consumer. In consultation with the local authority associations and the British Poultry Federation, we are trying to build up an efficient inspection service which imposes no unnecessary burdens on the industry. Our estimate of 1p per bird on average is something which we can sustain. It will not be felt in full until 1979–80. I believe that the consumer will readily pay for the assurance that his poultry has been officially inspected. The effect on the food price index will be negligible.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred specifically to training costs. The Training Services Agency will allocate financial resources to assist local authorities with the cost of training poultry meat inspectors recruited between September 1976 and 31st March 1978. That will be of material help in launching the training scheme.
  Before turning to the purpose of these regulations, perhaps I should respond to the question of New York-dressed poultry. The derogation with regard to New York-dressed poultry—that is, un-eviscerated birds—going through the slaughterhouses applies from 1979 to 1981. Regarding the further exemption for dry plucked poultry, to which the Commission has taken no objection, it is fair to acknowledge that we are obviously going further than was originally envisaged.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) referred to the application of different standards to birds designated for export from birds designated for the home market. The basic purpose of the directive is to secure that poultry meat from our producers will, by 1979, be acceptable throughout the whole of the Community. That will be an enormous boost to our industry.
  We have an efficient poultry meat industry. In the first eight months of this year we exported £3 million worth of poultry meat. These regulations are desperately needed by the industry. They will give the industry a great opportunity to export to other member States. These standards are being demanded increasingly by third countries as well. If we want to develop an efficient British industry and give it the maximum scope to increase exports, it is essential that we
  1362
  acquire the standards envisaged in these regulations.
  We have had an official inspection service for red meat for many years, but we do not have such an inspection service for poultry meat. Such a service has been advocated for many years by the Environmental Health Officers' Association, among others.
  We are now providing consumers with a level of protection that has been taken for granted in other countries. This level of protection has been achieved in Sweden, the United States, and some member States of the Community—for example, Denmark. It is only right that the consumer should know, when she buys frozen or chilled birds, that they have been subject to an official inspection. Of course, she may continue to buy New York-dressed poultry which will not be subject to the official inspection service. The exemption extends beyond 1981. That is why the Consumers' Association has said that the consumer will get the best of both worlds.
  Mr. Richard Body: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Strong: No. I promised to allow 10 minutes for the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) to wind up.
  The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) asked us to ensure that we were not accepting requirements and laying down standards for our industry which would not be applied throughout the whole of the Community by, for example, France and Italy. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly make sure that these standards are properly applied throughout the Community.
  What we are talking about is giving the consumer a level of protection. We are all in favour of proper hygienic standards. It is something which should have been implemented many years ago and I hope that the House will be able to support these regulations.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: It is rare to have a debate on a Statutory Instrument at this time of night following so many months, indeed years, of debate. discussion and disquiet.
  The House will no doubt remember the discussions and letters particularly

  1363
  from womens' organisations with regard to New York-dressed poultry, as well as the letters of disquiet that we have received within the last few weeks from the environmental health officers. It is right and proper that we have had this debate.
  I want to deal with two slants which have arisen in respect of the European connection. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is not in his place. The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on many occasions, particularly this year. I was glad to hear the tone of his speech. I hope that the House will get itself more and more into the habit of discussing regulations that emanate from Europe on the basis of their merits rather than perpetuating the old arguments about the Community as a whole. It was heartening to hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West put aside his well-known views about the Community.
  I would also draw attention to the speeches of the hon. Member for Lewis-ham, West (Mr. Price) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who both described the regulation as perhaps one of the first of a stream of European regulations to deal with existing patterns of organisation in this country. Rather than being the first of a stream it would be more accurate to describe it as the last of a series. In fact, we are now getting towards the end of regulations that were originally formulated before we ever joined the Community. That is partly why we have had so much discussion over the months about these matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten) questioned whether these regulations are needed at all. He implied that they were not necessary, as did other hon. Gentlemen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) made a fair point when he said that it must be good for the consumer to have proper hygiene regulations for food supplies.
  From the inquiries I have made on the question of the way in which existing patterns work with regard to poultry meat, I find that many of the large multiple retail outlets are already instigating voluntary arrangements to inspect poultry meat both before and after slaughter, on lines similar to those envisaged in the regulations.
  1364
  That seems to imply quite clearly that it is right and in the interests of the consumer, that regulations like these should be imposed. I cannot believe that the large retail outlets from which I have been inquiring carry out inspections for fun. They do so because they think it is in the best interests of their customers. Inspections are already widely carried out. They should be continued and extended over the whole range of activities.
  We have heard evidence of exaggeration in some speeches that have been made. We were told that the scheme would cost 4p or 5p a bird. In a brief that I received from the NFU this morning it was suggested that the cost might go up to 50p a bird. The Minister said that the cost will not exceed 1p a bird. He was pressed on this, and I am prepared to accept what he said.
  Statements have been made in the House and outside to the effect that 400 or 500 veterinary officers would have to be appointed to supervise the inspections. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) suggested that it might be necessary to appoint between 500 and 1,000. The Minister said—and I have no grounds for disbelieving him—that 100 would be a more accurate figure.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked whether the regulations would be the thin end of the wedge for the environmental health officers. The Opposition understand the fears of the environmental health officers. It is a matter that causes grave disquiet. We do not agree with the view stated in today's Financial Times that it is an irrelevant side issue. We are sympathetic to and fully understand the difficulty faced by environmental health officers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire asked whether other directives would operate to drive home the wedge between veterinary and environmental health officers, and he received a perfectly good answer to that.
  It has been implied that if veterinary officers were brought in to make postmortem inspections there would be no need for vets to visit slaughterhouses. That is true. Under Schedule 5, vets will have to visit slaughterhouses to make ante-mortem inspections.

  1365
  The Opposition are glad that the problems arising from New York-dressed poultry have been largely resolved. We accept the need for regulations of this sort, but we are still worried about the position of the environmental health officers. We welcome the meeting with the Minister which has been promised. It would be a mistake to throw out the regulations before the Minister has had a chance to meet the veterinary and environmental health officers and thrash
  out the problems. The attitude of the poultry industry must be considered. The British Poultry Federation has made clear—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided:Ayes 108, Noes 115.

  Division No. 366.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Reid, George

  Bean, R. E.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Beith, A. J.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Budgen, Nick

  Lawson, Nigel

  Selby, Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Cant, R. B.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Carson, John

  McCusker, H.

  Silverman, Julius

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Madden, Max

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Marten, Neil

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Molyneaux, James

  Thompson, George

  Dempsey, James

  Morgan, Geraint

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Torney, Tom

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Durant, Tony

  Neubert, Michael

  Walder, David (Clitneroe)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Newens, Stanley

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Farr, John

  Newton, Tony

  Wall, Patrick

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Noll, John

  Watkinson, John

  Forrester, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Welsh, Andrew

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Ovenden, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Pardoe, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Grist, Ian

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Woodall, Alec

  Hampton, Dr Keith

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Hannam, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Hatton, Frank

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Clement Freud and

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Mr. Richard Body

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Emery, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Ennals, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lambie, David

  Bates, Alf

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

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Boardman, H.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Golding, John

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Bradley, Tom

  Gourlay, Harry

  Luard, Evan

  Bray, Or Jeremy

  Graham, Ted

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Buchan, Norman

  Hardy, Peter

  McElhone, Frank

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Harper, Joseph

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Magee, Bryan

  Corbett, Robin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mahon, Simon

  Costain, A. P.

  Horam, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Mawby, Ray

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hunter, Adam

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Deakins, Eric

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Doig, Peter

  John, Brynmor

  Mills, Peter

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, James (Hurl West)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Moonman, Eric

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Judd, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Moyle, Roland

  Rowlands, Ted

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ryman, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptord)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ward, Michael

  Ogden, Eric

  Small, William

  Watt, Hamish

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Weitzman, David

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Snape, Peter

  Whitlock, William

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Park, George

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Radice, Giles

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Woof, Robert

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Stoddart, David

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Strang, Gavin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Roper, John

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Tomlinson, John

  Mr. Donald Coleman

  Question accordingly negatived.

  FIREARMS (VARIATION OF FEES)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c).
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1400), dated 26th August 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th September, be annulled.—[Mr. Kimball]
  The House divided:Ayes 130, Noes 144.

  Division No. 367.]

  AYES

  [11.45 p.m.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pardoe, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hannam, John

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hawkins, Paul

  Penhaligon, David

  Banks, Robert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Percival, Ian

  Beith, A. J.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Body, Richard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  James, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Brittan, Leon

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Scott, Nicholas

  Carson, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sims, Roger

  Clegg, Walter

  MacCormick, Iain

  Speed, Keith

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Marten, Neil

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Cope, John

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Costain, A. P.

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Crawford, Douglas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Crouch, David

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Thompson, George

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mills, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Durant, Tony

  Moate, Roger

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Emery, Peter

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wall, Patrick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Morgan, Geraint

  Walters, Dennis

  Fox, Marcus

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Watt, Hamish

  Freud, Clement

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Wells, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Neubert, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Newton, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gray, Hamish

  Nott, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Onslow, CranJey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grist, Ian

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Mr. John Farr and

  Grylls, Michael

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cohen, Stanley

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Coleman, Donald

  Bates, Alt

  Buchan, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Bean, R. E.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Corbett, Robin

  Benyon, W.

  Cant, R. B.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Boardman, H.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Dempsey, James

  Luard, Evan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Doig, Peter

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Ryman, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McCartney, Hugh

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Eadie, Alex

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Silverman, Julius

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ennals, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Small, William

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Magee, Bryan

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

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

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stoddart, David

  Freeson, Reginald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Strang, Gavin

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Golding, John

  Moonman, Eric

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tomlinson, John

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Roland

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ward, Michael

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Watkinson, John

  Hatton, Frank

  Newens, Stanley

  Weitzman, David

  Horam, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Woodall, Alec

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Woof, Robert

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Radice, Giles

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Judd, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Peter Snape and

  Lambie, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Lamborn, Harry

  Question accordingly negatived.

  FIREARMS (VARIATION OF FEES) (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c).
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1446), dated 2nd September 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th September, be annulled.—[Sir John Gilmour.]
  The House divided:Ayes 90, Noes 137.

  Division No. 368.]

  AYES

  [11.57 p.m.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mather, Carol

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mills, Peter

  Banks, Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoka)

  Beith, A. J.

  Gylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Body, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Braine, Sir Bernara

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Neubert, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Newton, Tony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Carson, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  James, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clegg, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Pardoe, John

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cope, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pytn, Rt Hon Francis

  Crawford, Douglas

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Latham, Michael (Mellon)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Fox, Marcus

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Freud, Clement

  MacCormick, Iain

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mates, Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Sims, Roger

  Watt, Hamish

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Sir John Gilmour and

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. John Farr

  Thompson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hatton, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Horam, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bates, Alf

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hunter, Adam

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Roper, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Buchan, Norman

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ryman, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cant, R. B.

  Judd, Frank

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Lambie, David

  Stlverman, Julius

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lamborn, Harry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Small, William

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Corbett, Robin

  Luard, Evan

  Snape, Peter

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stoddart, David

  Deakins, Eric

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Strang, Gavin

  Dempsey, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Doig, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Madden, Max

  Tomlinson, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon

  Urwin, T. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Eadie, Alex

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Ward, Michael

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

  Watkinson, John

  Ennals, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Forrester, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Newens, Stanley

  Woodall, Alec

  Freeson, Reginald

  Oakes, Gordon

  Woof, Robert

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Ogden, Eric

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Golding, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Hardy, Peter

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Question accordingly negatived.

  HOUSING (FOREST OF DEAN)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
  12.8 a.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in the House the housing need of the Forest of Dean. When I was first elected, I was asked what was the most pressing social problem facing the forest, and I replied "Housing". That problem has not diminished; indeed, it could be said to have increased, especially in the light of the recent Government brake on housing expenditure.
  1372
  The Forest of Dean is, without doubt, one of the most attractive and beautiful areas in the country, but it contains within its bounds a housing problem to equal that of any urban area. I would not hesitate to say that its housing problem is one of the most profound in the South-West of England and, without doubt, it has the worst rural housing problem in the region.
  The area consists of small scattered towns, villages and hamlets. Much of the housing is of nineteenth and early twentieth century origin. It was built to house the miners and their families. Money in those days was not a plentiful commodity, and housing suffered accordingly. There is now a chronic need for new housing, improvements, repairs and renovations. I note that according to the

  1373
  circular issued by the Department of the Environment, apart from areas already listed as having special problems of housing stress, the Government will consider representations from other areas claiming equal priority. It is my purpose to tell the Government that housing problems exist in rural areas and to use the Forest of Dean as an example. I shall also urge them to give favourable consideration to treating it as a housing stress area.
  The most obvious way in which housing need manifests itself is through council house waiting lists. The Forest of Dean's list has increased. When the list was reviewed in December 1974, there were 1,318 applicants. By September 1975, although 233 applicants had been housed, the list had increased to 1,623 applicants. Since then, 199 applicants have been rehoused, but the overall number waiting is now 1,765. Thus, there has been a steady and marked increase in the demand for council housing in my area. This demand should be set against the fact that there has been no growth in population—no upsurge in the indigenous population and no influx from outside.
  The reasons for the increase and the pressure on the housing waiting list are not hard to find. Over the past few years it has been increasingly difficult for young married couples to contemplate buying their own homes. There was a house price boom in the early 1970's, but it came on top of a natural reluctance by the building societies to lend money against older properties, which abound in my area. Recently, there were restrictions on lending which the Government imposed. The Government said that the building societies would fill the gap, but in my area there is no evidence that this is taking place. Indeed, it may well be that the contrary is the case.
  Average wages in the Forest of Dean are lower than in the rest of Gloucestershire, and the fact that building societies will give only a multiplier of 2 to 2¼ times the level of income means that few people can consider the possibility of buying their own homes. The high level of unemployment, which, I am thankful to say, has fallen recently, has increased the pressure on the housing waiting list. Not only are privately-bought homes beyond the reach of the unemployed; it
  1374
  is also a fact that rented accommodation in the area has dried up.
  Alongside this, the quality of much of the property in the Forest of Dean is deplorable. There are many fine council and private estates, but there is a great deal of housing which has virtually Dickensian deficiencies. The council has undertaken a survey in the district, and its findings indicate that 3,700 dwellings are not fit for human habitation, and 900 of these are not capable of being made fit at reasonable cost.
  It is also the case that many people in the forest live in overcrowded conditions. Many of the letters I receive indicate overcrowding, or at best, acute family tension. It is common for young families to live with parents in the early years of marriage, and this often continues for a long Lime.
  In an area such as mine we must consider the added problems that come from Government legislation. We have introduced a Bill to end tied cottages, and, as an excellent report by the local branch of Shelter indicated, this will add pressure to the housing waiting lists in my area. Likewise, in the next Session legislation will be introduced to deal with the problem of homelessness, and that too, will add pressure to the waiting list.
  I cannot say that the record of the Forest of Dean District Council in house building and the acquisition of property is an outstanding one. As I have pointed out, the forest is an area in which the housing revenue account has had to bear a heavy burden of repairs and renovation of property. Also, the confused state of the housing programmes of the preexisting authority has made it difficult for the new authority. Given the scattered nature of the constituency and of the housing areas, it has been difficult to brine forward large scale schemes which could benefit from the economies of scale which result from large scale housing development.
  Since 1st April 1974 the Council has built and acquired 271 properties. It must be said that this is a non-inspiring record. However, the council had started on a programme which would have resulted in 443 new dwellings by 1978, but under the new Government ordinance

  1375
  it would appear that only 60 new properties will be built between now and next March. Thereafter the future is uncertain. Also, a programme for 60 houses in the Cinderford area, where there is a great housing need, has had to be laid to one side.
  The situation in my constituency, within the Forest of Dean, is grim. I hope that I have shown that we have there an acute housing need. I hope, too, that the present Labour Administration, who are naturally oriented towards the towns, will not ignore the housing problems that exist in our rural areas. I also hope that I have done sufficient to show the Government that they should give the most active consideration to granting the forest priority status in housing.
  12.17 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) not only on securing the Adjournment debate tonight but on the fair, yet forceful, way in which he has set out the housing problems facing the Forest of Dean District Council and on the continuing concern which he shows not only on behalf of his constituents but on matters of wider significance.
  I would not for a moment argue that there is no housing need in this area, nor that the control reintroduced by Circular 80/76 makes it any easier for the local authority to satisfy that need. However, I think it is necessary for me to explain why a control of new local authority house building was needed.
  First, local authority house building—which hitherto had been uncontrolled—showed every prospect of exceeding the public expenditure provision contained in the February White Paper by no less than £100 million. In easier economic circumstances this excessive enterprise on the part of local authorities might be overlooked, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, these are not easy times, and local authority house building had to be brought under control in order, taking one year with another, that expenditure will not exceed what has already been budgeted for. The budget, I should add, has not been changed. It is at the same high level as it was before, and it will enable
  1376
  local authorities in England to average 100,000 tender acceptances per annum over the years 1976 and 1977.
  I am aware that there is real housing need in my hon. Friend's area, but need is an all-embracing term, and one that is capable of a number of interpretations. I accept that there may be a need for new housing in the Forest of Dean, but an even greater need is a substantial improvement in the state of the existing housing stock.
  By comparison with many other authorities in the country—all these things are relative—numbers on the waiting list, which I am advised is an open one and contains a number of applications from people not resident in the area, are not unreasonably high. I know, however, that that is no consolation to the folk who are in desperate need of a house. The latest available figure that I have is rather more than that which my hon. Friend gave. It is 1,870. He gave the figure of 1,765. I know what that means in human terms. As my hon. Friend will know, the forest did not entirely escape the effects of the Industrial Revolution, and the new council, following local government reorganisation, inherited a formidable legacy of bad housing—as my hon. Friend described so vividly.
  Many of the houses are under-occupied. Much of the housing is dispersed over a wide area and does not, therefore, lend itself to the beneficial effects of housing action or general improvement area treatment prescribed in the Housing Acts of 1969 and 1974. The take-up of improvement grants made available by the Government to individual owner-occupiers to improve their housing conditions has been poor. As a result, about 3,700 houses in the district are acknowledged to be unfit for human habitation and about 900 of these are incapable of being made fit at reasonable expense. This confirms what my hon. Friend said.
  I should like to say a word now about the courses of action open to the district council. First, during the current financial year it sought consent to spend £386,500 on the improvement and conversion of its existing stock of council houses. It was authorised to spend £340,000 and, under the measures announced earlier in the year by the

  1377
  Chancellor designed to alleviate unemployment in the construction industry, it was authorised to spend a further £120,000. I do not think that the local authority would want to complain about my Department's treatment of its case in that respect.
  There are, of course, other ways open to local authorities to bring about improvement in the living conditions of their constituents. They could take advantage of the opportunities available to them under the Government's municipalisation programme by bringing into social ownership dwellings which would otherwise fall into so serious a state of disrepair that clearance was the only possible solution.
  It is, of course, our policy to prevent demolition and clearance wherever possible and to give the greatest encouragement to a rehabilitation programme. I am not aware that the council has indicated any interest in this particular course of action but it may be assured of a sympathetic hearing from my Department's South-West Regional Office if it should wish to discuss it.
  As I have said, control was reintroduced in new local authority housing programmes to avoid an impending overspending. In order to achieve that objective, we have had to reduce the rate of tender acceptances from their present level of about 9,000 a month to about 6,000 a month for the remainder of 1976. For 1977, we shall be aiming for a total of about 90,000 tender acceptances. Our aim, in imposing the controls, has been to protect the programmes of stress authorities. As my hon. Friend clearly recognises, there are some areas, particularly, for example, in our inner cities, where the total weight of the housing problem is substantially greater than elsewhere, and this adds another dimension to the problem.
  I assure my hon. Friend that, as one from a country constituency myself—there is no great conurbation in my area—I am aware that there are patches of real housing need in rural areas.
  The decisions involved in the compilation of a list of stress authorities could never be universally uncontroversial. I can well understand the disappointment of other active housing authorities—including the Forest of
  1378
  Dean—at not being listed, but this does not mean that the housing programmes of non-stress authorities will be ignored.
  In particular, it is vital that we should not neglect the pockets of stress—some substantial—which exist in areas which, overall, appear to have a more satisfactory housing situation than the stress areas. In drawing up the present scheme, we have sought to meet these problems in two ways. First, we have made it clear that local authorities left out of the list are free to make representations as to why they should be included. My hon. Friend has made his case and he will know that the Forest of Dean district has made representations to be included in the stress list and my regional office has met the council's management team and listened to its representations. That case will be considered together with those made by other authorities in the country—about 40 in all—which are also seeking stress area status.
  Secondly, by no means all the housing investment funds will be used up on new housebuilding in the stress areas. There will be funds available for new house building in the non-stress areas. In allocating these funds we shall pay special regard to areas of more localised stress and to housing pressures which arise particularly from industrial investment and social needs. It is important to note that the present stress areas have been determined in relation to new house building only. We shall continue to allocate funds for rehabilitation separately according to the relative needs of local authorities.
  My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be pleased to know that our South-West Regional Office, which is fully aware of the housing need in the Forest of Dean, has recently authorised the council to accept tenders for two of its current housing schemes—42 houses in all. It will consider shortly what further action it can take to increase the rate of council house building in the area.
  For the future, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working towards a wholly new system of housing investment plans which would involve discussions with local authorities about the whole of their housing needs and would be linked to a system of single housing capital allocations to replace the present

  1379
  complicated and compartmentalised arrangements.
  Finally, I think it important to emphasise that, despite the pressure on public expenditure, we have given and are giving very high priority to the housing programme. The house building programme is no longer being administered without restrictions, but the large upward step in housing public sector expenditure which we, as a Government, insisted upon when we took office in 1974 is being maintained. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, therefore, that I and my De-
  1380
  partment are fully alive to the problem that he has discussed this evening and that, within the constraints imposed upon us by the present economic situation, we shall give all the assistance we can to support the efforts of the district council to meet its housing need.
  I shall read and take careful note of my hon. Friend's speech. In the allocation of resources, we shall consider carefully the case that he has made tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EDUCATION
  EDUCATION
  PERTH
  PERTH
  NORTHWICH
  NORTHWICH
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  ROSSENDALE
  ROSSENDALE
  CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
  CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
  GRAVESEND
  GRAVESEND
  UNITED KINGDOM (ENTRANTS)
  UNITED KINGDOM (ENTRANTS)
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  BANK OF ENGLAND (GOVERNOR)
  BANK OF ENGLAND (GOVERNOR)
  SNOWDONIA
  SNOWDONIA
  PATRONAGE
  PATRONAGE
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Howard League for Penal Reform
  Howard League for Penal Reform
  Wakefield Prison
  Wakefield Prison
  Sewerage Works (Portland)
  Sewerage Works (Portland)
  Albany Prison
  Albany Prison
  Prison Costs
  Prison Costs
  Theft
  Theft
  Health and Safety at Work (Fires)
  Health and Safety at Work (Fires)
  "Observer"
  "Observer"
  Chileans
  Chileans
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Teachers (Scotland)
  Teachers (Scotland)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Summer Season
  Summer Season
ENVIRONMENT
  Fauna and Flora (Endangered Species)
  Fauna and Flora (Endangered Species)
  Location of Offices Bureau
  Location of Offices Bureau
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Housing Management (Co-operatives)
  Housing Management (Co-operatives)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Jackknifing
  Vehicle Jackknifing
  A3
  A3
  A27 (Sussex)
  A27 (Sussex)
  Revenue and Expenditure
  Revenue and Expenditure
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schoolchildren's Maintenance (Awards)
  Schoolchildren's Maintenance (Awards)
  National Theatre
  National Theatre
  Education (Prime Minister's Speech)
  Education (Prime Minister's Speech)
  Schools Curricula
  Schools Curricula
  Voluntary Schools
  Voluntary Schools
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Industry
  Industry
  Technical Colleges
  Technical Colleges
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Degree Courses (Vacancies)
  Degree Courses (Vacancies)
  Nursery and Further Education
  Nursery and Further Education
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  16-plus Examination
  16-plus Examination
  Reading, Writing and Arithmetic
  Reading, Writing and Arithmetic
  British Film Institute
  British Film Institute
  Graduates (Scientific and Technological Training)
  Graduates (Scientific and Technological Training)
  Educational Developments (Departmental Paper)
  Educational Developments (Departmental Paper)
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Secondary Reorganisation (Derbyshire)
  Secondary Reorganisation (Derbyshire)
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group
  Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group
  French Language (A-level Passes)
  French Language (A-level Passes)
  School Special Units (Disruptive Children)
  School Special Units (Disruptive Children)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Child Benefit (Leaflet)
  Child Benefit (Leaflet)
  Giro Payments
  Giro Payments
  Retired Persons and Pensions
  Retired Persons and Pensions
  Health Services (North-West Region)
  Health Services (North-West Region)
  Liverpool Teaching Hospital
  Liverpool Teaching Hospital
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Brain Damage (Children)
  Brain Damage (Children)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Lower-Income Groups
  Lower-Income Groups
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Training Establishments)
  National Health Service (Training Establishments)
SCOTLAND
  Sheep Showers
  Sheep Showers
  Sheep Dipping
  Sheep Dipping
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Unpaid Fines and Breaches of the Peace
  Unpaid Fines and Breaches of the Peace
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Glasgow (Housing)
  Glasgow (Housing)
  District Heating (Pinkston)
  District Heating (Pinkston)
  Glasgow (Roads)
  Glasgow (Roads)
  Fire Service (Computers)
  Fire Service (Computers)
  Direct Labour Departments (Accountancy)
  Direct Labour Departments (Accountancy)
  Architects
  Architects
  Election Results
  Election Results
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  FAMILY COURTS
  FAMILY COURTS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Social Security Costs
  Social Security Costs
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Community (Costs)
  European Community (Costs)
  Beer, Whisky, Cigarette and Petrol Prices
  Beer, Whisky, Cigarette and Petrol Prices
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Secondary Banks
  Secondary Banks
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
CIVIL SERVICE
  Industrial Statistical Returns
  Industrial Statistical Returns
  Stationery Office (Labour Dispute)
  Stationery Office (Labour Dispute)
DEFENCE
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Warships (Refits)
  Warships (Refits)
  Titanium
  Titanium
  Farnborough Air Show
  Farnborough Air Show
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Vigilantes
  Vigilantes
  Employment and Training
  Employment and Training
ENERGY
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Conscription (Associated States)
  Conscription (Associated States)
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Falkland Islands (Queen's Silver Jubilee)
  Falkland Islands (Queen's Silver Jubilee)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
WALES
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Rent Subsidies
  Rent Subsidies
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Conway Valley (Development)
  Conway Valley (Development)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Investment
  Investment
  Farm Machinery
  Farm Machinery
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Agriculture Economic Development Council's Report
  Agriculture Economic Development Council's Report
INDUSTRY
  Merseyside and Strathclyde
  Merseyside and Strathclyde
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Titanium
  Titanium
  Coal Board Houses
  Coal Board Houses
  Nationalisation
  Nationalisation
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Drought Effects
  Drought Effects
TRADE
  British Overseas Trade Board (Charges)
  British Overseas Trade Board (Charges)
  National Film Finance Corporation
  National Film Finance Corporation

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

DROUGHT ACT AND WATER RESTRICTIONS
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: 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 when, in view of the statement made by the chairman of the National Water Council with regard to water supplies, they propose to repeal the Drought Act 1976 and lift restrictions on the use of water for commercial cleaning purposes.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, we need to keep the powers of the Drought Act in reserve, but those powers enabling water authorities to restrict the use of water for non-essential purposes are of limited duration. However, water authorities are already relaxing restrictions or treating cases of special hardship sympathetically.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her Answer. Could she assure us that an Act of Parliament of this nature will be taken off the Statute Book as soon as it ceases to be relevant to day-to-day affairs, rather than for it to be left there? Secondly, is she aware that local water authorities are requiring that individual applications be made for the easement of prohibition orders in those industries to which I have referred in my Question; that is, the cleaning industries?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I cannot possibly
1072
either put any date to the repeal of this Act or give any hope that it will be repealed. The noble Lord will remember that at the time we introduced this Bill many noble Lords thought that action should have been taken sooner, and it seems to me that it would be incredibly foolish to repeal an Act of Parliament when we might need to use it in the future. It should be there in reserve. On the noble Lord's second point, I may say that where restrictions are being taken off by water authorities, which has been happening in many areas, that is a general taking off of restrictions. Where the restrictions still apply and there is a case of special hardship, the individual firm must apply to the water authority. That seems to me to be quite in order and has in fact been happening.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in an island such as this, with our huge rainfall, it is absolutely disgraceful that after a few weeks during which there has been a lack of rain we find ourselves in the shocking position we were in a few weeks ago; and would she try to ensure that there is now an effort to conserve water on a far greater scale than we have ever attempted before?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is difficult for me to say that what was almost an act of God is an absolute disgrace. On the second part of my noble friend's question, I would point out that it is also true that when the chairman of the National Water Council, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made a statement recently he stressed the need for us still to conserve water. That is why the restrictions are being lifted with some considerable caution and why, at the same time, people are still being asked to be as economical as they possibly can be, because we do not know what lies ahead.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, since this has been the worst drought for 250 years, does the noble Baroness realise that the whole House will admire her far-sightedness in retaining permanent powers which may well be needed as soon as the year 2226?
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that owing to

1073
the very long, dry spell that we had, there are still many reservoirs only partly full and a large number of aquifiers which are showing no response yet to the recent heavy rain?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is absolutely true. That is why we are still asking for the greatest possible economy and why, in the area of the Thames Water Authority, for instance, because it is taking so long to replace the under-ground water sources, it is still necessary to maintain restrictions, despite the torrential rain we have had recently. Although the drought may be at an end, the water shortage is not.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend not accept that, as indicated by the noble and learned Lord opposite, this drought has been very exceptional indeed; but has it not taught the Department and the nation as a whole the lesson that we should look upon water resources as a whole? Instead of our having the independent authorities that we have now, would it not be possible for some thought to be given to establishing a national grid scheme, somewhat on the lines of the gas and electricity industries, in order to see that the rivers, which have so much water which flows to waste, as it were, are harnessed to meet any future emergency?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport and Recreation and recently the Minister for Drought, will be making a Statement on the water supply prospects very shortly.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, has all this anything to do with the low temperature of the Chamber today?
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that during the Second Reading of the Drought Bill it started to rain outside in torrents, with accompanying thunder and lightning? If ever there should be a recurrence of the severe drought and this Act should ever lapse, that might be a suitable moment to reintroduce it.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, there is one final question. Would not the Minister agree that it seems unfair
1074
that two industries, car cleaning and building, are the only industries to be affected by total prohibition?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there is, I agree, an element of rough justice about this. But if the noble Lord will cast his mind back to the time when this prohibition was brought in, he will recall that we were in the middle of a severe drought in which agriculture and domestic water supplies were very badly affected. We had at that time to decide our purposes and these two industries were non-essential in this respect and were conspicuous at a time when it was necessary to secure maximum economy and the greatest co-operation. My right honourable friend will certainly be looking at exactly what happened during the operation of the Act during the drought.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is high time that England should pay for the water it gets from Wales?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the permission of the House may I answer the noble Lord, Lord Derwent? The temperature of the Chamber has been observed, engineers have been told, and we are hoping for a little warmer temperature later.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I have noticed that the Government Chief Whip always moves very quickly.

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUND
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 ensure, now that a formula has been agreed between the Brewers' Society and the trade protection and charitable bodies for the distribution of the Licensing Compensation Fund, that at least 25 per cent. of the income thereof shall be paid annually to the National Council on Alcoholism.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the proposals which the Brewers' Society and the licensed trade associations have jointly put forward for the disposal of these funds are not free from difficulties and require further discussion. We are therefore not yet able to formulate firm proposals on how the funds should be disposed of and what interests might benefit.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he would consider looking favourably on the National Council because it is not just a figurehead but must support 18 regional councils? Would he also look at the situation of the Medical Council on Alcoholism? Further, could he say whether the Home Office has received the delegation which was announced a fort-night ago in the Morning Advertiser?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if and when money is available for distribution among the organisations who are concerned with the remedial side of this problem, obviously the Government will give very favourable consideration; but I must point out to the noble Earl that there are quite a number of organisations that would have some claim. The two organisations which he has mentioned already receive quite substantial grants, and have done so for some time, from the Department of Health and Social Security. On March 23rd this year, I told your Lordships that the Home Office were having discussions with the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society, the Brewers' Society, the National Federation of Licensed Victuallers and the Licensed Victuallers' Society. These discussions have been going on simultaneously with the Brewers' Society.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if bids arc in order, there is a paramount need at the moment to support those voluntarily organisations which are caring for alcoholics and that it is on the cards that, unless such subventions can be made available, it is likely that many of them will have to lose, to the general disadvantage of the attempts to deal with alcoholism? Is the noble Lord further aware that, if some people regard this money as tainted, we are prepared to baptise it, and would be only too eager to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that certainly the Government would give favourable consideration to where the need is most urgent. But it depends entirely upon the conditions of the trust fund that would be set up and in which direction the money could be spent.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise what a large amount of research work into the prevention and cure of alcoholism is being carried out under the auspices of the Medical Council for the Care of the Alcoholic?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: So much so, my Lords, that I think I am right in saying that the Department of Health and Social Security make a substantial grant to them for that purpose.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, in view of the fact that this money has been lying idle for so many years—from the end of the last war—is it not time that it was used for the purposes for which it was originally set aside? Will the Government see to it that something is done rapidly? It seems a grave injustice to have funds which should be available for charitable purposes put aside like this without being used.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is aware that the money was set aside originally to compensate licensees of public houses who were made redundant. It was not set aside originally for research purposes at all. This is one of the problems. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but the Erroll Committee came forward with certain recommendations and the Brewers' Society came forward with certain others. There will be a need for a certain amount of discussion to reconcile the different points of view.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is it correct to say that over the last few years there has been a very alarming increase in alcoholism and alcohol-related disease, to such an extent that treatment of these diseases under the National Health Service is costing something of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds per annum? If the suggestion of my noble friend were accepted, is it correct that

1077
the amount which would be available to the National Council would be of the order of £100,000 per annum which is three orders of magnitude less than the cost of the treatment of alcoholism and alcohol-related disease?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think there is any voluntary organisation that can say what percentage of the money that may be available it should receive. The suggestion of the Brewers' Society at the moment is that 50 per cent. shall be put aside by way of trust to help various bodies who are trying to combat, by way of research and in other ways, the evils of alcoholism. As I said earlier, there are a number of organisations and if and when that money is available their claims will have to be considered. I do not think it would be right for any organisation to feel that they would be entitled to a certain percentage.

ART EXHIBITIONS: GOVERNMENT AID
2.51 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: 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 how much of the money disbursed by the Arts Council is devoted to the promotion of exhibitions of (a) British, and (b) foreign artists.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the Arts Council of Great Britain spent a net sum of £392,500 on their own exhibitions. The cost for exhibitions of British art was £187,000; for foreign art £71,000; and for exhibitions covering both £134,500. The Council's relevant expenditure on staff and general publicity and overheads totalled £255,500. In addition, a number of bodies in receipt of grants from the Arts Council spend some of their resources on exhibitions.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the
1078
Federation of British Artists have some 20 organisations associated with them, of which there are seven Royal institutes or societies, and they have some 4,000 professional artists? Their galleries are next door to the Institute of Contemporary Art in the Mall; they pay savage rates, yet they receive no grant whatsoever from any sources.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am aware of these facts. I think that "savage rates" is rather an extravagant epithet. A great deal is done by the Arts Council for British art in various ways. The fact that £187,000 of the money they spend on exhibitions is entirely on British art gives some indication of that. In any case, noble Lords would prefer that decisions of this kind be left to the Arts Council and that the Arts Council should not be interfered with by Parliament, and still less by Ministers who, by definition, are supposed to have no taste.
Lord WADE: My Lords, without suggesting interference by Parliament, can the noble Lord give any indication as to the breakdown between London and other parts of the country?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not have that information with me; I will write to the noble Lord.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, while I agree that these decisions should be left to the Arts Council—and they do their work very well—it is reasonable for my noble friend to point out that the Federation of British Artists do an extraordinary good piece of work right alongside the ICA. Surety there are a large number of people who would rather have the subsidy paid to the Federation of British Artists than the ICA.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I never suggested for one moment that what the noble Baroness said was unreasonable.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
2.53 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for me to make a few remarks on this Motion before we move to the first Amendment. There has been a great deal of exaggerated talk recently about defiance, delays and the defeats which we are inflicting on the Government. The latest example of some of these absurd remarks is to be seen in the Press today. When we come to a particular stage of a particular Bill there is an opportunity which one ought to take to rebut some of this nonsense. as to defiance, this is early days to be talking in those terms. As to defeat, all we are doing is obliging or inviting another place to look again at matters which we think require further attention. To judge from the correspondence and calls we are having from several unions, even today, their members are looking to Parliament—not just this House but both Houses—as they have every right to do, for the protection of their interests which they feel to be threatened. As to delay, I invite your Lordships to compare the procedures on this particular Bill as between the two Houses.
We have just handled the Committee stage of this Bill in the course of four sessions spread over less than two weeks in which every Amendment that was tabled has been considered, as opposed to the other place where only selected Amendments were considered, and in which all the Members of your Lordships' House have been able to take part, in contrast to the limited number on Standing Committee G in the other place. Compared with those four sessions occupying less than two weeks, the other place—some of whose Members are accusing us of delay—had 36 sittings, as compared with our four, spread over more than three months, in comparison with our time of less than two weeks. It is unreasonable to talk about this House causing delays when that is the actual situation.
Another point which is raised is that when the Tories are in power and leading this House everything goes much faster. That is not so. I looked up a comparable Bill which I had handled dealing with the reorganisation of the water industry. That was a longer Bill but it did not take so long in Committee. It was dealt with
1080
in three sessions. Nevertheless, instead of allowing only six days between the Committee stage and the Report stage, we allowed 13 days—twice as long. There is no question about everything going faster here when the Conservative Party is in power. It is simply not true.
The final point I want to make is the situation in which this haste places us. I should like to start by quoting the relevant part of the Renton Report. This concerns the intervals between stages of Bills.
"On some occasions there is too little time between the various stages of a Bill to permit Members of Parliament, Peers and those whom they consult, to give adequate consideration to the drafting of the proposed legislation and framing of Amendments. This problem is especially acute between the end of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage"—
which is where we are—
"especially on Bills of substantial length and complexity".
I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is the case here.
"No doubt Parliamentary draftsmen also find themselves at a disadvantage when there is insufficient time between stages. We recommend therefore that, unless there is need for special urgency"—
and we shall no doubt take different views about that—
"there should always be at least two weekends before the first publication of a Bill and the debate on Second Reading in the first House, 14 days between Second Reading and the start of the Committee stage, and on all Bills of considerable length and complexity, 14 days between the publication of the Bill as amended in Committee and Standing Committee and the start of the Report stage."
It is because we have not had such time for consideration that we are in trouble. It has really not helped to try to push the business through as fast as this.
The first thing I should like to do is to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and his Department, who must have exerted themselves in the most strenuous way in order to deal with this situation, and to apologise to him and his Department for the very considerable inconvenience we, in our turn, must have caused to them. What is happening is that replies to points on which the noble Lord under-took to communicate with us reached us—and I must say I am grateful to him for having copied them to all noble Lords who were concerned—at noon yesterday.

1081
That was too late to effect any of the Amendments we had been preparing and which had to be tabled by 5.30 in the afternoon. It was too late, because by that time we were locked in close consultation with a very considerable number of interests who wanted to see us during the course of the afternoon and with whom we were deliberating until 6 o'clock. By that time it was too late to table any Amendments resulting from that consultation. As a result, this morning the noble Lord has been confronted by a whole set of Amendments from us of which I was not able to give him any previous notice. We shall be debating that this afternoon. On top of that, I have had to table no fewer than eight manuscript Amendments which I thought it was important to get on the record today but which it was too late to have tabled last night. That is the basis on which we are having to conduct this debate. We start today with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, not having seen any of our Amendments until this morning, with eight manuscript Amendments which he has only just seen and with the Amendments following Clause 12 incomplete.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should like to make only one comment. I think I can fairly claim that the Government are not entirely to blame for the shortness of the interval between Committee and Report. It was agreed between the usual channels that there should be three sessions set aside for the Committee stage. At the second stage, before we had gone the whole of the time, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, requested that we should finish at that point. He wished the next Amendment to be considered on the third day. I agreed, on condition that he gave us every co-operation to complete on time; that is, to complete the third session. Unfortunately, in the event we did not complete in the third session and a fourth session was necessary. That was largely because we did not work the full time on the second session, at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; so I would say we are not entirely to blame. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head, but I was the one who was personally involved.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord, the Government are entirely to blame for what has
1082
happened. They are pushing five Bills through Parliament in six weeks, which should take about six months, that is the reason.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am not discussing the main issue. I am discussing the shortness of the interval which has occurred for this Bill.
Lord CARRINGTON: But that is why it is short.
Lord JACQUES: I am saying that the interval would have been greater had I not agreed to the suggestion made by the Opposition to curtail the second session of the Committee stage. I would only add one more thing; that is, if we really want to get on with the business I suggest that we cut this short and get on with the Report stage.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, even if we had completed the Committee stage in three sessions as was hoped, there would still not have been enough time to do all the work that was necessary between Committee and Report? We have been put under the most intolerable strain, and so have our advisers. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and his advisers have also been under intolerable strain. The kind of time interval quoted by my noble friend is a much more reasonable one, but that would have been out of the question because of this absurd attempt to push through so much legislation in such a short period of time.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, when the other side were in power I christened the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, "Stonewall Jackson". In opposition, the Front Bench on that side of the House are a whole collection of "Stonewall Jacksons". They do not in any circumstances seek to see the Government get any of their legislation through if at all possible because, whatever the Government may seek to bring forward, they are stone-walling all the time. That is due to bad leadership on that side from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others, who ought to be able to control their people in a much better fashion and with a much better system than we have operating within this Chamber.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, that is really an almost outrageous accusation to make. Part of the trouble is that there is so much legislation that people have now become used to the notion that an idea floated by way of legislation shall become law, irrespective of what Parliament has to say about it, whether this is in the other place or in your Lordships' House. Members of this House seek to do only that which they think is right. If on occasion anger and frustration on the other side, or indeed outside both Chambers of Parliament, arise, it is because of this ridiculous attitude that seems to have become prevalent that because a Bill has been introduced that Bill shall become law, whether or not Parliament has had any time to consider it, to amend it or to make it better if possible. That is the trouble. It has nothing to do with bad leadership on our part.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think perhaps this might be the moment for me to say a word. I do not think there is a Government in the world who exist who do not intend their legislation to become law, admittedly after proper discussion and so on. I should like to point out that, if the agreement which we have come to had been observed, there would have been exactly the correct fortnight of interval between one stage and the other. I think all sides of the House, including the Opposition, wish to make the best possible use of the time now within reasonable limits, and I suggest that we get on with the Report stage of this Bill.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 1 [Reconstitution of Board as body corporate]:
3.9 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("sixteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. It is the first of a number of Amendments dealing with the size and composition of the National Dock Labour Board. The context in which I want to propose this Amendment is to get the other place to
1084
think again about its size. Although my Amendment suggests that the membership should be increased to 16, I am not wedded to any particular number, except that I would hold to the view that it ought to be reconsidered and that some number larger than 12 should be substituted. This Amendment will secure that reconsideration.
The reason for moving the Amendment goes back to the initial Consultation Document of March 1975, in which at paragraph 34 the point is made that the proposals it contains would add considerably to the duties and responsibilities of the National Dock Labour Board. That is clearly so. At every point in this Bill we can see, by reading this clause and that, that the Board's responsibilities are to be wider, covering more functions, more activities and enterprises, and wider in a geographical sense as well. Certainly, the previous Board have not been able to master satisfactorily even their more limited agenda. The employers will still need to have the four people who have hitherto represented them, and the employees likewise. This would certainly not be the moment to argue for any reduction in the numbers of people on the Board to represent those two groups, even if the people concerned might be chosen for their width of vision. But in addition to those considerations, which completely preclude any question of reducing the number of the two basic ingredients, there are three separate factors which together call for additional members to sit beside these two main groups, and those three factors are as follows.
First, I should have thought that experience since 1946 has shown all along that it is difficult for a board consisting of only employee representatives and employer representatives in equal numbers to deal adequately with all the conflicts and tensions that arise. In fact, a confrontation situation is really built into the structure of the Board. In any case, they have not managed to do it, and that is one of the reasons why we have this Bill and have had to look so radically at the whole question of dock work regulation. That is one factor.
Another factor is that experience has also shown that a board composed of limited numbers such as this, and designed

1085
to represent limited interests, does not take properly into account the interests of those many people beyond those who are directly represented because they happen to work in the docks as employees or employers. It is perhaps in this respect that the shortcomings, the failures and the ineffectiveness of the National Dock Labour Board up to now have been most marked.
Thirdly, there is a further and different point that, with the greatly enlarged duties and responsibilities and with the enhanced status and increased role of the Board, it is important not only that other interests in the ports should be properly considered and weighed by the National Dock Labour Board but that many other interests outside the docks and ports, but nevertheless served by them and dependent on them and making use of them, should also be considered. They certainly need to be considered more than they have been in the past, and our belief is that this can be done satisfactorily only by a number of representatives which roughly balances and matches those whose duty it is mainly to represent the employers and the employees working in the docks. It is for these three reasons, coupled with the fact that the effectiveness of the National Dock Labour Board up to now has been so far from satisfactory, that I move this Amendment.
Your Lordships will appreciate that Amendment No. 3 flows from it naturally. I should have thought it would be helpful to concentrate particularly on this Amendment and possibly on Amendment No. 3 and not so much on the others, because it is only if this Amendment is accepted and sent to another place for consideration that it will be realistic to discuss any of the subsequent Amendments which are included under this clause. If we can get the agreement of the Government that the numbers should be reconsidered and that some enlargement should be thought about, then of course it will be entirely realistic to think about how that can be done, what consultation should be under-gone and what increase in the Secretary of State's discretion needs to be in-corporated in the Bill for it all to happen. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had put the
1086
proposition that instead of having 16 members of the Board, or even 12, it should consist of a chairman with perhaps two vice-chairmen, with power to consult assessors, experts and people employed in the industry, whether on one side or the other, responsible for the operations associated with the Bill, I could have supported him. There are far too many boards in the country. We are being cluttered up with boards. Even quite a number of Members of your Lordships' House are associated with boards—very influential, very useful, very constructive I have not the least doubt, but that is not the way to run business. You do not run business through boards; you run business through people who are constructive and who have the expertise.
Occasionally, I have had to refer to past experience. I have to go back to the nationalisation of the mines, or the nationalisation of electricity supply, which I had to deal with. I should never have appointed boards of that kind. I should have appointed a head of the coal industry, responsible for policy which could be corrected by the Secretary of State or by Members of both Houses of Parliament as and when necessary. That is what I should have done. We have had nothing but trouble as a result of having too many people on boards.
I cannot understand it. It is bad enough to have 12 members, but the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, wants 16. What are they going to do? Let us see what they are going to do. Will noble Lords look at what their operations are to be? They will do nothing but talk. They will talk and talk until they are black and blue in the face. They will engage in disputation. What is it that we are driving at? The Bill is bad enough, as I have said before, but this will only make it worse. So I suggest that we ought to reject the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and that the Government should reconsider the matter and decide to have a chairman with perhaps two vice-chairmen, and those three persons should be responsible for the formulation of policy and should utilise all the expertise that exists on both sides of the industry.
3.19 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has

1087
been both constructive and radical. Our Amendment was not so radical. After all, this is mainly a regulatory board, not a commercial board. Secondly, according to the rubric to Clause 1, we are talking about the reconstitution of the Board. As I see it, the Board have three roles. First, there is the administrative role—a continuation, more or less, of the 1967 National Dock Board. Secondly, there is the supervisory role—that is to say, keeping the local boards under review. Thirdly, there is the advisory role—advising the Secretary of State.
Surely the great difference between the functions of this Board and the Board which it is to replace is that this Board will have to formulate proposals on what work is to be done and by whom. This may mean exercising judgment as to whether work done by members of one trade union should be done by another trade union, with all the implications that that may have for industry, morale and industrial relations. The last thing that one expects from a body with these responsibilities is that it should have an inbuilt or, if you like, a built-in majority representing one particular interest. The Board have to consider not just the interests of dock workers and their employers; they have to consider the best and most economical way not only of handling goods within the ports but of seeing that the food, raw materials and exports are brought to the port and from the port by methods which will keep down costs in the interests of the nation and the nation's ability to compete in the world. For this purpose, surely the need is for a widely-based and balanced Board.
When a body like this is being reconstituted there is no particular merit in maintaining the existing Board and adding a minority of other members. The size of the Board does not matter very much. After all, most of the work will have to be done by the staff for submission to the Board—as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, says, for discussion by the Board. However, the interests must be represented in that discussion.
Lord SHINVVELL: Not at all, my Lords.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Not at all" but in that
1088
case you have to devise other and much more complicated machinery. What matters is that the interests involved should be fully represented and that the public interest should be adequately represented, too. If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or the noble Lord, Lord Oram, or whoever is to reply thinks that 18 are too many, then there is no reason why the NJC representatives should not be cut to six, provided that they are matched by an equal number of other interests.
Perhaps the reason is the need to have as wide a representation as possible among the non-NJC members. The criterion should be: are those other interests adequately represented? Even by adding eight it will be difficult enough to ensure that all those interests are fully represented. There is transport; there is food; there are raw materials; there is finance; there is the law and the rest. That is why it seems to us that it is preferable to have a Board of 18 rather than a Board of 14. As my noble friend has said, the main principle is that there should be a balanced Board. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, may shake his head and think that this is not the right approach, but we are trying to build on what is there already, taking into account the changed circumstances provided for in the Bill.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has experience of industry and he must know that it is quite unnecessary to have a board of 16, 18 or 14 members in order to determine what is best in the public interest. If you have a chairman and a couple of vice-chairmen at the top, they are quite capable of determining what is best in the public interest, having consulted everybody concerned. Moreover, what are we doing just now? When we are dealing with this legislation we are determining what is best in the public interest. There is a bit of a dispute between the two sides of the House as to what is best in the public interest, but that is what we are debating. We are preparing legislation which will eventually determine what is best in the public interest, and we are asking a number of people to decide how to administer it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point is that it is not just one matter of public interest or one system which has to be decided. To a large extent the Secretary of State will decide that in the new dock

1089
Scheme. The point is to decide every single individual case. It is for that reason that one needs a widely based Board to make certain that the conclusions will lead to efficiency and will be seen to be fair.
3.25 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the paradoxical situation is that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right and that my noble friend is right. The real problem is whether one wants to nationalise the industry at all. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is absolutely right that to have this number of people trying to make detailed decisions will waste time; and, more likely than not, they will not come to the best conclusion. The organiser of the Coventry Fête always said, "The idea is to have a sub-committee of three, with two who won't turn up, so that one bashes on". However, the problem when you do it on a national scale, which is what nationalisation means, is that you do away with the variety and conflict of several private ownerships.
Where there are various groups of organisations putting their points of view from their different standpoints, if one of them makes a mistake it does not bring down the whole house. It can make a mistake and overcome it because the others have not made the same big mistake and they can learn from it. Therefore, if we want efficiency and results the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is quite right to say that this is not the way to achieve it. However, we are now in a situation similar to the man who asked for directions in the country lane. He was told, "You go along and turn to the left; no, you turn to the right. As a matter of fact", his informant said, "I wouldn't start from here". But we are starting from here and there is a nationalised Board that covers everything. Therefore one needs a big enough Board to give the impression that all of the considerations have been taken into account.
When, for those reasons, there is a bigger Board my noble friend is right. If you build into the Board four employees and four employers, you know that they go to every Board meeting with pre-conceived ideas which fit in with their general points of strategy and thinking, so they are not really good members of
1090
the Board. That is why on private enterprise boards—and I sit on a few of them—I believe in having non-executive directors as distinct from having it completely overburdened with executive directors. Executive directors who come from departments are biased in favour of their own department before they go to meetings. They are positively incapable of taking an overall view of what in this instance is the public interest. They have to make a success of their departments and they have definite ideas.
So if you must have a bigger Board in order to give the impression that everything is being taken into account—and now you have nationalised the industry I am afraid that that is what you have to do—and if you are to have four employees and four employers, it is wise to have more non-executives on the Board, since they are not precommitted, in order to add balance to the very commendable bias that the others bring to the Board. The only other way to do it is to reduce the number of employers and employees from four down to two or one. Then you can have something nearer to what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wants; namely, a smaller Board. If, however, you start from the point where there have to be four employees and four employers, which adds up to eight, then it is very wise that you should have on the Board at least more than eight others. Then, having taken advantage of the pre-conceived ideas of those two groups—honestly held and well intentioned ideas when they put their arguments—in order to balance their very natural and healthy bias there should be a non-executive majority that could come to a conclusion and take a rather wider view than could be taken by those two groups.
There is the paradox. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is absolutely right. My noble friend is absolutely right. However, in the circumstances of where we start from it looks to me as though the Amendment, or something like it, is likely to bring the kind of efficiency that we want, so far as we can get efficiency, once we have made the drastic mistake of having nationalised the industry.
3.30 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I am rather perplexed by the arguments

1091
advanced for increasing the numbers on this Board from 12 to 16. Part of the propaganda of the Tory Party has been the need for reducing public expenditure, yet here is an outstanding example of a plea to give more jobs to the boys and increase public expenditure. The two things do not tie up. It is a well-known adage that if you want to make a thing efficient you do not want a cumbersome board in order to decide and carry out policy. You need a reasonable number. The larger the board the longer the discussion on policy matters and un-productive time taken by the board. Surely the best thing is a rather smaller Board to devote themselves to policy, with executive members to carry out the policy decided. In the past we in the Labour Party have been accused of the principle of jobs for the boys. But what is now happening? More jobs for the boys. If we look at the record we see the number of jobs that are available for the boys and now we have the plea for more. It just does not make sense.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene. When he is talking about jobs for the boys he will appreciate that the services which members of the Board, other than the chairman and vice-chairman, will be asked to perform are services which are not jobs. They are there in an advisory capacity and they are paid fees and allowances. Schedule 1(5) shows that these are not jobs for the boys.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Slater referred to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, a little earlier as being a Stonewall Jackson. I would not have attempted that but it is confirming what my noble friend Lord Slater said only a little time ago. The general duties of the Board are laid down here and are as defined under the relevant section. Increased numbers on the Board only lead to endless argument, difficulty and dispute. Surely the best thing is to have as small a Board as possible to represent the respective interests. Let the Board decide the policy and let the executives carry out the policy. We complain about the length of time these Bills arc taking to go though Parliament. I suggest that the two debates we have had on this subject, starting with the noble
1092
Lord, Lord Sandford, in the initial stages and the discussion now taking place, indicate—I will not altogether say filibustering but something very near to it, dragging out to unreasonable length discussion on the Bill.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, my mind has been working in the same direction as the minds of the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell and Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I had a premonition that, as constituted in the Bill, this presages a cosy feather-bedded industry run by warehousemen, employees and employers, and I do not think that the extra four mentioned in the Bill will be able to break out of that circle. Far from adding extra numbers, I think the right thing to do is to reduce the numbers who represent the employees and employers and bring in more outside people. At the next stage of the Bill we should reduce to two each the representatives of employers and employees and replace with four outside people to represent the consumers. After all, it is the consumers who are interested in the ports. We want to get our exports out and our food and raw materials in, handled as cheaply as possible. We do not want the thing to be bossed by employers, employees and warehousemen.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, to take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, as we are all agreed that the Government should save money, surely the most economical course would be for the other place to chuck this Bill out altogether. That would save the money. As for the point of filibustering, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord I should have thought that his was one of the best filibustering speeches I have heard in this House for many a long day.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, listening to the noble Lord—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is the Report stage and we should start as we mean to go on. Noble Lords are not allowed to speak more than once.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I have not spoken yet. I was listening to my noble friend Lord Shinwell and he was talking

1093
about having only two or three people. He spoke about those who were responsible for nationalisation in the first place. Too much power can be placed in the hands of one or two individuals in certain industries in this country. Then, instead of making a success of what they are responsible for, it becomes a failure and someone has to come and extricate them from the position they have got themselves into; they begin to clamour for that form of assistance. As to the number of people recommended, I recollect that I had something to do with a service industry which had a board. It is the easiest thing to work a board. You can work a board by breaking 12 or 14 members into small sub-committees. They come back at the end of the month and report on their findings on particular aspects of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was informed that these people are there in a voluntary capacity and will be paid expenses and so on. That may be the case, but you still have to find the money for the chairman and the vice-chairman. God only knows what the fees for that will be. If a board is to work at all, the best way is to break it up. Leave the Bill as it is; leave the number as proposed in the Bill, rather than adding to it. The more you add, the more trouble you are bringing upon your own shoulders.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, this Amendment is broadly similar to the one which I tried to move at the Committee stage. We heard then from the Government that the Secretary of State would have the discretion as to whom he was going to appoint. Of course we want to accept this, but we are still concerned about the huge area and the huge range of interests which are or are likely to be or may be covered by the scope of this Bill. At the Committee stage I explained that we are still concerned that the employers and employees, not all of whom will be dock employers or dock employees, or even employers of registered dock labour or even registered dock workers. But we were also worried as to how they were able to obtain an effective voice on the Board. At the earlier stage we mentioned public interest and the consumers, and we shall certainly do that again later today, but I believe that the same arguments apply to this Amendment.
1094
First, this Bill will concern and will affect many persons beyond the confines of the dock area, both employees and employers. Secondly—something which has not yet been mentioned—the National Board will, even at its present size of 12 with a chairman and vice-chairman in addition, be much more of a policy board, leaving many of the day-to-day decisions to the local boards and, we hope, taking advice from them. Thirdly, the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman will affect the Board, in that either or both of them will require to draw together the various interests represented, while at the same time avoiding a fifty-fifty confrontation which would lead to direct deadlock on the Board. Thus we believe that far more compromise will be needed than has been the case so far, because the position where the chairman or vice-chairman uses his casting vote will wreck the whole Board.
At the earlier stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, quoted my right honourable friend Mr. Prior in another place, and indeed I requoted Mr. Prior. Both of us believed that at an earlier stage Mr. Prior had relevant arguments to this Amendment. On both occasions we were disputing the size of the Board. I do not believe that the changes we are proposing today will harm that Board, nor will they damage the interests which must be represented, because the question of its becoming unwieldy or ineffective or even inert will not arise solely from the size of the Board.
We believe that there is far greater risk when certain interests which ought to be heard or to be represented are not represented. The interests which are drawn into the scope of the Scheme may grow in number and in complexity, given the changing pattern of the freight and the cargo handling. It will be invaluable for the Board to have representations from outside interests whose knowledge of what will be dockwork will be most detailed. It is for that reason that I support this Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I first apologise to my noble friend Lord Slater; he spoke on the preliminary Motion and not on this Motion. Let us be clear when we are talking about nationalisation. Nothing is being nationalised. We are not talking about a board which is going

1095
to manage a commercial concern. We are talking about a board whose first function is to administer a dock labour scheme. That is its first and most important function.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I ask a question on that?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, am I not to be allowed to make a speech?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I only wish to ask whether it is a national scheme that they have to administer or a regional scheme. If it is a national scheme, then that is nationalisation within the meaning of the word.
3.43 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: Then, my Lords, we have a good deal of nationalisation in private enterprise. I suggest that I now be allowed to get on with my speech; I have not interrupted anybody else. The first and primary function of this Board is to administer the Dock Labour Scheme. That includes the organisation of dock labour, welfare, training, pensions and severance pay, and it is right that if that is its proper function the Board should consist largely of both sides of that industry. It is true that it has a second function; that second function is not to extend the Scheme but to make proposals for extending the Scheme, and those proposals arc decided upon by the Secretary of State. So far as the second of its two important functions is concerned, it is merely a body to make recommendations; it does not itself make the decisions. On the first and primary function of administering the Scheme, it makes the decisions. Therefore that is by far the most important of its functions.
When we consider the size of this Board, we have to count in the chairman and vice-chairman who are, of course, members of the Board. At the present time there are 10 members of the Board. Because the Board will have that second function of making proposals—no decisions—on the extension of the Scheme the Government have suggested in the Bill that there should be four additional representatives outside the industry, making a total of 14. We do that, first, for the reason which I have given, but, secondly, because we believe that for work of this
1096
kind a board of 10 to 15 is somewhere about right. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned a few minutes ago, we had the support of Mr. Prior on this point in the Committee stage in another place. At col.26 of the Official Report of the other place he said:
"We felt on the whole 14 was about right."
So that in the other place the Opposition agreed completely that the Government are about right on the size of the Board. So our first opposition to the Amendment is that it would make the Board unnecessarily large.
But there is a second reason why we would oppose this Amendment. As have indicated, the main purpose of the Board will continue to be the administration of the Dock Labour Scheme. I think it would be unreasonable for the industry to be expected to accept a decision in which people from outside the industry were in a majority on the Board when the chief function is to administer the Dock Labour Scheme. We believe that is completely unreasonable and, in our opinion, it would not be acceptable to the industry. Furthermore, it would give rise to the kind of pressures which we ought to avoid.
In the appointment of the eight there are to be consultations with the TUC and the CBI—quite properly—but the employers in the dock industry are members of the CBI and the trade unions in the dock industry are members of the TUC and since they will obviously be dissatisfied, having been placed in a minority in the administration of their own scheme, hey will put pressure upon the TUC and the CBI for some additional members from the industry to be included on the Board, and for that to be put forward when those two bodies are consulted. So we shall create pressures which we should try to avoid. We have here an opportunity of avoiding that pressure; the proposals in the Bill avoid that pressure. We say that in total there should be 14 and that, as at present, only eight should be appointed by the Joint Boards Council. Instead of there being two from outside there should be six, because of the second function which the Board will have. We believe that gives a proper balance.
Someone suggested that we should reduce the number coming from the

1097
Joint Boards Council, but I would point out that, if the Scheme is extended, then the representatives from the Joint Boards Council will represent more people than they do at the present time. At present they represent the people in the Scheme ports. If more ports come within the Scheme, then they will represent more people and therefore there is not a strong case for reducing their representation.
It was suggested that, if there is an equal number of employers and employees, there will be deadlock, but that is not something new; that has been going on throughout the whole of the old Scheme. There has been an equal number of employers and employees throughout the whole scheme. We have had no deadlock there, so why should we expect deadlock in the future? We are inventing difficulties. I suggest that we should allow this scheme so far as possible to go on entirely as it was, but having four additional representatives, provided for in the Bill, to take care of the outside interests.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wish the record in the docks was such that we could, with confidence, leave everything to go on as it was before. But the fact that the Government recognise that that will not do is the reason for the Bill. We agree with them to that extent. I should like to wind up the debate on this Amendment by referring to the importance of the public interest, an Amendment which we have down as Amendment No. 9. It is a failure to have regard for the public interest to a sufficiently large degree to which a lot of our present troubles go back. Therefore, we set a great deal of store by that Amendment which we will come to in a moment. It needs to be imported into Clause 1 on the composition and size of the Board as well.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made the tempting suggestion, in which he was followed by my noble friend Lord Hawke, that we ought to have a nice small, crisp, executive body. If I may say so, that was a constructive and radical proposal. If the noble Lord put down an Amendment to that effect, there would be many to applaud it, but if I put down an Amendment to that effect, it would be regarded as a wrecking Amendment, because, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, has said, we are not
1098
starting from scratch. We hive to build on what is here already.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls posed a dilemma. I am afraid I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that it would be impractical, unrealistic and politically "not on", to use the Bill as an opportunity to reduce the Board in size to something which would be crisp and executive in style. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn reminded your Lord-ships, we are not dealing with an executive board, but with a regulatory board. That is their main function. They have a staff which will take various executive decisions and steps from day to day. This Board is one which deals with matters of policy and regulation in a complex and strife-torn industry and will have to contend, as the Bill is implemented, with a growing, not a diminishing range of interests.
My Lords, I said at the beginning that there is no magic in the figure that we have proposed. Any change will have to be a change upwards. All I am seeking to do is to import into the Bill an Amendment which will have the effect of inviting another place, on whose decision so much will rest, and properly rest, to think again about size.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, not think that his suggestion will be unwieldy? Why is he sticking to a figure of 18? Why not 20?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I have just said that I am not wedded to any particular number. Number 16 is the one on which my Amendment is based, but I want, by importing this into the Bill, to secure a reconsideration of the size of the Board by another place. The most important thing in the Bill is to get right the composition of the National Dock Labour Board. Many of the ills in the industry go back to the ineffectiveness, the shortsightedness and the narrowness of outlook in a number of places in the industry. Alas! the Board itself cannot be excluded from that. Alas! it is one of the factors which has contributed to the desolation we see in the London and Liverpool Docks.
Before we pass the Bill, we must ensure that the shortsightedness, the pettiness and the bitterness which has dealt such damage in dockland does not spread, by

1099
the same ineffectiveness in the Board's structure, to the ports and the docks which are at present efficient and prosperous and through which the lifeblood of this nation flows. Do not let us forget—and I am sure noble Lords opposite are only too well aware of this—that we have enemies in our midst who see only too clearly that this is the case, and that the lifeblood of this country flows through the docks, particularly in the form of our export trade. Our contention is that we need a widely based and properly balanced Board to do battle with this very considerable force.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that this Amendment is there, not in order to prescribe a Board of that particular size—because I would not claim any kind of omniscience as to what precise size of
Board is best—but because I believe that another place needs to reconsider it now that the Bill has been debated in both Houses. The second reason for wanting this Amendment in is that, unless it is in the Bill, it will be unrealistic to discuss the other important matters included in Amendments Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, all relating to Clause 1, all of which require a degree of enlargement and flexibility in the Board itself. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 87.

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Energlyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Atholl, D.

Exeter, M.

O'Hagan, L.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sackville, L.

Brentford, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Cawley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Chelwood, L.

Inchyra, L.

Sharples, B.

Clancarty, E.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strang, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Craigton, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Tenby, V.

De Freyne, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Effingham, E.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Wellington, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Amherst, E.

Garner, L.

Northfield, L.

Amulree, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Banks, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hankey, L.

Pargiter, L.

Brimelow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peddie, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Platt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hunt, L.

Raglan, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Byers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Roberthall, L.

Caradon, L.

Jacobson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Seear, B.

Chorley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mais, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

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

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Wigoder, L.

Fletcher, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The chairman and the vice-chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, as being impartial as between employers and workers and between one trade union and another and between one employer and another.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to know that I can be quite brief on this Amendment. Its purpose is to secure that the chairman and the vice-chiarman should both be independent and also be seen to be impartial. They should also be acceptable to the National Joint Council, to the TUC and to the CBI. It may be, and I hope it is, the intention of the Government that they should be independent. If so, I suggest to your Lordships that the Bill should make that intention abundantly clear. So many interests have to be reconciled that the chairman and the vice-chairman must be people accustomed to obtaining agreement and to carrying the Board with them. They certainly do not need to be experts in cargo handling. They do need to be experts in handling
1102
people, the staff, the Board, the local boards, the Press and the public, and the rest.
These considerations do not apply to the non-NJC members—that is to the eight, those members we have just increased from four to eight. It seems to me better, therefore, to make separate provision for the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman. So there are these two propositions that I put before your Lordships' House, first, that the chairman and vice-chairman should be independent and should be seen to be impartial; and, secondly, that the provision for their appointment ought to be different from the provision for the appointment of the four members we have just increased to eight. I hope that the Government on reflection—and I realise they have not had much time to reflect—will agree with these propositions and will accept this Amendment, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Secretary of State would certainly not wish to appoint as chairman or vice-chairman anybody who he believed would fail to pay proper regard to the relative merits of opposing arguments or who would prejudge situations without due regard to the facts. We believe this Amendment

1103
would narrow the field and in some ways be undesirable. It would narrow the field because in order to get a strict guarantee of impartiality one would almost be compelled to go to a university, a civil servant, or a lawyer. Most other people in public affairs are connected either with the employers' or the employees' side of industry. This we think unnecessarily narrows the field for the choice of chairman and vice-chairman.
We also think that the chairman and vice-chairman should be people who are acutely aware of the day-to-day problems arising in the industry. That is the first essential, that they should know the industry and should know the problems that arise from day to day; because their principal function is the administration of the Dock Labour Scheme and in our view that should be the first priority. What matters most in these appointments is that there should be confidence in the people appointed, and we believe that this can best be achieved by consultation with the TUC, the CBI, and the National Joint Council.
We understand the intentions behind the Amendment, but we find it extra-ordinary that the noble Lord should want to state it in legislation. This is something entirely new. For example, the Employment Protection Act provided for the appointment of the chairman of ACAS, a very important position applying not just to the docks but for the whole of industry, but Parliament did not seek to lay down the kind of thing which the noble Lord is seeking to lay down. They had confidence in the Secretary of State and the likelihood of his appointing somebody who would be a fit and proper person to be chairman. Similarly with the Manpower Services Commission. Legislation had to provide for the appointment of a chairman, but Parliament did not seek to lay down the kind of thing which the noble Lord is seeking to lay down when they passed the Employment and Training Act 1973. We think the Amendment narrows the field; we believe that in some ways it is undesirable, and finally we think that it is unnecessary to put in legislation what the noble Lord seeks.
4.12 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, agree
1104
that the opening remarks of his speech were somewhat at variance with what he said later, in that he said that the Secretary of State will never appoint an unsuitable person, and he then went on to tell us that he must have the ability to choose someone who might find himself coming from one side or the other of two contentious, or two potentially contentious, parts of the Board that we are discussing. He quotes examples of the selection of the chairman of ACAS and the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, but would he not agree that there is a considerable difference in both those bodies? So far as ACAS is concerned, I do not think that anybody would suspect that there would ever be marked contention within the administration of ACAS itself as between the members of its managing board.
Again, although no doubt there are differences of opinion within the Manpower Services Commission—and I perhaps can claim to have a little knowledge of what it might be like, having served under a training board which is somewhat similarly constituted—the differences of opinion are not very acute problems, whereas what is worrying us all, and why we are trying gradually to work this Bill into a shape which is acceptable to all of us (by that I do not mean all of us in this House, I mean all of us in this country) is that there is a record within the dock industry generally of contention, of strife, of people getting at loggerheads with one another, which is rather greater than either of the bodies which the noble Lord quoted, or indeed any other public body that could readily come to mind. I would suggest, therefore, that this is a rather special case, and that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment deserves rather special consideration as a result. I would very much like to think that the Government would not dismiss it on the grounds which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, advanced.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious that the Secretary of State, in deciding to appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman, or two vice-chairmen, or anybody, is likely (I will not rate it higher than that) to consult with representative interests? That always happens anyhow. What is wrong with this Amendment is that it includes the term "impartial". I would be delighted if somebody would

1105
explain to me how it is possible to be impartial. It always reminds me of the mayor of a particular industrial centre who sought to ingratiate himself with the electors, and who, on his appointment, assured them that his intention was to be neither partial nor impartial.
Who is an impartial person? A Conservative? One would hardly expect that. A Liberal? Hopeless. They have got fixed ideas. Labour? Well, we have based our whole philosophy on decisions reached in the 1920s and 1930s. Who else is impartial? A judge? No, I am having none of that. The fact is that it is impossible for anybody to be impeccable in this matter of being impartial. It cannot be done. It has never been attempted, and for a very good reason.
I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if he wants, can have the rest of the Amendment, but excluding the term "impartial". When he has done that, then it is practical; otherwise it is quite hopeless. In any event, if he withdraws the term "impartial" he does not require the Amendment, because I know from experience in Government that when people have to be appointed to various boards, corporations, or what have you, a great deal of discussion takes place. There is discussion with the Civil Service; discussion with a great variety of people, and indeed very often before a person is appointed you have to hawk all round the place to get somebody. Very often suggestions have been made to people who are reluctant to accept appointments on boards that if they watch their step and keep their noses clean, in due course they might be awarded a CBE, or an OBE, or even indeed a knighthood. I know all about this caper, and I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who is a very practical person, that he should display his pragmatism by withdrawing this Amendment.
4.18 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is really right about all this. There are two things. First is the search for the impartial person, and I agree that that is difficult; and secondly is the freedom of the Secretary of State to consult widely, and my Amendment No. 8 is designed to secure this. I do not think it is there at the
1106
moment. Perhaps I could deal with the impartiality of the members of the Board. The fact of the matter is that hitherto this has not been secured successfully, and that is one of the problems we are dealing with. The Board has been made up of two components in a situation of confrontation. That is what has made the Board so ineffective, so I think my noble friend is right in requiring something to be said about this. There are many other boards where it has long been the custom for the members on it to be as impartial as possible, and their impartiality is the quality that has been sought, but I suggest that it has not been the case in the National Dock Labour Board hitherto. That is one thing.
The other component is the freedom of the Secretary of State to consult. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right that this should be secumd, but if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that only in respect of the chairman and the vice-chairman is this so. The members to which subsection (3) relates are appointed on their nomination or renomination of that body specifically to represent partial interests. There is no impartiality there; they are not designed to be impartial. As for the others, they are selected, maybe for impartiality but as the result of a limited amount of consultation which is specified in the Bill. The Secretary of State is, therefore, not free to consult where he will. On Amendment No. 8 we will come to a suggestion that he should be freed so that he could do what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, suggested.
Viscount SIMON: Would the noble Lord elaborate on his statement that in the past the chairman of the National Dock Labour Board has not been impartial?
Lord SANDFORD: I am sorry if I mislead the noble Viscount or the Committee. I hope I did not say that. I thought I said that apart from the chairman and vice-chairman, the other two components were specially selected in order to represent partial interests.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques for his reply which was reassuring so far as it went. However, I do not think he has sufficiently

1107
taken on board the fact that this is a different kind of Board. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, there are aspects of it which differ profoundly from the usual type of board. A provision of this kind may often say that the Secretary of State shall appoint the chairman, possibly the vice-chairman, and so many members to the board and that is because they are to be drawn from people with varying experience of different fields—industrial relations, commerce, finance and so on—and those fields are sometimes specified and sometimes they are not. However, this is a different kind of Board in that it consists of two arms, as it were, with the chairman as the head in between the arms. It is not unusual to have a separate provision for the appointment of the chairman and of course in Schedule 1 the chairman and other members of the Board are dealt with separately.
Lord Jacques said it was absolutely essential—so essential that he emphasised it—that there should be an intimate knowledge of the working of the ports. Has this always been the case? Have we not in your Lordships' House two distinguished people who have run port authorities who did not have very great day-to-day experience of the running of the ports beforehand? Surely by far the most important considerations are the others to which Lord Jacques referred, and that of confidence in whoever is appointed is paramount, for on that confidence will depend the personality and reputation for impartiality and fairness of the chairman. I think Lord Jacques went too far in saying that this would limit the field to a very narrow area indeed. People need not be said to be partial merely because they do not belong to the judiciary or because they are not barristers, accountants or, if it comes to that, even ministers of religion. The field is very much wider than that. There are people in many professions and areas of industry who could be seen to be impartial in circumstances of this kind. Nor do I share the rather cynical view of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who expatiated on his personal experiences.
I think there is something to be said for this suggestion, and if Lord Jacques does not like the word, "impartiality" perhaps he will consider, as a matter of common sense, in view of the different kinds of
1108
members of the Board, having a separate subsection for the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman. That would make it much tidier, would not be without precedent and, in the circumstance of the case, would seem desirable. I do not propose to press the Amendment now and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the substantive Amendment for which Amendment No. 1 was the paving Amendment and as we incorporated that in the Bill following the debate and division on it, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree to our incorporating this one without further debate.
4.27 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("the National Joint Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment No. 5 puts me in some difficulty because it is in a sense consequential on Amendment No. 2, but perhaps we can discuss the matter with which it deals on a later Amendment. In the meantime, I will not move it.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, after ("Industry") insert ("The National Consumer Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is idle to conceal the fact that we on these Benches have some grave reservations about the whole way in which this Board has now been constituted because it appears that the combined effects of the proposals by the Government and the Opposition are to create a Board containing as many warring factions as possible, artificially devised so that each can fight the other on equal terms. We have reached the situation in which the Government's proposals involve having eight members of the Board, four representing

1109
dock employers and four representing dock workers. Now, as the result of an Opposition Amendment, we have a further eight members, four appointed after consultation with the TUC and four after consultation with the CBI, and we find it difficult to believe that this will lead to the prospect of an amicable and harmonious relationship on the Board.
Indeed, we go further and doubt whether it is wise to direct the Secretary of State to have consultations with any particular interest before making appointments to the Board. We say in this modest little Amendment that if the Secretary of State is to be directed to have consultations with various bodies such as the TUC, the NJC, the CBI and the National Association of Warehouse Keepers, it is not unreasonable to add that he should also consult the National Consumer Council. This is in a sense a symbolic Amendment. I accept entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in Committee that no doubt writing in the National Consumer Council as one of the bodies to be consulted will in practice not affect the decisions of the Secretary of State. It will, however, formally give effect to the view that the Board not merely represents employers and employees but is taking decisions affecting the consumer.
Those decisions will affect the consumer because the result of the extension of the scheme will be to raise prices to the consumer. I do not need to go over the ground that was covered in Committee when it was made clear that the extension of the levy to employers who were not paying it at the moment was bound to raise prices. The fact that even more people would now he paid for a full week's work even if they were not doing a full week's work must raise prices. The fact that some small ports that depend on contented casual labour would not be allowed to do so, must raise prices. Indeed, your Lordships will remember that we ventured to ask the Government whether they agreed with the figures of the Cold Storage Federation that the resulting increase in costs might be as much as £6 per ton in the handling of goods in the cold stores. Your Lord-ships will also remember that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that the Government were satisfied that that was an exaggeration but that they had made no attempt at all apparently to work out for
1110
themselves the likely increase in costs that would arise from the operation of the extension of the Scheme.
In those circumstances, we would suggest that clearly the consumer has an interest in the operation of the Dock Board and that therefore there should be given a token representation of that fact by this Amendment which requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Consumer Council, among other bodies, in making his appointment to the Board.
4.32 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is asking that the National Consumer Council should be consulted, I would accept it at once, but if his interpretation is that consultation means that some member of the National Consumer Council should be appointed a member of this Board, then I object. If it is merely a question of consultation, there is no reason why any objection should be raised to it, because if the Secretary of State has any common sense at all he will consult the National Consumer Council because obviously there is a consumer interest. If that is what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is proposing, then I hope that my noble friend Lord Jacques will accept it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say one brief word on this matter? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in this case. It seems to me that the Government has created the National Consumer Council and, having created it, it is only sensible to consult it in a matter where the consumer interest looms so large.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in moving this Amendment at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, laid great stress on the question of the burden that would be borne by the consumer. At col.319 he said:
"… it will very materially add to the burden that the housewife will have to bear in future."—[Official Report, 13/10/76; col.319.]
That theme was taken up by a number of other speakers. I should like the House to bear in mind that four-fifths of the cargo that is handled already comes through Scheme ports, 80 per cent. already comes through Scheme ports. What is left is the remaining one-fifth.

1111
We made a calculation based upon an estimate which was made by the National Ports Council, a body which is completely independent of the National Dock Board and the matters which we are considering at the moment. Based upon that, we can say that if there was an increase in the costs or an increase in the revenues of the non-Scheme ports as a result of a spread of the Scheme, then the cost to consumers would be less than one-hundredth of 1 per cent. of the GNP.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, to save me working it out could the noble Lord say what that is?
Lord JACQUES: It would be better perhaps to say GDP—gross domestic product.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord translate that into pounds per ton?
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords, I cannot. In the time we have had available, I have had to use what figures are available. I can tell you what the gross domestic product is and what the 25 per cent. increase would be.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, what we want is the simplest thing of all, the actual amount.
Lord JACQUES: The 25 per cent? The gross domestic product is £62 billion.
Lord BYERS: Can I help the noble Lord?
Lord JACQUES: Surely.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I do not honestly think that the housewife will be so interested in the £62 billion. What she really wants to know is what in the 25 per cent. in the non-Scheme ports is the tonnage handled and what will be the extra cost. In that way we can get it in either pence per pound or pounds per ton. What is the tonnage that will be affected here and by what amount will the costs be increased?
Lord JACQUES: I cannot give those figures, but I can say that the amount per ton is infinitesimal.
A noble Lord: Like a couple of pounds?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords, like a couple of pounds. It is so small that I cannot be very far wrong. It is infinitesimal. If it works out to be 25 per cent. of the gross domestic product, a 25 per cent. increase which we categorically deny is ever likely to happen, that works out to one-hundredth of 1 per cent. which is infinitesimal. We would not expect an increase of 25 per cent. in the non-Scheme ports for several reasons. First, one distinguishing feature of the ports industry is that in many cases it is capital intensive. A huge amount of capital is sunk in port installations and in cargo-handling machinery; it is these that are more significant in determining the charges and the labour costs. Furthermore, the passing of this Bill would not allow the Board in any way to interfere with existing collective agreements.
In Clause 5(7) the Bill specifically provides that the Scheme cannot be used to override existing collective agreements concerned with remuneration and hours of work. We think it is totally wrong to assume that there will be enormous increases of wages in the non-Scheme ports if the Scheme is spread. The issue of costs is so important that I should like to give a very brief analysis of at least one example of the propaganda that has received a good deal of publicity. A confederation of importers has claimed that if implemented the Bill would increase the cost of imports up to £150 million a year and that figure has been widely quoted. If true it would mean that every employee at existing non-Scheme ports concerned with handling imports would be costing his employer an extra £100,000 per annum. That is based upon the number of employees at the non-Scheme ports.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he is just talking about the number of employees in small ports. What about the number of employees in warehouses?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am dealing with what would be the cost of the spread to non-Scheme ports. If this figure of £150 million were true as being the cost of a spread to non-Scheme ports, then it would mean that each employee

1113
in the non-Scheme ports would cost the employers an extra £100,000 a year. Or, alternatively, it would mean that, as a result of the Scheme, it would need an extra 20 employees to do work which is at present being done by one man: an extra 20 for every one that is there now. If that were the position, there would be more workers in the non-Scheme ports handling one-fifth of the cargo than there are at present in the Scheme ports handling four-fifths. That is the kind of nonsense underlying the propaganda.
The statistical method used by this Confederation to achieve the figure of £150 million was totally inaccurate. Let me give an example. In comparing costs between the Scheme and non-Scheme ports, the Confederation quoted a number of examples of low-cost non-Scheme ports. But many of the so-called non-Scheme ports are already in the Scheme, and have been in the Scheme since 1946. In other words, the Confederation did not know who was in the Scheme and who was not. A body which does not know these elementary facts should not be taken seriously. A number of other assertions about costs have been made, none of which is based upon hard evidence. The procedures in the Bill for case by case examination of whether it is appropriate to apply the Scheme means that we cannot give accurate estimates except to say, from the arguments already advanced in this and the previous debate, that if there is any increase at all it is likely to be extremely small indeed.
I should now like to come to the question of representation. I believe that the Government's view was stated quite well by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, himself. When we were debating whether or not there should be consultations with the Consumer Council, he said:
"… 'consumers ' covers a very wide band of the population. It is not just housewives, or consumer associations or anybody like that. It is industries and anybody who is importing or exporting through the ports and, indeed, many other trades and skills apart from what we understand as cargo handling and dock work."—[Official Report, 13/10/76, col. 310.]
The Government agree with that. The best persons to represent those interests are the persons appointed by the two sides of industry in consultation with the TUC and the CBI.
Now I should like to come to this problem of consulting with the Consumer
1114
Council. Consultation for consultation's sake would be useless, and I think it follows that if there is going to be consultation then the Consumer Council have a right to expect that an appointment is likely to arise out of that consultation; otherwise, I would say that a provision for consultation is not worth putting into the Bill. We believe that they would expect an appointment arising out of the consultation. If there were to be an appointment arising out of the consultation then either it would disturb the balance which was implied in the Bill as it stood before we had a Division a few minutes ago or there would have to be an additional member. It is the intention of the Secretary of State that the Board shall consist of an equal number of representatives from each side of the industry. You have the eight appointed by the National Ports Council and you have an additional four or eight, as the case may be, who are going to be appointed in consultation with the TUC and the CBI. It was the Secretary of State's intention, and still is, that they should be in equal numbers. He will take notice of what the CBI and the TUC have to say, and if he appoints two employers he will also appoint two representing the employees' side. That is the intention.
There would therefore be a board on which there was a number of employees' representatives and an equal number of employers' representatives, but not necessarily from within the industry, because some of them would be appointed after consultation with the TUC and the CBI, and they would be expected to recommend people from outside the industry. So the appointment of a consumer representative would mean that either that balance would be disturbed or there would be an additional appointment. We believe that an additional appointment would not be satisfactory. At the present time there are equal numbers of employee and employer representatives on the Board, and we believe that that should continue. If one side wants to get a point agreed, it has to use arguments and pressure to break down the other side; and it has worked very smoothly in that way since the Scheme started. But if there was one additional representative as a result of consultations with the Consumer Council, then that person would be subject to enormous pressures from both sides,

1115
from both the employers' side and from the employees' side. We believe that that representative would be in an untenable position.
Consequently, having regard to the debate which we had at Committee stage, the Government feel that they should be prepared to accept the Amendment to Clause 2, that the Board should act in the public interest. This, we believe, takes into account not only the interests of the consumer but the interests of the community as a whole on the question of the use of manpower at ports. We believe that that is more important and gives rise to far fewer difficulties than consultation with the Consumer Council, which could give rise, and we think would have to give rise, to the appointment of a consumer representative.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I must say that I think the Minister has put up a very unsatisfactory answer to this case. There are people in industry who do not seem to think that the CBI satisfactorily represents them, just as there are employees who do not feel that the TUC completely represents them. I am a member of the Consumer Council, and there have been cases in recent times showing that there is need for a third voice. If we are going to have, as we are indeed, a large number of new boards set up, it seems that this is the moment when the Government should see the force of this argument. I could not follow the logic in saying that this member would be in an untenable position (I think that was the word used by my noble friend) and under pressure from both sides. Surely, this would apply equally to any other member of the Board. If you are appointed to a post of this kind—and many of your Lordships will have had this experience—you seek, in a way, to represent your own interests solely, but you are always conscious of the fact that you must be the voice of that particular group. I think this would be a very good point of time for the Government to recognise that there is a need for a third voice, and that this will not be wholly covered by the two organisations that the noble Lord has named.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would my noble friend claim that the appointment of a Board to administer the National Dock Labour Scheme is the right time at which to make this representation?
Baroness PHILLIPS: Yes, I would, my Lords; because, as has been pointed out, despite the figures produced by my noble friend, there is, of course, the question of costing—and surely the Board is going to be involved in costing various projects—and, in the end, the consumer is the one who has to pay the price. The point has been made many times that the voice of the worker must be heard in relation to any scheme which is being set up, whether it be in private industry or in the public sector. Equally, the one who at the end of the day has to pay the price should also be heard. This is now becoming common practice. It has been asked for in the car industry, and it has been asked for on all sides. I think there is an excellent case here for including a consumer representative.
4.50 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I was very saddened by the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, if he will not mind my saying so, because he kept returning to the balance between the two sides. It seems to me that we have rather a poor outlook in the development of industrial democracy if we are going to go on with the idea that if you have a bipartite board people will always be on one side or the other. The whole object of having people drawn from the two sides of industry is that when they get on to this Board they try to see things through the same eyes, with perhaps a slightly different angle of vision; that they do not think of themselves as being six or eight members who are employers and eight members who are employees. It seems to me very sad that we should look at it in the way suggested. Regarding the Consumer Council, I would not entirely agree with the noble Lord that if you consult people they always expect to be represented directly—although I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that in this case there may be a good case for that. If we are going to have four extra members, is it necessary for them to be identified either with employers or with employees?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that was the intention of the Secretary of State. The intention was to appoint two in consultation with the CBI and two in consultation with the TUC.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I with the leave of the House ask my noble friend a question? He agrees that there is no detriment to the Board in consulting the Consumer Council so long as it is not specified that somebody must be appointed from the Consumer Council. Is there not a psychological advantage, even from the Government point of view, that the Secretary of State should consult the Consumer Council to inform them of what is going on? Indeed, did it not occur to him when we were discussing earlier the question of somebody impartial, who is likely to be more impartial than somebody from the Consumer Council to express an impartial point of view? From the psychological advantage, is there not something to be said for accepting the Amendment?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, might I make a point here? Since this Bill is obviously going to increase the prices of goods to the consumer, I heartily agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said. I think it will be unfair if the consumer is not represented on this Board. I would fully support this Amendment.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, we are getting a little awry on this point. First, might I say that I am chairman of a consumer committee and I understand the pleas of the consumers to have rights of representation, but so far as the consumer is concerned the rights are continuous; it is not just on one occasion that the consumer wants the right to consult. Consumers want it all the time as problems crop up. This is surely a question of representation of a new Board—just one occasion—and the Bill is laying down how that Board should be appointed and who is to be consulted in that appointment. I think that this consumer argument for appointment to the new Board is fallacious. It is quite clear that this is an extension of the existing body to control labour relations. This matter has been discussed between the employers and the trade unions and the Government
1118
and this is a method that will be acceptable to the industry. You are dealing here with industrial representation. I do not think this debars the consumer. The consumer could make representations to the Secretary of State to be consulted on the effect of this Bill on costs and so on; but not on representation to the Board. This is a pretty domestic issue and it should be so because it must be done by the people who are going to work it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say just a word before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do with his Amendment. I personally am in some difficulty in supporting him because my own Amendment No. 8 is designed to free the Secretary of State to consult with whom he will, because it does not seem to me that he has the freedom he should have under the Bill. Therefore, I would not want to make a great thing about which particular people be consulted. On the other hand, I must say that I think in the debate we have had the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has had very much the worst of the argument. I should have thought that if I had been in his shoes I should have wanted to give some fairly firm assurance that whatever is in the Bill—and I still think that my Amendment No. 8 has the edge on Amendment No. 6—the National Consumer Council was certainly among the bodies that the Secretary of State would consult in securing that consumers, port users and their employees were able to express a view about the appointments being made on this Board. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, that it may not be appropriate to have them there represented on it.
I would not agree with Lord Jacques when he said that everybody who is consulted about an appointment expects to be represented as a result of it. That is not my experience. In the course of three years in the Department of the Environment we had the business of forming and reforming and constituting a very considerable number of boards. We consulted far more widely than we eventually appointed.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his kindness in seeing

1119
me personally yesterday and explaining his views on this Amendment. It was part of the courtesy that he has always shown in the course of the proceedings in this House on this Bill. I hope he will not think I am being discourteous if I venture to suggest that in his reply he was using a well-known forensic technique of totally ignoring the question and answering a quite different question firmly; because all the figures that he gave to demolish another set of figures were figures which have never been raised in this House at any time by me or by any other Member. The noble Lord gave some figures for the increase in costs where the scheme is extended to small ports. I would accept that this is not the major part of the increase to be expected. There were no figures given where the extension of the scheme was to warehouses and cold storage depots within the five-mile zone. It may be that the most substantial part of any increase in costs to the consumer will arise there.
May I add that your Lordships are discussing not the original Bill in the original form but a very different matter, the Bill in its present form. In its present state Clause 1(4) reads:
"The remaining four members of the Board … shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and the National Association of Warehousekeepers."
We must accept that at the moment as part of the Bill. It is not unreasonable in the circumstances to suggest that where
there are going to be eight further members of the Board the Secretary of State, in the light of the peculiar and important position of consumers in this matter, should also consult with the National Consumer Council. If he has eight members to appoint it may be that the Secretary of State will wish to consult with the National Consumer Council. It may be that he will feel there is a place available for someone to represent specifically the consumer interest on the Board. That is a matter to be left to the Secretary of State and is not determined by this Amendment.
I would only add that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, drew attention to his Amendment No. 8 where he proposes to add at the end of this subsection the words:
"and any other bodies appearing to him to have an interest in ports and cargo-handling".
May I suggest that there is nothing mutually exclusive between the two Amendments. His is dealing with quite a different interest from the consumer interest. In the light of the support that has been received from all parts of the House, I would suggest that there is a point to be achieved here by specifically referring to the consumer interest by way of this Amendment.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Camoys, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Aldenham, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allerton, L.

Carrington, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Amory, V.

Cawley, L.

Exeter, M.

Ampthill, L.

Chelwood, L.

Faithfull, B.

Amulree, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ferrers, E.

Atholl, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ferrier, L.

Auckland, L.

Cobham, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balerno, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gage, V.

Banks, L. [Teller]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainford, L.

Barrington, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Gray, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigton, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Cross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller]

Bessborough, E.

Daventry, V.

Hankey, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boothby, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Bourne, L.

Derwent, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Brentford, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hunt, L.

Byers, L.

Dundee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ilchester, E.

Munster, E.

Sharples, B.

Inchyra, L.

Norfolk, D.

Shinwell, L.

Killearn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Simon, V.

Kimberley, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Lauderdale, E.

Onslow, E.

Stamp, L.

Lloyd, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Phillips, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Platt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lothian, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sudeley, L.

McNair, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tenby, V.

Mancroft, L.

Reigate, L.

Teviot, L.

Margadale, L.

Sackville, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trevelyan, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

St. Just, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mersey, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Vivian, L.

Meston, L.

Sandys, L.

Wade, L.

Morris, L.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mottistone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wolverton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Pargiter, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brimelow, L.

Jacobson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Caradon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

Steward of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Vaizey, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Northfleld, L.

Walston, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1 line 22, at end insert ("to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment about whom the eight members of the Council, referred to in subsection (4), are to represent. The outline of it is that the remaining eight members of the Board, and the chairman and vice-chairman, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports. It is not intended to represent
1122
anything like confrontation between the two "eights"—to bring in rowing language here. It is intended to make clear that the interests of the dock workers and employers are not necessarily the same as the interests of those whom they serve.
In particular, there are mentioned the consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council. In a way this Amendment anticipated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on an earlier Amendment when he was talking about the enormous pressure that will be exercised by the two sides of the National Joint Council in order to get more members of the port employers and employees appointed among the additional eight. That was not the intention. It was suggested that the four should be increased to eight, so far as the members of the Board were concerned.
This is a totally logical approach. I do not agree with the noble Lord in thinking

1123
that necessarily employers and employees should be balanced in the eight. The interests should go very much wider than that. I believe that once you have a Council constituted in this way they will be much more likely to tend to lose their original identity in the general discussions. The danger is that if it is overloaded by one interest—that is, the interest of the dock workers and employers—you would get a kind of confrontation; whereas, if you have it clearly stated that the other eight members will represent, as I described it before, the wider interests, you will not get that kind of confrontation. You will have a much more rational discussion and approach within the Board.
If this Amendment is accepted, there will be no point in discussing who consulted with the National Joint Council as to whom should be appointed to fill these eight vacancies on the Board. They would have their eight and it is not sensible to run this as a kind of club to which other members will be admitted only after consultation with the National Joint Council. This would be quite wrong: it would be a mistaken way of reconstituting the Board. The purpose of reconstitution should surely be, as the next but one Amendment of mine shows, to make certain that there is due regard to the public interest. It is for that purpose that this Amendment was put down: to see that the public interest in the wider sense and in the interests of other port users and people connected with the ports should be properly represented on the Board. I beg to move.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I support my noble friend and agree with what he has said. One point has so far been left out of account as regards the constitution of the Board. Through the many hours of discussion, we seem to have moved dock work and port work into a very special position. My noble friend Lord Sandford referred to the ports as being the channel through which our lifeblood flows. If we accept that, and if we accept the main principles behind the Bill—preserving a certain amount of dock work, making things better and establishing who does this and who does that—it is even more vital that all those people who have any kind of interest concerned with that area of work
1124
should become involved. The only way that that can be done is to ensure that the parent body, the National Board, is fully representative of their interests. As we have agreed, it is the National Board who will administer, decide the policy and supervise, as distinct from the actual doing. It will be from that body that will flow the instruction, the authorisation, and so on, to the local boards. Therefore, provided that we get the constitution of the National Board right, there should be a smoother flow right down to the actual people who will do the work.
I feel that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would in some measure help to achieve this. A number of arguments might be made as to why the Amendment may possibly confuse certain things but, on the other hand, there is much to be said for having a situation in which people believe that their aims and objects can best be achieved in a certain way. Whether or not the Dock Board can do that remains to be seen, but certainly a great number of bodies believe that the Board will not be seen to be able to do the job unless they have these wider interests represented among its members, as suggested. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support briefly the Amendment of my noble friend, because I think that his arguments and also those of my noble friend Lord Lucas are unanswerable. As I see it, what we are talking about are bodies which have to be consulted before the membership of the Board is established. We are not talking about representatives as such. It would seem to me that the more emphasis given to the Government's being seen to consult, the better. That would allay the fears which have been referred to many times in discussion in this debate—and I will not labour the point now—that is, that the interested parties feel that somehow the docks, on which our lifeblood depends, are not going to be run by a small, tightly-knit group of people who will have only their own interests at heart. I think it is terribly important that the Government should be seen—and I hope the Government like the thought of being seen, to be appreciated by the country,

1125
because they do not have many opportunities for that these days—to be agreeing to a suggestion which shows that they understand the problems and the concern of those who are affected in any way by the working of the country's docks.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because I feel that this Bill has been brought forward on advice from people who are used to the working of the large commercial ports where the Docks Labour Scheme operates. They have an obvious desire to extend it. One must not forget the very real fears of those people in areas which are likely to be taken over and put under this Scheme. They are afraid that their views and interests, their local experience and some of their local diversities will be ignored by a central juggernaut which is able to say: "What is good enough for London, Cardiff, or Southampton is good enough for the West Country and the more northerly parts of Scotland."
One has to appreciate that in many of these areas there is a tripartite interest in the docks. Some of the smaller ports have become viable because they have an area which is commercial and could perhaps be described as a commercial dock. They may have another and entirely separate area which is exclusively concerned with trawler fishing. They might also have a third, which is a marina. At the moment, they are locally run. People who know the area and know the demands get together and sort things out when occasionally there are rival claims by the different interests for land, space, harbourage or whatever it may be. But they very sincerely fear that when this great national Board comes in, the registered dock workers—perhaps in only one half of their small port—will be able to say, "Ah, but we have got all the might and muscle of this Bill and this national Board behind us." Those who serve other interests equally well, very much to the advantage of the community, feel that they will lose out every time if they want to challenge the facilities, space or whatever it may be.
Therefore it is essential, when there is in these ports this enormous co-operation between friendly rival interests which are doing different jobs that are wanted by
1126
the community, to allay the fears that there will be this "Big Brother" coming from London to a local port, through which most of the people will be appointed, because it will be said that they have experience of the registration scheme as well as experience of the big commercial docks. There are many homely little ports which do a wonderful job, which are viable and which work out locally what is required, and I believe that those interests, some of them exclusive to one area, should be taken into consideration by the consultation which my noble friend suggests in his Amendment.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like a little clarification of what is meant by the Amendment. It circumscribes the Secretary of State and it will no longer be simply a matter of consulting somebody and then making appointments. These are people who must be appointed to represent certain interests. I ask your Lordships to see how wide the Amendment casts. For example, should we have people who manufacture port equipment and machinery, which adds to the efficiency of the port or the workers in those industries? Just think, my Lords, how many different types you can collect before you get down to what this Amendment means, if everybody wants to push it to the logical conclusion. The Secretary of State could not possibly operate this provision and satisfy all those interests, and it would put him in an impossible position. I suggest adding the words, "Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all", because that is practically what it would amount to.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. We are dealing with Amendment No. 7, not No. 8.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, both have the same effect.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I may make one further point. I am looking forward very much to Amendment No. 9, because I think I detected a hint from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that he might be able to accept it—I hope so. If he does, then the Board will have a specific duty spelled out in the Bill to

1127
have regard to the public interest, and in those circumstances it is very desirable that it is made clear to these additional members, when they are appointed to the Board, that that is their purpose in being there.
5.24 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, whether or not we accept Amendment No. 9, I do not think that that should be only their purpose on the Board; it should be the purpose of the whole Board, if it is laid down in the Statute, and not the purpose of certain members who have been appointed. If the Statute says that the Board shall have regard to the public interest, then the whole Board will have regard to it; not a few additional members.
Amendment No. 7 does two things. We are concerned with the appointment of what I would call the additional members—four according to the original Bill, and eight according to the Amendment on which we divided earlier. The first thing which the Amendment does is to take away the right of the National Joint Council to consultation. In the Bill as it stands, in appointing these additional members the Secretary of State will consult with the TUC, the CBI and the National Joint Council. This Amendment takes away from the National Joint Council the privilege of being consulted. The Government consider that the National Joint Council ought to be consulted about all appointments to the Board, even where they are to represent non-NJC interests. The major task of the new Board will still be to administer the Scheme. All its functions are concerned with manpower in the port transport industry. We therefore think that if the Board is to work harmoniously the two sides of the industry ought to be able to express a formal view on appointments from outside the industry.
Secondly, the Amendment lays down the interests which shall be represented,
"… consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports."
We cannot understand why the TUC and the CBI, or even the NJC, should be consulted in regard to the consumer interest. I should not have thought that
1128
either the CBI or the TUC was an appropriate body to consult in regard to the consumer interest. I agree with what was said earlier, and if we are to have consultation on the consumer interest it should be with the Consumer Council.
There is one group of people, above all, who are interested; that is, the employers and employees who are doing work such as cargo-handling at non-Scheme ports which may be considered for classification, and these are not at all mentioned. So the group with the greatest interest has been ignored. According to the Bill, that group would be represented, because the CBI and the TUC would be consulted and would be able to choose the proper people to represent both their interests and other interests which are relevant. The Bill intentionally does not specify particular interests which the four other members should represent. It will be up to the TUC and the CBI to indicate which interests, in their view, most justify representation.
We believe that they are in such a position, with their first-hand knowledge, that they will not make the mistake which has been made in this Amendment. Their first thought will be that the people whose work is likely to be classified should be represented on this Board, whether they be employers in the case of the CBI, or employees in the case of the TUC. We have confidence in the process of consultation with the TUC and the CBI, and we are also confident that with the provision in the Bill the appointments are likely to be satisfactory to all concerned.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I understand correctly what the noble Lord has been saying, he expected that I would take Amendment No. 5 and this Amendment together. This Amendment, as it stands by itself, does not exclude consultation with the National Joint Council.
Lord JACQUES: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thought I ought to make that point clear. I quite understand how this happened. The noble Lord has attacked the Amendment mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that it specifies two sets of people—or possibly three, because port users and

1129
their employees could be regarded as separate—and not others. In particular, the noble Lord said that those people whose work is likely to be classified should have been mentioned. It is not very easy to find a formula to do so. Had I found a formula to do so I should have used it. After using it the other way round to me before, the noble Lord is not able to put the argument to me that the Secretary of State will take into account those whose interests are obviously in need of being taken into account. Therefore I do not believe that this is a very important argument. It is the principle of the Amendment that I commend to your Lordships.
Put very briefly, the principle is that inevitably we have two sides. The one side consists of those who have a direct interest as dock workers or dock employers, while the other side consists of the rest of the country which has an indirect interest. The noble Lord may be right in saying that there are some who have a direct interest because their work is not at present classified as dock work, and that they are in danger of being classified under the Bill. I should have thought that it was perfectly obvious that these interests would be taken into account by the Government, for the very good reason which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, himself found necessary to mention. The port users are obviously the direct customers of the dock workers and dock employers. Therefore they should be mentioned. The indirect customers are all the people in this country whom the port users serve: the manufacturing interest dealing with raw
materials, the ultimate consumer interest and so forth.
The Amendment makes quite clear what is intended. The noble Lord said that it is difficult to classify a consumer and that there are many people—manufacturers and the like—who are also consumers. So there is no particular difficulty about that case. The Bill already states that the National Consumer Council will be consulted. No doubt the Council will have views regarding the kind of consumer they would like to represent them—as, indeed, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress will have views regarding the kind of consumers that should represent them.
The point is that there should clearly be somebody to represent the interests of the consumer on the Board. Equally there should clearly be somebody to represent the interests of the port users. That may take two out of the eight members, which leaves six to cover a fairly wide range whose interests could properly be thought to be represented on the Board. Therefore, I should not have thought that this Amendment was in any way vague. I believe that A meets the case as succinctly as it is possible, in the circumstances, to meet it and I hope that your Lordships will support me in this Amendment.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 69.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.42 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("and any other bodies appearing to him to have an interest in ports and cargo-handling").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this point has been referred to sufficiently in the course of the earlier discussion on this clause for me not to need to add very much more. Perhaps I should stress my main reason in putting down the Amendment is that it seems to me that in the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State does not have the authority to consult as widely as we are all now agreed he should consult. For that reason I think this Amendment is needed and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, of course this Amendment would not be after the Amendment last inserted. It would be before it; otherwise it would not make sense.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this Amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with an indefinite number of bodies having an interest in the ports and cargo handling. There are hundreds of bodies who might claim to have an interest. Over 700 bodies, including companies, trade associations, chambers of commerce—
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord because I think it will save time? The Amendment reads:
"… and any other bodies appearing to him…"
It is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State how many he consults.

1133
I agree that without those words it would produce just the situation which I think the noble Lord is about to adumbrate to us.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I still stick to what I said; you are inflicting upon the Secretary of State the duty of having to consult with everybody who might have an interest. He may receive inquiries from 700 bodies who show an interest; they have shown the interest by making the inquiry. In point of fact, of the 700 bodies who applied for the Consultative Document over 400 sent comments. If this Amendment were in the Bill, it would be reasonable to say that the Secretary of State noticed that they not only had the Consultative Document but they made comments on the Document and therefore showed some interest. No matter how many bodies he consulted there would be others who would claim that they had an equal or greater interest to those who had been consulted. Finally, if this Amendment were carried most of those who would be consulted would be members of the TUC or the CBI, and in our opinion it is consultation with those two bodies which is a practical proposition. May I, with all respect, point out that that was the attitude taken by a Conservative Government when they were in office.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I despair of making any headway in our efforts to get the consultations we need for the composition of this Board in order that it should properly reflect the public interest. For the last three hours we have tried over and over again and I despair of going on any longer. I would have thought that the wording of the Amendment made it quite clear that the extent and degree of consultation would rest with the Secretary of State. He would not be under any obligation to consult more widely than he wanted to.
Before I ask the leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment, could I ask the noble Lord to do this. Despite the wording of Clause 1, and subsection (4) in particular, could he assure me that the Secretary of State will be free and will exercise his freedom to consult more widely than is specified. My main fear is that he would be constrained by the clause as at present drafted and not
1134
permitted or authorised to go beyond the bodies specified in the Bill. I think that really would be unfortunate.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, unless it is forbidden by the Statute the Secretary of State is free to consult with anybody, but of course he must specifically consult all the people named in the Statute.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, that helps us quite considerably, and with the assurance that the Secretary of State is free to consult and will consult as freely as he wishes I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General duty of the Board]:
5.48 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 11, after ("Board") insert ("having regard to the public interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in seeking to move this Amendment I think the House would not want me to repeat all the points and arguments which I made on virtually the same Amendment at the Committee stage. Noble Lords will have noted how the debate then ranged far and wide. Indeed the Amendment gained what we regard as much valued and welcome support. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government recognised that the issues which appear before the Secretary of State in respect of the scheme are important and not readily discernable. There is also the problem of flexibility and, we believe, of relevance because all that has been said on the earlier Amendments concerning the composition and the numbers of the board is very important. The pattern of trade, of cargo handling and differing skills required of employees will also affect the decision which is going to be made by the Secretary of State. The port users, industry, commerce, the consumer and the Government all have a stake in the port industry and the Secretary of State has to reconcile these different factors of our life. Much has been, and we believe will be, said concerning the food industry, but our ports are even more important when we consider our exports of machinery and other industrial equipment and how these leave our shores.

1135
Our customers, be they in Europe or over the oceans, do not require excuses nor comments that our ports structure is being modernised. These customers want our particular goods. The Secretary of State must consider their interests, and indeed our national interest, when he is drawing up plans to modernise the port and the cargo-handling industry. We believe that he will bear in mind these points at all times. Nevertheless, we believe that the Amendment as set out provides at least some kind of yardstick against which his actions can be judged, both in Parliament and in the country.
The employment of registered dock workers provides emotive descriptions when this Bill and other similar Bills are discussed, but we think it right to have this kind of yardstick in the Bill so that the Secretary of State can be seen to be absolutely impartial. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Gram, wondered how we could define the public interest when we were discussing this Amendment. I do not necessarily consider that the Amendment will restrict the Secretary of State at any point, but I hope and trust that it will provide him with just a reminder of the main priority when he comes to prepare the Scheme.
Indeed, the Government made very conciliatory noises at the Committee stage and earlier in my remarks I mentioned that support was forthcoming from all parts of the House. We look upon the Amendment as a most desirable addition to the Bill. In connection with that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who unfortunately temporarily is not in his seat. He wrote a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and was kind enough to send me a copy of it, and in that letter were a number of favourable comments. I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Like my noble friend Lord Lyell, I do not wish to repeat what I said on this same Amendment at Committee stage, but I think perhaps it is in the public interest to remind the House that as my noble friend said it is of paramount importance that it should always be in the forefront of the thinking of both the Government and the Dock Labour Board that the country is dependent for its food on the docks. As I said during the Committee stage, on every day
1136
of every year half the country's food comes through the docks. This means that it is extremely important that those who administer the docks, like the Dock Labour Board, should have that kind of interest—which above everything is the public interest because we must all feed—in the forefront of their thinking whenever they are making decisions as to how the docks should be administered and all the other things that they will decide upon under this Bill. Therefore I should—and I got an indication from my noble friend Lord Sandford on an earlier Amendment that perhaps this might be the case—greatly appreciate the thought that the Government also have appreciated the great importance of the national interest in relation to the docks.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we have been reminded that we had a long and indeed vigorous debate during the Committee stage on this point, and I agree with the two noble Lords who have spoken that little purpose would be served in repeating those arguments, particularly as I am in a position to confirm the rumour that seems to be going around that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. I think that is all I need to say; but perhaps I may be allowed to say two other sentences, because I want to repeat briefly the view of the Government that these words are not really necessary. As I said at Committee stage the Board will be a responsible body and there is no reason to suppose that it would put forward proposals that it considers to be contrary to the public interest. That was the case that I put forward at Committee stage. However, as I have indicated, the Government are prepared to agree to this Amendment if the House considers—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said—that it is desirable to give the Board a reminder of the public interest. If the House considers that to be a useful thing, the Government will not resist this Amendment.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord has been able to confirm what he calls this "rumour". Once again I should like to express how grateful we were for the nice way in which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and to myself. Indeed,

1137
we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for the way in which he has accepted this Amendment and, above all, for the stress that he has laid on the public interest. I just hope that this Amendment will be taken as a yardstick against which the Secretary of State can judge his actions, and indeed can be judged, when he is considering this Scheme. I think it would be churlish and ill-mannered of me to say anything further, apart from the fact that we are extremely grateful.
5.58 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("affect") and insert ("improve").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this greatly improved climate I beg to move Amendment No. 10 which stands in the name of myself and my noble friends, and perhaps I may link with it Amendment No. 11. These two Amendments do not radically alter the Bill, but they alter the emphasis in a way that I think is important. At the moment, the wording in the Bill reflects the rather neutral, passive and detached attitude of the Board towards developments in the modernisation of the docks. I should like to see the words changed as indicated so that they read:
"… appear to them to improve, or be likely to improve, the efficiency of work classified under this Act as dock work".
That is not to say that they are not to continue to have regard to everything which is likely to affect dock work, including those things which are likely to impair it, delay it or hinder it.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has just said, that paradoxically these words do not alter the Bill in any way, do I take it that these Amendments effect no alteration at all?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think that is what I said. I said that this does not seek to effect any substantial or radical change. It is not a very fundamental matter, but it is a shift of emphasis. That is what I am seeking to do, because my reading of the state of the docks is that the National Dock Labour Board has adopted—as I think I said—a somewhat
1138
passive, neutral and detached attitude to the progress of the modernisation of the docks and various steps which might have increased their efficiency. I should like to stress this, but at the same time make clear that of course they must have regard to those factors in dockland which tend to hamper, hinder and impair the work of the ports. I want to stress no more than that. I would like to get the reaction of the noble Lord to that modest and mild suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, when I saw that these two Amendments had been tabled, I wondered whether they had been tabled under a misconception. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I believe that may well be the case. The noble Lord said that the Amendments were intended as a modest improvement, and to change the emphasis, but it is my understanding that they would do considerably more than that. In fact, they would entirely change the nature of the duties of the Board in Clause 2, and would do so in a quite inappropriate way.
The concern of the Board is clearly with developments likely to affect the performance of work. These developments might be developments which, to use the words of the noble Lord, would improve efficiency, but equally the developments might seem, for one reason or another, likely to lead to a deterioration in efficiency. It is a major intention of the clause that the Board should be on the look-out for changes likely to lead to such a deterioration and that, having spotted them, they should initiate action designed to change it.
On the other hand, there might be some developments in the situation which would lead to an improvement in efficiency of work, but they may not significantly affect the performance of dock work at all; for instance, improved recording systems. So if I may say so, if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will ponder what I have said, he will see that the effect of his Amendment would not be as he intended, and would bring about a situation which he himself would not wish to bring about.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am happy to accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to look at what he has

1139
said. It certainly was not my intention to have that effect. By these Amendments my intention was that the Board would be encouraged to shift the emphasis from being less of the detached observer to more of a positive influence in improving the efficiency of the docks. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("adequately") and insert ("efficiently").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 which is akin to but not identical with Amendments Nos.10 and 11. This Amendment questions the value of the significance of the words "adequately deployed". I should have thought that, however one looked at it, it should be the duty of the National Dock Labour Board, in the course of their review, to see that dock workers are efficiently employed in the kind of deployment described as "adequately", which is really almost meaningless, unless you go on to define what is meant by "adequately" in that context, whereas the word "efficiently" is clearly what is to be desired. It is something which can be measured in a number of ways. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I would hope to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in connection with the two previous Amendments that, although I fully accept that he has a constructive purpose in moving this Amendment, his purpose is not really to be served by this Amendment. This subsection is concerned with the use being made of the existing labour force. In part, this clearly implies that this use should be efficient. It could well be that the existing labour force is deployed as efficiently as possible on the work available, but we might have the situation where there are too many workers for them all to be usefully employed, either in general or at some particular places where they are at present. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (3)(b) he will see the connection. Subsection (3)(b) requires the power
"to adjust the strength and disposition of the labour force".
1140
If the noble Lord will look at subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) together he will see that his Amendment would not help the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not sure that I do see that. In what way would the strength and disposition of the labour force be adjusted if it were not in the direction of making that deployment and disposition more efficient? I am sure that is exactly what we all want.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that we can play around with words? What does the word "adequately" really mean? It means good. Why cannot we say "properly served" instead of "adequately"? We can play around with words and get a different interpretation. I think the noble Lord is wanting to be helpful on this issue, and I can see what he is after. But I do not think it will make any difference whatever if we put in the word "adequately" against the words already in the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is going to answer my second point?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I can say, yes, under subsection (3)(b) one would expect that any adjustment would be in the interests of efficiency. I agree. But the Amendment of the noble Lord proposes to change the word "adequately" to the word "efficiently" in subsection (3)(a). As I explained in my opening statement, the Board should keep under review the extent to which dock workers are adequately deployed. They may be efficiently employed; but it may be necessary to make changes, to persuade people to move. It may be necessary to have a different kind of deployment if there is too much labour in one place when the matter is reviewed by the Board.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I think there is a misunderstanding here. This sentence deals with the availability of work. It says:
"… are adequately deployed, having regard to the amount of such work that is available".

1141
This registered Scheme is mounted in order to preserve work and share it out, so that if we put in the word "efficiently" it is rather a contradiction. It may not be efficient according to some tests of efficiency but it can be adequate if you have a fair share of the work that is going on. I think that is the intention.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I am grateful for that point from Lord Cooper because I think it has cleared my mind quite a bit. But I still think that the concept of greater efficiency needs to be imported somewhere here, and after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, I think it is perhaps in paragraph (3)(b). At any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 40, after ("employers") insert ("consumers and public funds").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 which is on quite a different point and it is in paragraph (4)(c). I want to move this because I do not think the paragraph as drafted is wide enough or precise enough. I do not think it will really do for the Board in formulating its proposals just to consider the probable cost of what they are going to do to employers. They obviously must consider that; but they could make proposals which were successful in avoiding any additional cost to the employers but would have the effect of passing the cost on to the consumers or to public funds. They ought not to be free to do that without having any regard to the effects on public funds and on the consumers. The clause as drafted would not require them to have any regard to the probable cost to consumers or to public funds, unless we put the Amendment in.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. It seems to me very important that the public fund's interest should be put into this paragraph in an appropriate place. It is very much a factor in these present days and one that really should not be overlooked at any
1142
time. As to the consumers, of course, their interests must be safeguarded, but I will not labour that point, because it was well argued on earlier Amendments. In the end the consumers are going to be involved, because ultimately extra costs fall on either the consumers or public funds; and even if they fall on public funds they fall on the consumers in another way. I suggest to the Government, therefore, that this is an Amendment that is well worth taking and it is possibly in accordance with their general thinking in having this clause in the Bill when it came to this House.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment. So often in discussions about increased wage costs, handling costs, freight costs or anything else, the employer is told, "Well, you can pass it on to the consumer". It is the consumer in the ultimate who will pay the additional costs that may result from such a scheme, particularly in the smaller ports. It is very essential indeed that we should have a realisation that at the end of the line it is the consumer who pays.
6.15 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am not sure whether noble Lords opposite appreciated, in moving this Amendment, that in doing so they were criticising the actions of their colleagues in another place, because Clause 2(4)(c) was in fact inserted in the Bill in response to difficulties expressed by their colleagues there. I make no complaint that they should look carefully at what their colleagues have done, and if they find things are wrong there, as I believe they often are, they should try to correct them in this House. But I think they will find that this Amendment does not really stand up to examination. If the Amendment had simply made Clause 2(4)(c) read something like this, "the probable cost of implementing the proposal', a more general phrase, we should have been far more sympathetic, although it would not have taken account of the more particular concern expressed in another place about the cost to employers. But it is impossible for the Board to know the actual cost to consumers of any particular proposal. Port charges as a whole are only one very small element in the total cost of a particular product

1143
to the consumer, and therefore the Board could not make a meaningful estimate.
So far as public funds are concerned, your Lordships may be assured that both the Department of Employment and the Treasury would want to make their own estimate of any cost and examine such questions very thoroughly indeed. There seems no need to require the Board to duplicate the work that would be done in any case by other bodies. Moreover, if the Secretary of State needed a particular appraisal and it was not provided, he has always the powers under Clause 2(6); he could ask for such an appraisal to be made. With those points, I would ask noble Lords to reconsider their wisdom in putting this Amendment forward.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it would be too difficult to work out the cost to the consumer. Perhaps I am getting the wrong point, but did not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in answer to an earlier Amendment, say that increased costs could be calculated as one hundredth part of 1 per cent. of gross domestic product? Therefore a calculation has been done which has a bearing on the sort of calculation that might have to be done under my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think my noble friend was referring to an overall costing based upon an assumption, I think it was from the Ports Council, which my noble friend did not necessarily accept; but given that basis, then some kind of calculation would be possible. The difficulty to which I was pointing here was the impossibility of calculating the effect on the consumer of any particular proposal which might be brought forward.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I point out that I was dealing with a firm proposal. The question was what was the cost of loading and unloading at the non-Scheme ports. That was a known calculation.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in the hustle that is being urged on us it is not always possible to remember exactly all the considerations that have to be borne in mind, and one of them is what one's colleagues in another place have been doing.
1144
All we are doing here is to add a refinement to what they have already done, not to contradict it; but even if we were doing the latter I should not be all that abashed. At the end of the day we have to do what we think is right. I am not too satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has been saying. I do not think the importing of the words of this Amendment into the Bill would require the Board to be able to make precise calculations about the cost to the consumers and the cost to public funds of what was going on. Obviously they will be able to examine the probable cost to the employers in the docks of implementing proposals with more precision than they will be able to apply to the other considerations, but they will be able to form some view of the probable cost to the consumer or public funds, and I should have thought that that is what they should be required to do.
However, what I should like to ask the noble Lord to do—and on Clause 2 we have got on very well and got through it in half-an-hour; he has accepted one of our Amendments, and I have withdrawn three of mine and agreed to consider them—if he would be prepared to speak once more, with the leave of the House, is to say that he, for his part, would be prepared to consider this particular proposition. It may be that my point could be met not by inserting those words exactly in paragraph (c) but by making an Amendment—and I think that he and his Department could devise it better than I could—to ensure that the broad costs to consumers and public funds were borne in mind in the course of formulating proposals under this clause. Would the noble Lord be good enough to say that he would look at it in that spirit and in that light, because if he would I should at this moment very happily withdraw it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, on the point about public funds, I did not say that it was impossible for the Board to make a calculation in regard to a particular proposal. What I was saying was that it was not necessary for the Board to do it because both the Department of Employment and the Treasury would be doing this work, and we wanted to avoid a duplication of work of this kind. Therefore, I should not like to hold out any hope if I agree to what the noble Lord has said—and I, in general terms,

1145
would wish to. I would not, nevertheless, wish that to imply that I am likely to come back at Third Reading with an Amendment to this effect. I shall certainly be prepared to look at the position again.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Secretary of State to prepare new Scheme]:
6.23 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("in draft") and insert ("and publish in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and to couple with it Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I agree that it would be appropriate to couple those with Amendment No. 14, but would he not consider also that Amendments Nos.26, 27, 57 and 68 are similar Amendments and might be considered all together?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that may well be so. I would prefer just to have these four in front of me, but I think I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that when we come to those others I shall be able to be very brief, but I would rather not be committed to regarding them as absolutely consequential at this stage. If I had longer to brood on this Report stage I believe I might be happy to agree with him. What we are concerned with here is the Amendments to do with applying the procedures of the new Schedule 5 to various parts of the Bill, and what we are doing here is to alter the way in which they are applied at this particular point, and the other Amendments to which the noble Lord referred do so in other different ways.
I think all that happens is that the reference to Schedule 5 is imported in subsection (1)(a), and there is enough in Schedule 5 for it to be unnecessary to spell things out as they are in paragraphs
1146
(b), (c) and (d). As we get on there will be other instances where we have been able to tidy the thing up, which I should like to be able to explain briefly. I hope that that is sufficient explanation for the way in which it is done here. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has used the phrase "tidy up" to characterise these Amendments. I accept what he says about the last four to which I drew attention, that he may wish to return to them briefly at a later stage. Yes, to tidy up is the purpose of these Amendments. I have in mind somewhat the picture of a butcher when serving some meat. He takes a good whack at the joint but does not hit it quite where he intended, and afterwards does a bit of slicing. I think on the Committee stage noble Lords opposite were butchers in regard to this Bill, not only in relation to the public inquiry but more particularly in relation to the five mile corridor. They did their rough, crude butcher's effort on that occasion and now they are finding that it was a very untidy thing and they have to do a bit of tidying up.
I think I need not emphasise that the Government remain utterly opposed to what they have done to the Bill in this particular instance in relation to setting up public inquiries. We made our position perfectly clear on Committee stage that we are totally opposed to the procedure, but nevertheless since that was done by your Lordships' House the Government do not wish to make any detailed comment about the more detailed tidying-up process, and will not seek to oppose these Amendments.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
Page 4, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. It would

1147
save time if I moved Amendment No. 17 at the same time.
6.30 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("1000") and insert ("1750").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was sad that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, ended on the note he did when he last spoke, because I felt that it was an opportunity for people to see that the Amendments which had been made were not butchering the Bill but were in fact giving it gentle treatment; that they were a genuine attempt to modify the Bill so that everybody, not just the dockers, might think it was reasonable for them, and that goes very much for people belonging to other unions. It will be a tragedy if the Government see this as butchering and will want to do some rebutchering of their own in another place. If only they could clear their mind and look at it basically! I appreciate that these remarks are out of order, in that they are not related to the Amendment, but I could not resist making them after what Lord Oram said.
Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I warned that I would re-introduce this Amendment, when I withdrew it at that stage in the hope that the Government would he able to look into the question of what the implications of this proposal would be and whether it would make any great difference moving from the figure of 1,000 tons as a limit which is in the Bill now. I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for writing to me on the subject. I appreciate that he has been under even greater strain than we have, but sadly his letter did not reach me until I had tabled this Amendment. Nevertheless, I think that in the event it would not have affected the issue, but I thank him for his letter.
The noble Lord told me that the Government had been unable in the time available to them to carry out a survey of the sort for which I had asked. Of course, a survey means different things to different people and I should not have expected him to send a boat out with lead and line
1148
to find out what the situation was. I suggested to noble Lords opposite that perhaps they might have invoked the assistance of the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence, and I should be interested to know whether the Government did that, because, as I suggested earlier, they might have got a swift answer.
Lord Jacques went on to say that he had been advised that the depth of water required for a ship of 1,750 tons would be the same as for one of 1,000 tons. That is probably true. It would, therefore, seem to me that there is no difference in practical terms between having a figure of 1,000 tons or of 1,750 tons, and for that reason the Government may be prepared to accept the Amendment. Although the Government were unable to get the detailed information for which I asked, I was able to get some information myself from the British Ports Association, who said that an increase in the figure to 2,000 tons would bring within the definition ports such as Cowes, Ramsgate, Torbay and Whitby, and they went on:
"You will appreciate that in some small Scottish ports, such as Stornoway and Lerwick, they have very deep water and so therefore the matter does not really arise".
They also said that they had checked with Poole and Weymouth, which are Scheme ports at the moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, expressed concern that it would make a nonsense if we introduced an Amendment which would exclude ports which were already Scheme ports. I agree, and I am assured that that would not be the case; those ports could handle ships of 1,750 tons now. It seems, therefore, that nothing would be lost against the framework of the Bill as we now have it to make this Amendment, which would serve as an added safeguard to those small ports where, for reasons which were advanced on Second Reading and in Committee, they have no wish to have a split labour force or to have a few jobs declared as dock jobs, possibly by misadventure. The Government may feel, as they have with recent Amendments, that here is one they can readily accept.
6.36 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, he raised this matter in Committee and asked us to

1149
look in appropriate quarters for information that would support or otherwise his Amendment. It was thought that the best place to find the kind of information he was seeking was with the Shipping Department of the Department of Trade, and, as my noble friend Lord Jacques indicated in the letter to which Lord Mottistone referred, seeking the kind of information he required would he an expensive exercise. My noble friend wrote:
"In any case, I foresee considerable difficulties as I am advised that the depth of water required for a 1,750-ton boat could be the same as for a 1,000-ton boat".
I assure Lord Mottistone that we looked seriously at the possibility of getting him the kind of information he wanted, but we must have certain standards of judgment as to how much expense can be involved. This is a standard of judgment which is used in relation to Parliamentary Questions. Governments of both persuasions have to insist on such a standard, and in this case it was considered that the expense involved would be far beyond that which is normally justified in seeking to satisfy noble Lords or Members of another place when they ask Parliamentary Questions. I hope therefore that Lord Mottistone will believe me when I say that we genuinely approached his suggestion but were not able to give him fuller satisfaction.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, did not answer my noble friend's question. Did he make enquiries of the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence or anywhere else in the Ministry of Defence? Because I cannot believe that an answer which would at any rate bear on the question would not readily have been available at very little cost.
Lord ORAM: I believe that that particular approach was not made, my Lords, but if it helps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I will see that an approach is made. I suspect, however, that the answer might well support the conclusions that have already been reached.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lord, I hesitate to correct the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it is not normally common to refer to such vessels as boats, except in the old days of the destroyer world,
1150
and we are not talking about destroyers. Ships of 1,750 tons will draw as much or the same amount as ships of 1,000 tons; therefore it seems to me that there is no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, because it would not make any difference in the context of the Bill as drafted. Can the Minister clarify that point for me?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that there is not much difference between the two, then we may as well leave it at 1,000 tons rather than raise it to 1,750 tons.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Not really, my Lords. The point is that one wants to exclude the small ports for the reasons that have been advanced in the past, and I will not labour the whole point again now. On the whole, the larger the ships which these ports will normally accept as being the exclusion point the better to protect the ports from being within the Scheme. But perhaps noble Lords opposite have a different viewpoint.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I have some experience of this matter, having at one time been in shipping in a small way. Is the noble Lord, Lord Oram, aware that one can build a ship of 1,750 tons that draws less than a ship of 1,000 tons? An old ship of 1,000 tons might have a very deep draught, which shows that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has a point here.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord is not going to make any more remarks?
Lord ORAM: I am conscious, my Lords, that we are on Report stage and constant conversation, so to speak, is not appropriate in these circumstances.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I appreciate that. It was a question I had asked. In view of the uncertainty of this position and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, kindly undertook, in response to my noble friend Lord Sandford, to see whether or not the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence could assist him, not only much more cheaply but also more quickly than his other sources of information, I hope we might

1151
reconsider this matter at Third Reading and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("basis") to end of line 41 and insert ("and where the terms and conditions of service are no less favourable than the national terms laid down for ports affiliated to the National Joint Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is in the manner of a drafting Amendment to the Amendment that I moved at Committee stage. Noble Lords will see from the Committee stage that the Amendment I moved then concerns the smaller ports which are dotted around our coastline. We moved an Amendment then which was accepted, but we believe that the original Amendment needed to be clarified and we hope that this Amendment will remove any doubts as to the meaning of Clause 4(6)(c). I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government take an attitude to this Amendment similar to that which I indicated in relation to the long list of tidying-up Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved earlier. This is another tidying up. The Government remain resolutely opposed to the Amendments which remove the cargo-handling zone from the Bill which they regarded as totally wrecking. I concede that this Amendment is a drafting Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, says and we would not wish to oppose it. But if I can momentarily become a butcher's assistant, there is one further piece of tidying up which I suggest is needed even in this tidying-up Amendment because ports are not "affiliated" to the National Joint Council. That body is comprised of employers and unions. I do not wish to make much of it but it is a fact I thought worth pointing out.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister one question? In the Amendment there is a reference to the "National Joint Council", but in the clause which is being amended the reference seems to be to the "National Ports Council". I wonder which is the correct one?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the National Joint Council is a joint council of port employers and employees. The National Ports Council is a completely independent statutory body concerned with entirely different things.
Viscount ROCHDALE: So, my Lords, with the leave of the House, that means that the clause as it now stands is incorrect because it refers to the National Ports Council?
Lord ORAM: I think not, my Lords. I believe that subsection (5) is the one to which the noble Lord is referring and that would stand as an appropriate body with which the Board should maintain regular consultation. I do not think there is any need to remove or to alter that.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his comments on this Amendment. I had hoped that we had got it right, but I take his kindly correction—if that is the proper word to use—and also take his comments that he, might I say, "affiliated" to the earlier Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford. We felt that this was a reasonable Amendment and put it forward at the Committee stage. We shall have to see what will be the effect of this Amendment when the whole Bill is discussed in another place. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his correction and also for accepting the Amendment at this stage.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend (or having made one or more previous orders under this subsection, further amend), by substituting some other number, the number of hours laid down in subsection (6)(a) or the number of tons laid down in subsection (6)(b) above.
(8) An order shall not be made under subsection (7) above unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this continues what I prefer to call a delicate work of surgery on a Bill which badly needs it and which because of time and pressure we are not able to approach with the delicacy which we should like.

1153
But once again, this imports not a change but a refinement to the new parts of the Bill incorporated at the Committee stage. It is not an Amendment to something which was done last time but it is done in order to introduce some measure of flexibility for which the debate on Amendment No. 18 illustrated the need.
The reference in what is now Clause 4(6) to "subsection (5) above" embraces three separate criteria for judging what is meant by a small harbour. Two of them are by reference to numerical factors—the hours worked at (a) and the tonnage of the vessel at (b). The discussion we have had about whether that should be 1,000 or 1,750 illustrates that there is room for debate as to what figure is appropriate. I have to admit that any figure in there is bound to be in some sense arbitrary and may not prove to be the very best in the light of experience.
Of course, those of us who regard this clause as being one in which we need to build in protection for small harbours for whom the operation of this Bill will be what will be a baleful and baneful business so far as we can see it, will think twice about giving the Secretary of State power to modify that protection or remove it by altering these criteria in what we would regard as the wrong direction. On the other hand, there may be occasions when we want to see the thing moved in the other way and therefore on balance I am in favour of giving the Secretary of State—whatever his complexion might be—the discretion to modify either of these in the light of experience. In any case, we should like very much to hear what the Government have to say about what we regard as a piece of very refined surgery. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government, through me, do not wish to say very much because this, again, is a case of noble Lords seeking to improve upon the work—if that is the right word—that they did at an earlier stage. All I wish to say is that the Government are still totally opposed to Clause 4(6) and we would not therefore wish to divide the House on any Amendment which noble Lords opposite now see as consequential to provisions, which, in the view of the Government, wreck the purpose of the Bill. I think we would simply be
1154
taking unnecessary time if we entered into a debate on this kind of issue.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think probably the best thing, then, is to move this into the Bill. I do not feel strongly enough about it to want to divide the House, but I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said that he would not resist it. I think it introduces a flexibility into the consideration of what is a small harbour which would be welcome; and, therefore, on the whole and on balance, I think I should like to move the Amendment into the Bill without further ado.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if it would be to the convenience of the House, as we were due to break at seven o'clock I would be very reluctant to embark now on introducing the new clause set out as Amendment 21, which will take us, I would judge, quite a considerable time. On the other hand, I am in the hands of your Lordships. I see that the two Front Bench spokesmen for the next business are now here, but if it was the wish of the House for me to make my opening remarks on the next Amendment for seven minutes I would of course be glad to do so. My original message was that we should try to keep the business going until not later than five minutes to seven. I am sorry that we have not been able to achieve that, but I can easily make a start if that is what is wished. On the other hand, I would not think that it would be a very convenient way to handle our business. I shall be happy to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has to say.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I really did not want the noble Lord to make heavy weather of this. We always try to meet the Opposition and all your Lord-ships. If it is a question of only a few minutes, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord; and, in view of what he has said, if it is agreeable to your Lordships I think this might be a good moment to halt the Report stage until 7.45 in order to take other business. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
6.53 p.m.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
7.55 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 21, I suggest that we deal with manuscript Amendment No. 21B. It is to Amendment No. 21, as amended by No. 21B, to which I should
1176
like to address my remarks. I therefore move manuscript Amendment No. 21B:
Line 5, leave out from ("employed") to end of line 7 and insert ("for a minimum of two years in work which becomes classified as dock work;").
My Lords, I am afraid that this is one of the instances to which I referred in my opening remarks in today's proceedings where, owing to the great speed and pace which is being urged upon us, this Amendment was not drafted in quite the form that had been originally intended. I do not want to say anything more to Amendment No. 21B itself, if the House will allow me to move it.
Lord SANDFORD then Lord SANDFORD then moved Amendment No. 21 as amended by Amendment No. 21B:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Transfer from Extension to Main Register
.—(1) Subject to final determination by the local dock labour boards, transfer of men from the extension register to the main register shall be restricted to those—

(a) who have been employed for a minimum of two years in work which becomes classified as dock work;

(b) who have satisfied the Medical Officer of the National Dock Labour Board that they are fit to perform the work concerned;

(c) who have attained the necessary levels of skill to perform the work in question; and

(d) who have not, while previously employed in the port transport industry, accepted severance pay under any redundancy scheme.

(2) Where a person is employed on premises classified under the Act and is unable to meet the requirements of subsection (1) above, that person shall be allowed to continue in that employment on the extension register.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 as amended by Amendment No. 21B. We come now to a matter of some substance. We discussed it at some length, but I do not think as comprehensively as it might have been, at column 430 of the Official Report of 13th October. My noble friend Lord Gowrie said that his original version of this Amendment, together with two subsequent Amendments, was a probing Amendment seeking information from the Government about the number of jobs that would be created about recruitment, about transfer from extension to main register and about severance payments. He suggested that no new jobs would be created by the Bill and that its effect would be that the number of men

1177
on the main register unable to find work and consequently the demand for severance payments would be increased. To that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in brief replied that a minimum period of two years on the extension register would not always be required, for example, in the case of men working at a previously non-Scheme port that became classified and it would not be necessary for all registered men to have a high level of physical fitness or to have all the skills necessary to do any work that might be required of a dock worker. If there was to be any expansion of classified work such jobs would be given to men on the extension register thus reducing the need for severance payments.
All that we have weighed and considered. No mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, of the case of men who had already received severance payments and whose jobs which they were now doing then became classified. I hope that he or the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be able to deal with that point which was not covered adequately at that time. I want to stress that this Amendment (No. 21) has been tabled mainly to protect those men who are already on the main register and that it is an attempt to restrict entry on to the main register to those who properly qualify for transfer and who have not already received severance pay.
We have tried hard to give full weight to all the points that were made to us at the earlier stage, as follows. The current Amendment differs from the previous Amendment in a number of ways. The title has been altered to show that it deals particularly with the transfer of men from the extension to the main register rather than, as perhaps was not made clear last time, the initial recruitment to the extension register. In paragraph (a)—and this is the one which I have amended to make it even clearer—the Amendment seeks to comply with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that in some areas it might be necessary to place dock workers immediately on to the main register in cases where a non-Scheme port is brought within the Scheme.
In an attempt to control the size of the main register, however, we suggest that a period of two years should elapse between the time when a dock worker
1178
starts work and the date when he is placed on the main register, whether this time is spent on an extension register or not. In other words, if an employee has already been working for a minimum of two years at a port which is currently a non-Scheme port but which under the terms of the Bill becomes a Scheme port, that employee can be placed on the main register immediately, if and when the work that he has been doing is classified as dock work. I hope noble Lords opposite will realise that we have moved quite a long way in consideration of the points that they made to us about that.
Paragraph (b) we have also modified. This is the one that seeks to ensure that men are not transferred to the main register if they are not physically fit to undertake the job which they do. Noble Lords will recognise that as another modification. Though it is an obvious point, we should consider that in the light of past and present experience something of this sort should become part of the Bill, and the current experience is to take figures that applied in London this summer. We had on the London register 399 men in category B medically unfit for the full range of dock work and 1,000 in category A, fit for light duties only, amounting altogether to 15 per cent. of the registered work force. That is not a situation which we want to perpetuate and that is the reason for subsection (1)(b).
Paragraph (c) qualifies the original Amendment because the original version might have been understood to imply that registered dock workers should have the necessary levels of skill to undertake classified dock work. This was an objection which noble Lords put to us and we have tried to reflect that in the wording we have now used. If this new version were accepted it should ensure that men who transferred from the extension register to the main register have the necessary skill to maintain their present standards in the work which they are doing. Paragraph (d) remains as in our original Amendment mainly because we did not get the response we wanted from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to what we had said about severance payment. I will just make the case again because we think it is important, especially in view of the current economic situation generally and in the ports in particular.
We consider that men who have already received severance payments should be specifically excluded from transfer to the main register, otherwise, as my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, we shall pile severance payment upon severance payment, and we do not think that the general conclusions contained in Clause 10(3) will quite do. A specific exclusion for such men would reassure members of the work force who see potential job opportunities reduced by the possibility of such men being able to return to the main register, and it would also ensure that public money has not been wastefully expended.
All I have sought to do in introducing this Amendment is to explain what it is we are trying to do and the extent to which we have modified our position in the light of what noble Lords said to us at Committee stage. In the light of what they say now I may want to go back over the ground and say something further about the main reasons behind the need to have this clause in the Bill at all. But I hope we shall not have to revert to that and that we have satisfied noble Lords that the Amendment, modified in the light of what they said, is now acceptable to them. I beg to move Amendment No. 21, as amended by Amendment No. 21B.
8.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Amendment to the Amendment is a substantial improvement on the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: Oh, good!
Lord JACQUES: It takes away half of my case; but the other half is so substantial that I am still confident. As I understand it, what the Opposition are saying is that before being transferred from the extension register to the main register the worker concerned must have satisfied four conditions: he must have been in the industry for two years; he must pass a medical examination; he must show that he has the skill to perform the task in question and he must not have accepted severance pay.
In view of the Amendment to the Amendment I shall make no comment on paragraph (a), but so far as paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned the fact that a worker is employed in a particular job is
1180
prima facie evidence that he is fit and has the skill to perform it. There would be serious difficulties in imposing special tests of fitness and skill as the new clause provides. To give some examples, as I said at Committee stage, the Liverpool tally clerks, whose work is closely associated with that of registered dockers, are anxious that their work should be registered. Their employers likewise have been willing and eager that the Liverpool tally clerks' work should be registered, and they have been insisting upon registration for some time. That is the kind of work that would be registered under this Bill. I submit that it is quite unreasonable to expect the Liverpool tally clerks, who in some cases have been doing this work for the greater part of their lives, to now undergo a medical examination and a test of skill. I believe that is putting an unreasonable impediment in the way.
The same applies to the fish bobbers at Hull. I explained at Committee stage that all the fish bobbers in the North-East Coast ports are registered with the exception of those at Hull, and the dockers at Hull have been saying, "We have been left out of registration by way of an accident of history and we feel that, like the fish bobbers at other North-East ports, our work should be registered". There again, there may be men who have been doing the job for years. We think it is unreasonable that they should be expected to have medical tests and tests of skill before being transferred from the extension register to the main register.
My Lords, I come now to paragraph (d) which deals with severence pay. Paragraph (d) as drafted could operate in a completely arbitrary way. It could refer only to dock workers, but to non-registered men, since severance pay is not defined. For example, it might be seeking to exclude from the main register men who were employed at one non-Scheme port but who were made redundant and moved to another non-Scheme port. If this is not the intention, then the Amendment is distinguishing unfairly between men who are registered, and men who are not registered, but who both previously worked in the industry. If it is the intention, then the body responsible for taking the decision as to whether the conditions in paragraph (d) have been satisfied must be given the necessary

1181
powers to discover whether a man left a port industry employer voluntarily or under a redundancy scheme. This must involve functions of some kind.
With all these matters the Government believe that the best way to proceed is on a case by case approach in the light of a detailed examination of particular circumstances under procedures for consultations and discussions set out in the Bill. The Bill already enables the Board to recommend that particular workers should be allowed to continue doing the work, but not to be eligible for registration on the extension register, if they consider there are special reasons justifying this. This power is in Clause 10(3), and therefore we feel that the Bill is best left as it is.
8.17 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, there are two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, which I wish to take up. I do not see why the noble Lord is so much against the medical examination. Admittedly, in past years, this has not been a requirement, but in my experience increasingly it has been a requirement for people when they change jobs, particularly responsible jobs. One imagines that if people are being moved off the extension register on to the main register there is some distinction between them. For example, when I changed my job a year ago I willingly accepted a medical examination, and, indeed, I was grateful for it because it said how extremely fit I was. That will not apply to everyone. But increasingly it is becoming the case that when people take on a job, a medical examination is the accepted thing. That is very wise, particularly for people over the age of 40 which one imagines, broadly speaking, these people will be. It could be to the advantage of the men to be medically examined. I suspect that what gave rise to the noble Lord's remarks was a natural reluctance for a medical examination, but it seemed that the people concerned are not moving with the times. This is part of the problem behind the arguments over this Bill: that people are trying not to move with the times. But the times do move on, and medical examination arguments do not really stand up in the modern world for this particular group of people.
As to the question of a test, as I read paragraph (c), there is nothing there to
1182
say that there is a test. One can be said to have attained a level of experience or skill on the "say so" of someone who knows what he is talking about. One does not have to have a test. The noble Lord laid great emphasis on the test. But if someone has been doing a job for some years, a test might be thought to be not only unnecessary but possibly even insulting for him. There is nothing here to say that the measurement of the attainment of the skill is as a result of a test. I suggest to the noble Lord that he is making rather more of a fuss a3out that than perhaps is reasonable.
To come now to paragraph (d), it seems to me we have a problem here. Admittedly, severance pay is not defined, but it is generally understood in this general theme of the Dock Bill that severance pay has a special meaning under earlier enactments, a meaning which is not used in wider circles. On the whole, outside the dock world, one talks about redundancy. I think the noble Lord had a point when he said that it might be unfair as between someone in a Scheme port who could get severance pay, as against someone else who was in a non-Scheme port and received redundancy money. The latter under this clause would not be restricted by it. This is perhaps something worth looking at.
On the whole, I think that what the noble Lord is seeking to do in this paragraph is to make quite certain that people do not get the same benefit from the funds available to the Docks Scheme time and time again as they move on from one place to another, or from one type of job to another. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that there should be within this Bill some provision to avoid duplication of payment of severance pay. Perhaps one must look carefully at the question of what is fair for one sort of man and what is fair for another sort of man. Apart from that, I think the principle of paragraph (d) is reasonable. I think the noble Lord was being too unkind to it in what he said.
Therefore, I suggest that paragraphs (b) and (c) are very reasonable. Paragraph (d) maybe requires refinement to take care of the particular point at issue, accepting the general view that it should not be possible for people to move on and get successions of severance pay. That would seem to be

1183
unreasonable to the rest of us who, in the end, have to pay for it. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to think again about his criticisms of this general clause. This proposition is a very reasonable thing which, if it were not in the Bill, would have to be in the Scheme. Because it indirectly affects more people than just the dock community, it is reasonable to put it into the Bill as guidance for the Scheme. It would seem that we must have something like this in order to ensure fairness both to the people concerned and to the people as measured against other types of employee and, in the end, in the public interest.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, before he sits down? May I take, by way of example, a Liverpool tally clerk of, say, 55 years of age. He has been doing the job very well all his life, but now he is just a little failing in health and a little slower than he used to be. Does the noble Lord think it is right that he should have a medical examination and a skill test before becoming registered? His younger colleagues who had been doing the job for far less a period would get through quite easily because they would not be his age, or have his handicaps resulting from age. It seems to me unreasonable that that man should be handicapped in that way, bearing in mind that if he is sick in the future there is no question of sick pay under the Scheme. The Dock Board Scheme does not provide for sick pay or anything like that. Therefore I cannot understand the need for a medical examination. The Dock Board Scheme includes training, welfare, severance pay and pension.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I was asked a question, so perhaps your Lord-ships will permit me to reply. I do not see that the mere fact of having a medical examination automatically rules someone out from employment. I should have thought that anyone aged 55, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, suggested, would welcome a medical examination in order to know what his health is like. It does not mean to say he would be ruled out just because he had had a medical examination. It does not mean to say that he would be ruled out of going on to the main register. It depends on what
1184
standards are set. One would hope at this stage that the Dock Scheme would provide guidance as to what standard should be set. It is just the principle of the medical examination that I would have suggested is very necessary at the age of 55. I was delighted to have that at 54. That is one point. Again the noble Lord used the word, "test" when he asked me the question. I tried to explain that there is nothing about a test. Surely a tally clerk who has been doing the job for a long time can be declared as adequately doing the job without having to do a test. We all know experienced people who can do all sorts of things very readily, which other people can describe as being done very readily, but who baulk at and find it difficult to do a test.
I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be ridiculous to have a test, and there is nothing about a test in paragraph (c). I do not know where he has got it from. I suspect somebody had imagined it into the situation because they were thinking about much younger people. It may be that some noble Lords have had experience of making a judgment on the skill at performing their job of older people. If they have, they would under-stand quite well that you do not have to test them to do it. I have spoken long enough, and I hope I have answered the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, so kindly put to me.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, can I confirm one point the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned. He said that tally clerks might be slower, or not able to get around so quickly. It seems to me that this is the essence of paragraph (b), because it says they:
"have satisfied the medical officer … that they are fit to perform the work concerned".
I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would agree that one does not have to have the fitness of an Olympic athlete to perform the work of a tally clerk. The work of a tally clerk is different from that of a normal docker, who is attaching slings and pulling ropes and loading crates. The tally clerk would not need such a high standard of fitness as a docker doing general duties, or perhaps specialised duties of a certain type. I think Lord Jacques was weakening his own case when he said that there might have to be a medical examination which would show

1185
that the tally clerk was not fit even to do the tally clerk's job, let alone that of the general docker. I think that is the point my noble friend Lord Sandford was seeking to make.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is one thing having a medical examination and a test of skill, however you may interpret "test", when you are entering a new occupation, but to have these tests in relation to the job you have been doing for years is a little untenable?
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can be at all fair in saying that to undergo a medical test during the course of work which you have under-taken for a number of years is untenable. With great respect to him, that really is nonsense. We have, unhappily, suffered some accidents in underground railways; we have, unfortunately, suffered some accidents involving coaches; we have, unfortunately, suffered some accidents in factories as a result of the gantry-drivers dying. The cry has always come from the newspapers, from the general public, through the factories, through the trade unions, "These men should be insured to be fit to do their job where other people's lives are at stake". There are very few people in their heart of hearts who deny this. If one is going to undertake a job upon whose safety others depend, then one must be fit to do it. I am not talking about tally clerks, as the noble Lord was.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that I am relevant in talking about tally clerks, because they are the kind of people who would be registered. The noble Lord is irrelevant when he talks about train drivers, because there is no question of their becoming registered.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am talking about people in docks who have jobs to do which may have a bearing upon other people's safety. We are talking of a crane driver who may be transferred from one scheme to another scheme, who may be transferred from one register to another, who may have been redundant in one place and come to another. All my noble friend is saying is that, before he shall
1186
qualify, he must satisfy four criteria, one of which is satisfying the medical officer of health as to his fitness to perform the duty. That is all it says; satisfy the medical officer as to his fitness. You cannot say, in a docks scheme, that that is all right for the straddle-carrier driver, for the crane driver, for some other group, and exclude this that and the other. All in, all out, because all being in does not preclude anybody, unless he is so unfit as to be at home in his sick bed. It is only to satisfy the medical officer of his fitness to perform that work. Nobody is asking a tally clerk to run 100 yards to satisfy the medical officer that he can run 100 yards, because his work does not call for that. If the noble Lord reflects on what he has said, that it is unreasonable to expect a man after x-number of years to subject himself to a health test, he must see that that is not fair. Wherever one is looking, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, throughout business and commerce, through schools, through the Services, we are now so very conscious that no undue stresses and strains should be placed upon people, that they are continually kept fit for their jobs, and if not move to others. There can be nothing wrong with this at all.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that the Amendment is not asking for tests of skill and medical fitness for the purposes of public safety. If it had been, I would rot have responded as I did. It is asking for these tests before he is transferred from one register to another, which is quite a different matter.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that the word, "tests" is in neither of these paragraphs.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, is this all in order? Are we not treating this as if it were a Committee stage?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think perhaps it will be necessary—I had hoped it might not—for me to rehearse rather fully the case underlying this Amendment, so that at the end of it I can ask noble Lords opposite to consider what I am about to say, and perhaps communicate with me and with my noble friends before the next stage, to see whether we can pursue it then. I shall

1187
have to decide what to do with this Amendment meanwhile.
To go back to the underlying situation with which this Amendment seeks to deal, the position is that the fluctuating demand for dock labour which makes the regulation of this industry so difficult has gradually evened out with the application of modern systems, and there has been a steady reduction in the size of the work force in most British ports. Unfortunately, partly because the medical requirements provided for in the Dock Labour Scheme have not been properly observed in ports such as London—and that is all water under the bridge—the industry now is having to carry a considerable surplus of labour, with the majority of that surplus in restricted medical categories. I quoted examples from the Port of London in introducing the Amendment. Just to reinforce that, the National Dock Labour Board have put the national daily average of surplus men at more than 5,000 during 1975, and the Port of London Authority are carrying between 1,250 and 1,500 surplus men today over the past year.
Noble Lords opposite are not satisfying us so far that they have looked closely enough at this serious problem. It is a problem which has been underlined for us again in the second report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee set up by the PLA with representatives of all the trade unions concerned and of trade and industry using the port, under the chairmanship of Mr. Frank Cousins, and it was published this month. That report has had to recommend that the Government—that is us as taxpayers—should assume responsibility for at least some of the extra costs of this surplus manpower within the Port of London. The central fund administered by the National Dock Labour Board is suggested, into which the Government should pay an agreed sum for each person surplus to the requirements on any given day. It may well be that some such solution will have to be found. The Amendment does not have to deal with that, but this illustrates the basic problem. Some such solution will have to be found unless the medically restricted men, who form a consistent majority in this surplus manpower, can be persuaded to accept severance. That is a fact we have to face and deal with somehow; or else they have
1188
to face training to prepare them for other work which, as the noble Lord has been saying, may well be within their capabilities, such as tally clerks.
Meanwhile, this very large surplus of some 5,000 men is the shadow hanging over the future, not just of the port authorities trying to balance their work-force and make their operations profitable but also of all those further employers who may, as a result of this Bill, have all or part of their business classified as dock work, and find themselves in the same predicament as the port authorities are now. At present there are fewer than 300 employers of registered dock workers in the country, and port authorities carry-two-thirds of the 32,000 registered dock workers on their books. Ten years ago there were 1,300, so that is an improvement. How that can be sustained is a matter we come to on a later clause.
Under the existing Dock Labour Scheme when a licensed port employer finds that he is facing insolvency and closes down, those registered dock workers allotted to him are, as it were, returned to the local dock labour board to be re-allocated among the remaining port employers in the Board's area, and this adds very greatly to their burden because they are surplus to their requirements and a large majority of that surplus are unfit. This has meant an increasing burden for the main employer, the port authority, with private stevedoring firms being forced closer and closer to bankruptcy and closure themselves as they are compelled to carry more and more dockers surplus to actual requirement, most of whom are less than fit.
This Bill provides that operators of premises where work is classified as dock work will also become registered dock employers and, as such, they will almost certainly become liable to the levy imposed to provide finance for the new scheme, and also to the allocation and re-allocation of whatever number of registered dock workers the national or local dock labour board may impose upon them. This is the problem which so many people are so anxious about because it will not be a case of the operator of a cold store, or warehouse, or an inland cargo consolidation depot deciding how many men he needs to conduct his business efficiently and economically—that is what

1189
he has been used to doing; he will find himself also having to absorb the number of dockers, the majority of whom will be unfit, decided upon by a third party; namely, the Board, as his share of the surplus manpower. We really must grapple somehow with this problem, and this is what my Amendment seeks to do.
In the earlier stage in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, admitted that this Bill cannot produce more than a handful of new jobs for the surplus dock workers. When we were dealing with what was Amendment No. 22 on 13th October, he said at column 435 of the Official Report:
"… we hope to transfer registered dockers rather than have to pay them severance pay."
Certainly; but this is the sort of situation we are actually dealing with in the world as it is today. For some time the London Port employers, needing an additional two or three hundred fit men to work at Tilbury, have been trying to persuade some of those surplus dockers allotted to the up-river sectors of the port to transfer to Tilbury. Under the arrangements agreed when many of the up-river berths closed down dockers are entitled to extra for fares and turning-up money, and for extra inconvenience when compulsorily allocated to other sectors where work is available, and this is a situation which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said would arise. But this has not been enough to tempt—and this is something extra—the 500 men involved, although many of them live nearer to Tilbury than they do to the Millwall and West India docks.
About 700 dockers live near Tilbury but prefer to work in the Royal and Millwall docks despite the travel involved. The port employers offered a once only inducement payment to a maximum of £1,000 to try to persuade the men living near Tilbury to work there, nearer their homes, rather than up-river, and when the
1190
unions found that the Inland Revenue intended to tax such payment they refused to move unless the payments were made tax free.
If dockers will not move when they are offered a £1,000 inducement to work nearer their homes, on what does the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, base his hope, on which he set so much store, that they can be persuaded to transfer to jobs in cold stores and warehouses five miles or more from their homes? These are the kind of problems which exist at the moment, and this Amendment is our attempt to come to terms with it and deal with it. I wish the Government would indicate how they propose to deal with these problems, or alternatively help us to get this Amendment into better shape.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, agrees that in respect of paragraph (a) we have been successful. He has not said anything which leads me to suppose that there is much the matter with paragraph (c). I should like to believe that in paragraph (b) we have successfully reflected what he said before. Nothing he has said so far about medical examinations leads me to suppose that there is much the matter with this. So my inclination, having listened to this debate, is to press this Amendment into the Bill, but to continue to do what we can to improve it. If the noble Lord will write to us between this stage and the next stage we shall do whatever we can to make the Amendment fit the case. But the problems which I have just enumerated are the ones with which we are seeking to deal, and I hope that, noble Lords will agree that they are very real ones. I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
8.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21), as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falmouth, V.

Aldenham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrier, L.

Allerton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Amory, V.

Craigton, L.

Gage, V.

Ampthill, L.

Cross, V.

Gainford, L.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Balerno, L.

Daventry, V.

Gray, L.

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Greenway, L.

Berkeley, B.

Denham, L.

Gridley, L.

Boothby, L.

Dormer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bourne, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brentford, V.

Dundee, E.

Hankey, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hawke, L.

Carrington, L.

Elton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Chelwood, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Ilchester, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Exeter, M.

Inchyra, L.

Coleraine, L.

Faithfull, B.

Killearn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Newall, L.

Sandford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Norfolk, D.

Sandys, L.

Lloyd, L.

Northchurch, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Long, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Sharples, B.

Lothian, M.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Margadale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Tenby, V.

Marley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Terrington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Reigate, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Rochdale, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mersey, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Vickers, B.

Molson, L.

Sackville, L.

Vivian, L.

Morris, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Mottistone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wolverton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Just, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pargiter, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L,

Phillips, B.

Brimelow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Caradon, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Strang, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Vaizey, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Walston, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Aldenham, L.

Hampton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alport, L.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Amory, V.

Hives, L.

Reigate, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, L.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Barrington, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L. (Teller)

Berkeley, B.

Lloyd, L.

Schon, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Lyell, L.

Stokes, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L.

McNair, L.

Sudeley, L.

Dormer, L.

Margadale, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trevelyan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Molson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Vernon, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Wade, L.

Gough, V.

Newall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wolverton, L.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Young, B.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Caradon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Raglan, L.

Castle, L.

McCluskey, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Rusholme, L.

Collison, L.

Mais, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.48 p.m.
Lord LYELL moved Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 21A:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Local Boards
.—(1) Where under subsection (2) of section 4 above the Secretary of State shall make orders designating areas as dock labour scheme areas, the Board shall be required to establish local dock labour boards responsible for areas as may be determined by the Board.
(2) Each such local board shall be constituted with any independent chairman and such numbers of members as the Secretary of State shall designate. Excluding the Chairman, an equal number of such members shall represent respectively employers and workers engaged in commercial and industrial activities taking place in the local dock labour board area as determined.
(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint the
1192
independent chairman of each such local board after consultation with the Board, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
(4) The Board shall appoint members of each local dock labour board other than the independent chairman after consultation with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is broadly the same and, I should like to think, aspires to achieve the same ends as one I moved in Committee. Noble Lords will be aware that local boards will, under this Scheme, have a number of overriding and, we believe, vital duties to perform. They will be taking decisions on whether or not to classify any work as registered dock work, and it is to this, among other aspects, that I come.
The cargo handling and port industries have such a wide public interest that any decisions taken by local boards will

1193
concern a far larger cross-section of commerce and industry than might at first be apparent. We have already discussed the need for the National Board to consider the wider public interest, but the local boards will be taking decisions that are far more practical in application. For this reason the composition of these boards requires careful deliberation. Noble Lords will note that in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause the National Board, the CBI and the TUC will all be consulted by the Secretary of State when he appoints the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the local boards.
Noble Lords will see also that the Amendment allows the Secretary of State discretion in deciding such numbers as he sees fit to comprise each local board. We consider, however, that the chairman and vice-chairman have the most important role in local boards, because at all times the chairman has to beware of being compelled to use his casting vote and so far as possible the local boards must act in consensus and any threat of confrontation, deadlock or split between employers and employees must so far as possible be removed.
Matters of discipline at particular ports and harbours and within the dock areas could cause some small problems. Indeed, there may even be great problems. But we feel that employee representatives will adopt a responsible attitude in this particular area, espeicially when they are sitting on a board with representatives of other employees in other industries within the local board area.
This aspect will be, we believe, the key to the success of local boards and we consider that in this particular respect subsection (2) will be most important in that the local board will implement the provisions of the Bill and the new Scheme within what I call the "parameters" set out by the National Board. This process of acting as a link between the policy making of the National Board and the practicalities of industrial relations in the port industries will be the major factor in the success of the new Scheme which is being drawn up.
Certainly we take the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when we were discussing an Amendment similar to this one at Committee stage,
1194
when he said that he considered that to write into the Bill the term "to represent" had a somewhat dangerous connotation in that such representatives might be likely to form up in respective camps and there would be the traditional deadlock between employers and employees. But once again we consider the chairman and vice-chairman to occupy the most important role of these local boards so that deadlock must be avoided.
Noble Lords will also notice in sub-section (4) of the Amendment that the National Board will appoint the members to the local boards and we hope that this will mean that the overall policy will have some chance of being successfully implemented at the local and practical level. We believe it right for the National Board to consult both the CBI and the TUC before making such appointments since both these bodies will be the channels through which industrial relations in the local board areas can, and we hope will, be settled. This Amendment w e hope contains the flexibility desired by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in his comments at column 428 of our Committee stage debate. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 does indeed give the power to the National Board to set up local boards, but we wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would agree that this particular paragraph gives the required boost to the local boards, because as we see it and as the paragraph seems to be set out, it enables local boards to be considered, as we regard it, as something of an after-thought while we here consider that they should act as the executives of the National Board's policy. My Lords, I beg to move.
8.54 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this particular new clause. It seems to me that there is a gap in the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, at Committee stage said that this was something which would be in the Dock Labour Scheme so why put it in the main Bill, but it seems to me that than is at variance with the rest of the Bill, even without the Amendments with which we have sought to improve it over this past month. It goes into a lot of detail of various sorts and, as was said earlier by my noble friend, the local boards are

1195
a key element. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, enforced that. Though he did not like the wording, I think he liked the idea at Committee stage. The local board is a key element for the implementation of the new Dock Scheme and it seems to me to be extremely odd that there should be no mention of it, not even an outline plan. After all, this clause, the wording of which I hope will now satisfactorily meet the needs of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, sets out the basic parameters. It does not go into any detail of any significance at all. I should have thought, therefore, that not only is it an essential part of the Bill—and I hope the Government will accept it as such—but it has also got over the deficiencies which the earlier Amendment had.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, we went over this ground fairly fully in Committee stage. He has explained the change that he has brought in to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The difference between the approach of the Bill to the local boards and the approach of the new clause is that the Bill, as it stands, provides that matters relating to the establishment of local boards shall be solely a matter for the new Dock Labour Scheme.
The new clause which the noble Lord has proposed seeks to specify in the main legislation the composition of the local boards, the manner of their establishment, and the appointment of their members. I fully accept that the composition of local boards will be of great importance. It is not a case, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, suggests, that they are something of an afterthought. That is not the case. What divides us is how they should be brought into being and not any consideration of whether they are important or not. The point is that the appropriate membership of the boards can be decided effectively only in the light of the functions they will have to perform. Since that can be determined only by the Scheme it would seem logical that their composition should likewise be a matter for the Scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested that in some way the Bill's present proposal in regard to the local boards is at variance with the rest of the Bill. But it seems to me more that the
1196
Bill's proposal is a logical consequence of the rest of the Bill.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the text of Amendment No. 21A leaves the composition of the National Board? It is only the outline that is here and it seems to me that that absolutely meets what he is saying. It is left totally flexible with just the framework. Every board has to have a chairman. It is the only thing which is specified outside the National Board and seems to meet his requirements absolutely.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that is a matter of judgment and in my judgment the provisions in the proposed new clause are not as flexible as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggests. Furthermore, changes in the Scheme, and consequently changes in the appropriate composition of the local boards, could well become necessary to adapt to changing circumstances in the industry. It will be important that there should be the necessary flexibility in the arrangements to ensure that such modifications can be made expeditiously. It is therefore considered right that these matters should be dealt with in the Scheme.
The Amendment is no doubt inspired by the concern that the interests of those who may be affected by the extension of the Scheme should be adequately represented on local boards. Under the 1967 Scheme, a local board must consist of an equal number of persons representing dock workers and persons representing employers of such dock workers. The Scheme provides that they shall be appointed by the National Board on the nomination of the relevant local joint committees of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry. Each local board is required to appoint its own chairman and deputy chairman, but every such appointment is subject to the subsequent approval of the National Board. I suggest that there is no question that these arrangements would be inappropriate under the circumstances of the new Scheme, and it is accepted that provision will have to be made so that interests brought within the Scheme are properly represented on local boards.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposes that members of a local board shall be

1197
representatives of employers and workers
"engaged in commercial and industrial activities taking place in the local dock labour board area …"
This envisages that interests other than registered dock workers and their employers may be involved in the operation of the Scheme, and such an arrangement would run counter to the long-established principle of joint control of the Scheme to which the Government—and I must make this quite clear—are firmly committed. It has in the main been successful in the existing Scheme, and we believe that it should be carried into the extension of the Scheme.
It is true that the Bill provides for the representation of outside interests on the National Board, but there is an essential difference, because it is only the National Board which will have the power to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the classification of work. I am not sure that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, aright in his introductory sentences, but it seemed to me that he was saying that in some way the local boards are responsible in respect of the classification of work. That is why I insist that it is only the National Board which will have power to make such recommendations, and that is a crucial distinction between the National Board and the local boards. Any involvement of local boards in the procedures adopted will be at the direction of the National Board, which alone will have the power of decision.
Perhaps it would help noble Lords if I say that no firm view has yet been taken on the detailed provisions to be included in the draft Scheme for the composition of local boards and related matters. Some views have already been expressed, but further consultations will be needed with those concerned before a final decision can be taken. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who moved this Amendment, and the other noble Lords who have joined in, that the debate on this Amendment has been a useful one. Even though we conclude that the Amendment itself is not an appropriate one, I assure noble Lords who have spoken that the views that they have expressed in this debate will be fully taken into account.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I share the interest shown by the noble Lord,
1198
Lord Lyell, in the composition of the local dock labour boards, which clearly have a crucial part to play if the Scheme is to be successfully administered. The reservation I still feel about the wording which has been put forward in the proposed new clause is really the sentence which begins:
"Excluding the Chairman, an equal number of such members shall represent respectively employers and workers …"
I cannot help querying whether it is desirable to appoint a board on which there are equal numbers of people who are specifically there to represent their particular class, to represent the employers or to represent the workers.
The local dock boards will have important functions to perform, one of them being, of course, certain disciplinary functions. It seems to me that if there is this wording then quite inevitably the employers, on each occasion that a disciplinary problem arises, must stand together, because they are there to reprsent employers, not to solve the particular dispute. Similarly, the workers' representatives must stand together; and in those circumstances the disciplinary proceedings will in effect become a trial by the chairman alone. If that is what one wants, one might as well say so. I am doubtful about the wisdom of endeavouring to appoint boards in this way, with two halves specifically ordered by an Act of Parliament to represent their own particular section of the community.
Lord LYELL: Certainly, my Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the comments that he has just made on the Bill and for his (I hope I can call it) qualified support. I accept the reservations that he again introduced. I think I must clear up one point with the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I perhaps did not make myself totally clear on the matter of the classification of what would be dock work or not; I am sorry. This would be, perhaps, carried out by the National Board, but I think he would agree with me that the National Board would in very few circumstances disregard the opinion and the recommendation of the local board. Probably that is what I meant, and I am sorry I was unclear in that particular respect.
I was also grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, had to say. It was a little softer, and our two points of view

1199
were a little nearer to meeting than they were last time. But I think noble Lords are aware that we are running out of time in our deliberations on this particular measure, and there is not a lot more time for us to discuss and to close our respective points of view so that we can come to some workable agreement. I must say that I cannot share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the Amendment is inflexible. We hope that our particular qualification so far as the Secretary of State is concerned would give him the flexibility and the framework to implement and to operate the Scheme or give recommendations so that the local boards could carry out the policy of the National Board at a local level. We accept that the functions to be performed will be decided by the Scheme, but certainly—and I believe this applies to many of us—I am not totally convinced by the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, put forward that the local boards were considered to be an after-thought. He said they would be considered in the Scheme. I should have thought that a small paragraph at the end of Schedule 2 did not bring out the importance which I think Lord Oram himself admitted belongs to the local boards.
It was for this purpose that we raised this Amendment again. We had altered certain details in the hope that it might be more acceptable. We are slightly mollified by the noble Lord's comments this time. I do not think it is our intention to press this Amendment, but we should like to see whether we can get even nearer the Government's point of view. We have had a reasonable amount of success since the last stage of the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has made conciliatory noises this evening. I wonder whether, if we raise it at the last stage, we can get any closer. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Objects of the new scheme]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 1, after ("section") insert ("and section (Transfer from Extension to Main Register) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 because, having moved and pressed Amendment No. 21, it will be necessary for that new clause to be referred to at this point. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me to that extent, even if he may not agree with the substance of the new clause that we have moved in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 10, after ("provide") insert ("and the local dock labour board may allow").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relevant to Amendment No. 21A which I have just spoken to and withdrawn. I believe that this small Amendment provides a valuable safety warning, if I may call it that, to the National Board, in that the local boards will have to implement the National Board policy at the local dock level. Surely the local board which will be set up by the Secretary of State, so we were told—with the appointments filled by the National Board, as we had hoped, but we shall see what the Scheme has to say about this—should have the first and most important say in work which may or may not be classified, and it will pass on its recommendation to the National Board. Since the local hoard would have full and satisfactory representation from employers and employees and other interests, we hope that the local board will have the power to issue the small caveat as exemplified in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I had assumed that Amendments Nos.24 and 25 were alternatives.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I had hoped to speak briefly to Amendment No. 25. I wonder whether it would be in order for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to speak to Amendment No. 24 or whether it would assist the noble Lord if I were to speak to Amendment No. 25 now.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, are they alternative?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I did not intend them to be so.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in that case I will speak to Amendment No. 24. This is a new Amendment, unlike Amendment No. 25 which was discussed in Committee. It was explained in Committee that this type of Amendment is unnecessary because the words, "subject only to such exceptions as it may provide" enabled the Scheme to allow local boards to make exceptions in appropriate cases. This Amendment is less satisfactory than Amendment No. 25 because its intention and effect are unclear. It leaves doubt as to whether the local board discretion is to be limited by the Scheme or not.
The Opposition's apparent concern—and the new Amendment (No. 24) presumably represents an attempt to ensure this—is that the Bill itself should guarantee local boards the right to make exceptions irrespective of what the Scheme might say. This cannot be done as the Bill stands, because the establishment of local boards is itself a matter for the Scheme. The Scheme could establish local boards and guarantee them the right to make exceptions. The new clause "Local Boards", if carried at a later stage would have an effect so far as this Amendment is concerned. It would provide for the establishment of local boards independent of the Scheme.
If the new clause were added to the Bill, Amendment No. 24 could be held to mean that the Scheme would have to give local boards complete freedom to make exceptions as they wished—each local dock labour board would have a discretion to allow the employment of non-registered dock workers and this power would not be regulated in any way by the new Scheme. The power of local boards to allow the employment of non-registered dock workers along the lines of Clause 10 of the 1967 Scheme has been a part of the Scheme since its inception in 1947. But it is a limited power. Under the present Scheme, the local board has to be satisfied that the work is urgently required to be done and that it is not reasonably practical for it to be done by a registered dock worker. In other words, they can make a decision in an emergency. The Government's view is that, if there is a need for a permanent
1202
exception, then it should not be remedied by giving a local board power. The work should be declassified and be finished with.
The Government believe that the whole question of the employment of non-registered workers is a matter for the Scheme and that a power should be retained so that it could be possible to ensure common practices throughout the country. This can be done only if the powers of local boards are set out in the new Scheme and not in the enabling legislation.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I will leave it to my noble friend to answer the points of detail. Our anxiety is whether it is right for Parliament to leave out of the Bill any reference to the existence of local boards. The noble Lord has continually reassured us that local boards will still be a feature of the scene and the Scheme will provide for them. I am sure that will be so. It will be impossible to operate and regulate the dock work without the local boards. They are such an essential and integral part of the whole scheme that I am still wondering whether we are right in Parliament not to include proper provision for them.
In the course of the debate on my noble friend's previous Amendment, we were seeking to find out whether it was possible to specify in the Bill that there shall be local boards and say something about them rather than leaving the whole thing for non-statutory provision. This is the main and underlying anxiety and the reason why we may need to return to this again. Clearly, we do not want to put into the Bill details which, as the noble Lord rightly said, would be better dealt with in the Scheme. This is the underlying reason behind our Amendments.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for setting out his objections—if I could put it that way—to the Amendment. He mentioned one or two points that he raised at an earlier stage. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will have an opportunity to modify or refurbish them in the next Amendment. My noble friend Lord Sandford has shown the way and said that it might be wrong to overburden the legislation at this stage. Things might

1203
be dealt with better in the Scheme. I take that advice, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and seek leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("except with the permission of the local dock labour board")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is very germane to one which was raised at Committee stage. We have been talking about local boards in previous Amendments. The same reasons for moving the earlier Amendment apply in this case, except that Amendment No. 24 dealt with the exceptions to work which may be classified, and we believe that this Amendment is concerned with the exceptions and exemptions in the work-force performing the work at the port or the dock. We also believe that all the points relevant to local tradition and practice should apply in this case.
I should like to refer the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to an earlier reply made at Committee stage when he mentioned exemptions. He also made some comments in column 439 of the Official Report which may hold out something of a straw or something even more substantial for me to grasp and towards which I would certainly reach. The noble Lord mentioned that local boards could authorise classified dock work to be done by dock workers, as he said, "in an emergency". Would the noble Lord be able to tell us whether he has any further news as to the intention of the Government to have a similar clause in the new Scheme, in the same way as I believe is done in Clause 10 of the 1967 Scheme? We should be grateful to know whether the noble Lord has any further news to give us at this stage.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are three points which I ought to deal with. Taking first the question of local boards mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the Government are continuing the general procedure that was followed in relation to the present Scheme: that is the National Board was mentioned in the enabling legislation and the local
1204
boards were mentioned in the Scheme. We have every intention of continuing to do that.
Referring to the work to be done by non-registered labour and its authorisation, in the present Scheme there is power enabling a local board to authorise such work to be done in an emergency. It is the Government's intention to have powers not less than that in the new Scheme. The third point concerns cases where work should be permanently exempt. We believe the solution there is to declassify it. In this Bill, as distinct from previous Bills, there is provision for declassifying it and getting rid of it completely. We think that is the better method.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I just ask one question here? When we come to Clause 12 there are penal provisions involved for anybody who does that kind of work if they are not registered dock workers. I am not quite certain whether that might not require some special power in the Bill, so as to gain exemption from the penal provisions, even in an emergency. It seems to me that to do that by a doubly indirect method—first, through a scheme which is subordinate legislation and then possibly through some further direction from the Board—might well not provide the exemption from penalty that is obviously necessary in a case like this. It is common sense, my Lords, but the law has an unfortunate way sometimes of not providing for common sense and I think we have to make sure that common sense is provided for in the law.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I direct attention to Clause 12, page 15, line 29, the second part of which states:
"… then except in so far as provision excluding this subsection is made by the Scheme".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that that covers the point.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his explanation. I agree with him that, where there is a need for permanent exemption, there should be declassification, and we are pleased that this Bill sets out the procedures for doing that. We

1205
were a little worried about temporary exemption, and were wondering whether, as the noble Lord suggested at Committee stage, we could have a further explanation on Report. But he has gone a little way in explaining the position, especially to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, so shall beg leave to withdraw this Amendment and consider the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 6, line 26, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 31 and insert ("comply with the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act").
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now returning to the delicate remedial surgery which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said we could probably consider all in one piece. I was not quite sure when he said it, and reserved my position to speak to these two Amendments separately, but I do not think there is any need to say any more. These two Amendments, together with Amendments Nos.57 and 68, do rather more elegantly what a different series of Amendments did in Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Review of what is now dock work]:
9.27 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 42, after first ("the") insert ("National Board, after consulting each appropriate local").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the case for this Amendment is the same as that which we put earlier when we were dealing with local boards. Under the Scheme, we believe that local boards will have an overriding interest in indicating to the National Board the circumstances at the different ports, because we believe that the pattern of trade, and of cargo and freight handling, will probably have changed in the nine years since the last Scheme was set up. That is why this Amendment is a little different from
1206
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. We believe that this matter is of more importance and calls for more urgency. I take the points made by noble Lords opposite, about the work and composition of local boards being matters for the Scheme, and I agree that we do not wish to over-burden local boards with precise duties at this stage. But we should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has to say about including the duties of the local boards at this juncture in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, what I have to say is comparatively simple and I hope that it will be accepted as quite straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is pushing at an open door in insisting upon the importance of the local boards. On that we are in agreement. However, the noble Lord must not assume that the door is open so far as acceptance of the Amendment is concerned because, quite frankly, it is unnecessary. The purpose which the noble Lord wishes to achieve will automatically be achieved. It will be quite impossible for the National Board to prepare the reports without consulting the local boards. It is the local boards only which have access to the necessary information. Therefore it would be elementary that the National Board should consult the local boards and consequently quite unnecessary to put in an Amendment requiring them so to do.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, why, then, object? I said earlier that we are a little anxious lest the local dock labour boards, which are clearly an integral part of the whole matter, should be left out. If local boards are to be established under the Scheme, I should have thought that it was rather important that the need for them to be consulted should be established within the Statute. Otherwise, it would be possible, although I do not think it is very likely, for the National Board to overlook the local boards or to take action without consulting them. I agree that it is inconceivable that they should do so at this point because it would be quite impossible for the National Board to prepare the report without getting information which can be supplied only by the local dock labour boards. Indeed, they are mentioned on the next page. However,

1207
I think it would be an improvement if all the cases where the national Board should consult or do something through the local board, or where it is desirable for this to be done, or where it needs to be done, were spelled out on the face of the Bill.
While I am on my feet, I wonder whether I might make a separate point. I should have liked to propose an Amendment to the rubrics to Clauses 6 and 7. The intention of the rubrics is to make the Bill clear to people who have to use the Bill and help them to find their way around it. The distinction between Clauses 6 and 7 is that Clause 6 refers to "Review of what is now dock work" in the 1967 Scheme ports while Clause 7 refers to "Loading and unloading operations" other than in the 1967 Scheme ports. If I am right about that, I should like to suggest to noble Lords that the rubrics ought to be amended in that sense in order to make the matter clearer to people who are finding their way around the Bill or the Act as it will be in due course. I am sorry to introduce it in this way but my advice is that it is not possible to move formal Amendments to rubrics. Now that for the first time we have reached a clause where I should like the matter to be considered, I feel that I should mention it now in order to get the noble Lord's reactions to it before we leave Clause 6.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my quick reaction to the rubric point is that included in the rubric to Clause 6—"Review of what is now dock work"—is the word "now". I should have thought that the inclusion of the word "now" was the answer to the noble Lord's point. It distinguishes between the purpose of Clause 6 and the purpose of Clause 7. However, as the noble Lord has noted, this is not quite the time at which one can take up suggestions regarding other Amendments which might have been made. Regarding the particular Amendment with which we are dealing, he has acknowledged my point that the Board could not report as required in Clause 6(1) unless it consulted with the local boards. The noble Lord used the words "at this point"; he acknowledged that the wording was sufficient and it is that wording with which we are dealing. In so far as he would wish the existence and purposes
1208
and activities of local boards to be advertised, so to speak, or encouraged throughout the Bill, that is a much wider question. But in dealing with this particular Amendment I return to my point that it is unnecessary to have the words in.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am afraid that noble Lords may feel that I am becoming a trifle repetitive in trying to move these Amendments dealing with the local boards. I shall be fascinated to see how far we can go and how many further comments we can get from the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I fear we may exhaust his charm and kindness in rebutting our Amendments. He says that of course the National Board will have to consult with the local boards. If, as he says, this is so self-evident, and it would seem innocuous, we wonder why it cannot be written into the Bill at this stage. As I pointed out in trying to move this Amendment, it is a little different from Amendments Nos.24 and 25. We believe that it is very relevant at this stage and considerably more important. However, we take what the noble Lord says, that before the National Board can come up with a workable scheme it will have to make the fullest consultation with the local boards.
Of course the local boards will first of all have to be set up and then the National Board will have to consult them. I think there are 395 ports all round the coastline of the United Kingdom, and we believe that there will be a great deal of work which will have to be done by local boards. We believe that it is important that the Amendment should be written into the Bill, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said is self-evident. He has given us very kind assurances that the local boards will be recommending courses of action to the National Board, but we believe that the Bill as at present drafted should contain the provision.
Industrial relations cannot be enforced by writing laws; nevertheless, this is not just a case of industrial relations. This is setting up a course of conduct and setting out rules of conduct for the National Board. Of course there are arguments for the noble Lord, Lord Oram, although we are not totally convinced by them. He says that the scheme would contain provisions, so we shall have to accept his

1209
assurances, kind as they are, at this stage and regretfully beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.40 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 35, leave out from ("until") to ("above") in line 36 and insert ("all those mentioned in subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would allow other persons to whom a copy of a report has been sent by the Board to the Secretary of State under this clause at least one month in which to make representations to the Secretary of State. It was the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who drew the attention of the Committee to this point. He questioned then why it was that employers and trade unions concerned should be allowed a month in which to make representations to the Secretary of State but not other persons concerned. We reviewed the matter in the light of what the noble Lord had said and I think he will agree that this Amendment meets the point that he made. If it is accepted it will make subsequent Amendments unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord. This is an eminently sensible Amendment which I think should be accepted.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should add my gratitude and admiration to the noble Lord for having done far more elegantly in one Amendment what I should have done inelegantly in three.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("and section 7 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we can discuss Amendments Nos.33 and 34 together because they deal with the same point. Clause 7 incorporates a definition of "cargo" and "ship"—a special definition for the purpose of Clause 7. There is also a special definition for the purpose of Clause 7 of "port" but it is not contained in that clause. One has to look to Clause 6 in order to find the special
1210
definition of "port". This is a trap for the unwary, busy lawyer because busy practitioners do not read the Statutes straight through; they dodge about and read only the sections which bear upon the particular problem they are considering, and it really is rather much to expect the reader to suppose that the definitions in subsection (1) of Clause 7 are incomplete and that if he wants to find the special definition of "port" he must look elsewhere in the Bill in order to find it.
These two Amendments seek to put that situation right and to remove the trap. They insert the definition of "port" for the purpose of Clause 7 in Clause 7 alongside the definitions of cargo" and "ship" in that clause. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, these two Amendments are very helpful drafting Amendments. We are indebted to the noble Lord and we unhesitatingly accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Loading and unloading operations]:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert ("and "port" means the same as in section 6 above").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 36, after ("of") insert ("work which is done at any small harbour as defined in subsection (6) of section 4 above or in respect of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what a delightful Report stage we are having! I beg to move Amendment No. 35 to the very last part of Clause 7(3). This is a clause which covers loading and unloading of cargo other than in the 1967 Scheme ports. On this side, we do not want all that is involved here to be applied unnecessarily to any port or activity, because it is a laborious and expensive procedure. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be arguing in a moment that it will not really do as it stands, and if it is to operate at all it may have to be made rather more elaborate than at present. The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude from any of the operations of this

1211
clause the work which is done in any small harbour as at present defined in subsection (6) of Clause 4. It would seem only logical to do that at this point if it is done in Clause 4, because that takes small harbours as defined in subsection (6) (a), (b) and (c), out of consideration of the Scheme. Therefore we should not want it to be included, as it were, inadvertently in the operation of Clause 7.
I do not suppose noble Lords opposite will like this because they do not like the Amendments we have made to Clause 4, but I hope they will agree that while those Amendments are in the Bill, it would be sensible and right to include this Amendment as well. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord opposite has to say. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, rises to reply, I should like to add my support to the Amendment moved by my noble friend, since it was I who moved this particular series of Amendments in Committee, because I was particularly concerned with the position in small ports. In spite of comments such as "butchery" made by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, earlier this evening, I thought we had a flicker of support in Committee on the small ports aspect. I seek to support my noble friend.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we do not like this Amendment any more than we like the principal Amendment. I must point out that this Amendment would place the onus upon the employer for deciding whether the harbour in which he has conducted his business was excluded under Clause 4(6). We do not think it reasonable to place such a requirement upon the individual employers, particularly since there would be criminal sanctions under Clause 7(5) if the employer took a wrong decision. This seems to us to be totally unreasonable.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree with that. In order to avoid any such disastrous effects of one of our Amendments, we will take that point away and think about it. But I remind noble Lords opposite that we may return to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.49 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 2, leave out from ("during") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("each of the twelve months immediately preceding").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite will remember that on "Clause 7 stand part" in the previous debate in Committee, I went into a few difficulties that I foresaw in the operation of this clause. This Amendment refers to one of them, namely, the value of a statement such as is required under this clause for the purposes for which it is demanded. As I understand it, the purpose for which it is demanded is to show the amount of work that is being done in the various ports around the country. But if we are only going to do that for one month, it will not necessarily be representative of what happens throughout the year.
The Amendment that has just been discussed and withdrawn would, of course, have very much reduced the objections to this, because in the larger ports, I would imagine—I do not mean the big ports, but the larger ports between the small ports and the very big ports—the rate of movement of cargo in and out is probably a good deal more constant than it is in some of the small ports, at least. The difficulty is that this clause, in the way it is framed, requires anyone who does dock work or an employer for whom dock work is done in the period of one month beginning with the appointed day to put in this written statement, and the written statement is apparently to relate to that one month.
I have said that this is by no means satisfactory, because of the possible fluctuations in trade in many of the ports. For that reason the logical thing is for the report to relate to the 12 months before the appointed day, in the same way as is required in the case of 1967 Scheme ports under Clause 6(2). This is the logical thing to do. I quite recognise that the question is whether it is practicable, whether the statistics will necessarily have been compiled. But I do not think it would be possible for the Government to reach any kind of firm conclusions as to whether trade fluctuates in any of the ports in respect of which they receive these statements without inspecting all of them on the site. I put down this Amendment

1213
as being the logical and sensible thing to do, and I can only commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I do not think there is any difference of principle between us here. If there is any difference at all, it is due to misunderstanding. The purpose of this survey based upon one month is not to determine whether to classify or declassify. Something much deeper would be required before coming to that kind of conclusion. The purpose here is a preliminary survey to determine priorities. After the priorities are decided, then there will be a full investigation, and it is upon that full investigation that the question of whether to recommend classification would arise.
We feel that it could put a lot of work upon employers to get out the information during the past 12 months for each separate month. We do not think that is necessary. In the case of many employers, the information would simply not be available; for example, they may know for each month how many were on the pay roll, but they may not know what work these people were doing, whether they were loading or unloading or doing other cargo handling. So far as the one month is concerned, by publicity they will be given preliminary notice of that. They will know that the information is required for the one month and, consequently, they will be able to keep the information without difficulty. We feel that to go back for 12 months would create difficultties for employers which ought to be avoided. I can assure the noble Lord that the Board will need to take into account the position over a much longer period if the question of classification is the question under consideration.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend decides what to say to that, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me for what purpose the information is required if it is not in order to form a view leading to a recommendation about classification? How is this information used? What is the purpose of it? What happens next?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think I mentioned that it was for the purpose of determining priorities. The Scheme will come into operation in the non-Scheme ports one after another. It is to determine which is the port which should
1214
be considered first, and then there will be a full investigation before a recommendation is made or not made on classification.
9.56 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we gradually unfold the mysteries of this Bill. I am not clear what is meant by the priorities in this case. I take it that, before priorities can be dealt with at all, there has to be designation of the area in which the port is situated under Clause 4. In other words, one has to know whether or not it is a dock area. It is only then that priorities would be relevant. It seems that the first step that has to be taken is to designate those areas in which the Dock Labour Scheme is to apply; in other words, the Dock Labour Scheme areas.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten us on this. I have not yet been able to fathom what the stages in this Bill are. Clause 4 talks of the Secretary of State making his proposals for the new Scheme, "as soon as may be". We ought to have some idea what, "as soon as may be" means in this connection. Is it anticipated that he will do it before these reports and statements under Clauses 6, 7 and 8 come in? It seems very germane to the consideration of what information is required at what stage.
I share the mystification of my noble friend Lord Sandford as to the purpose of this group of statements. One would almost have thought that the Government had somehow lost some of the ports and they were reporting, so to speak, round the country. It is curious that they seem to want to get information which, at the best, is going to be very sketchy and, at the worst, could be positively misleading. I do not see how they can determine priorities on the basis of one month's return. I think that the Government ought to look at this again.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a Report stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is such a thing as leave of the House, and I have asked a question.
Lord JACQUES: With the leave of the House, my Lords, I can only emphasise what I said; that it is intended that the Board shall have the facilities for making

1215
a survey of non-Scheme ports and the purpose of this return is to enable it to make that survey. It will be sizing up the problem and then, after that has been done, it can designate, investigate and recommend classification if it so concludes. The first step is to size up the whole problem and that is the intention of the return.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am doubtful whether I am taking a step forwards or backwards. If the statement in sub-section (3) means the arriving at some sort of priorities, may I ask the noble Lord—because I am rather at a loss to understand the purpose—the point in referring that statement to a trade union under sub-section (6)? We will be discussing this on a later Amendment, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain this in slightly more detail because there seems to be something of a clash here.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I suspect that this is designed to save money and time. The trade union has the power of veto under the Bill, although perhaps I should not mention that at this stage because I believe that the veto comes under Clause 8 rather than Clause 7. Presumably this provision is designed to inform the trade union so that it can make its submissions immediately. At this stage it is merely a general survey and much further research will be required before there is a decision whether or not to recommend classification.
Lord SANDFORD: The mystery grows deeper all the time, my Lords. Fortunately, I have an Amendment down to leave out Clause 7, which means that we can debate this matter later. If that does not succeed perhaps we shall have to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 7. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was right when he said to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the purpose of the statement—and it is a very crude
1216
statement—indicating what has happened in these ports in one particular month will be used as a sort of broad indication on which the Board will make up its mind as to which non-Scheme ports are surveyed first (which is a defensible and respectable answer), or he should have said, as he went on to say, that in addition to that it is somehow going to save money to refer it to a trade union at that early stage and that that trade union will then use that information as a sort of trigger to some power it has of vetoing something, presumably the survey. This is too bizarre even to contemplate.
I will leave it at that for now because fortunately, as I say, we have an Amendment to leave out Clause 7. We shall then be able to have a general review of what has been said. However, if that is not satisfactory we may have to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 7 and then, in Committee, thresh the whole thing out properly.
Lord JACQUES: That would be quite unreasonable, my Lords. I was asked for an explanation and I gave it. I explained that there was a misunderstanding; the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, assumed that this report was sought for the purposes of determining whether or not to recommend classification. I am giving an assurance that that is not its purpose. Its purpose is a preliminary survey to get a picture as a whole and to establish priorities.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I, in anticipation of withdrawing this Amendment, say that I do not know why the noble Lord made that assumption as to the reason why I was asking for this information? I did not know what it was all about and that was why I was asking for information. Perhaps we can come back to this matter when we discuss clause stand part. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Loading and unloading operations]:
10.6 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 23, after ("representations") insert ("to the Board").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37. This is needed to page 9, line 23, because it is not clear on the face of the Bill to whom those representations should be made. The general logical trend of Clause 7 is that we start off with a statement which has to be put in by every employer and this, as it were, goes up the line, gets referred to a trades union, then the Board has to deal with it and it eventually goes up to the Secretary of State. We know from the debate in Committee that this particular representation does not go on to the Secretary of State for him to bear in mind when he deals with the recommendation from the Board but goes back to the Board for them to take into account before the Board makes the recommendation to the Secretary of State.
It is possible to misunderstand this. One or other of my noble friends misunderstood it at the previous stage and assumed that the representation would go on to the Secretary of State. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who assured us that that was not the intention and that the representation went back to the Board. But it must be made clear in the Bill, and we would like to hear what noble Lords have to say about it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, this Amendment is unnecessary. In the context of the Bill it surely means that representations under Clause 7(6) must be to the Board. At that stage no report has been made to the Secretary of State, so the representations clearly at that stage are to the Board. I do not think that any additional words are necessary to make clear what is, I should have thought, already clear.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps this throws some light on the previous point about what the representations are likely to be about. I should have thought
1218
they were likely to be questioning the information given under subsection (4)(d),
"the name of any trade union which is concerned with the classification of the work.".
The rest is more or less factual. That is supposed to be factual also but would be the thing that would interest the trade unions. Having said that, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord that one would read that as meaning representations to the Board if one read it carefully. I am bound to say, however, that when I first read it I also made a mistake.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in view of that, and of what happened at Committee stage, I think it is a pity that the noble Lord cannot be persuaded to insert this Amendment in the Bill. It could not possibly do any harm. Two people have already made a mistake or been doubtful about it, and I should have thought that that was not very good going at this stage. When an enormous number of people have to start operating the Act, it may become quite serious, or at any rate lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. However, we will not make too much of it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 9, line 24, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment to see whether the Government have thought again about the basic time (let me put it that way) which ought to be allowed to the Board to make its report to the Secretary of State. I dealt with this matter in some detail at the Committee stage, and I showed that 4½ months were likely to be taken up by the preliminary stages, during which the information would be coming to the Board, trade unions would be informed and an opportunity would be given for them to make representations. That, then, leaves only 4½ months for the Board to compile their report, to make any visits that are necessary and to consult

1219
with the National Ports Council, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I should have thought that it was unnecessary to provide too tight a schedule on this. The longer you give, I think, the more likely you will be able to get in accurate information, particularly in cases of this kind. The likely-hood is that some statements may have to be referred back to ports because they are not in a correct form. So for the full time required before the Board would be able to report I should have thought 12 months was more appropriate than nine months. From the mechanism of working the Scheme, it is, I think, better to be on the generous side; and, as I say, I believe that the Government will get better results if they were a little more generous in the amount of time they allowed the Board to make its report to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government's position is that they believe that in most cases nine months will prove a sufficient period for this purpose. The intention of this clause is that the work of loading and unloading ships at non-Scheme ports and wharves should be considered quickly and brought under the new Scheme as soon as is reasonably possible. The period of nine months from the appointed day allows the Board six months to undertake its consultations and make its report. We think that reasonable, and that the existence of a deadline will ensure that proceedings do not become unnecessarily protracted. There will no doubt be a few cases where a report cannot be prepared within the nine months. In these cases the Secretary of State will be able to extend the period under Clause 7(6)(b).
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I appreciate that. One scrap of valuable information we have obtained from what the noble Lord has just told us is that the priorities are priorities for being brought into the new Scheme, and not priorities for classification of dock work. My Lords, we are getting on. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("would be") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather curious Amendment to make, but again it is intended to obtain some information from the Government. This, I think I am right in saying, is an Amendment which was made at Committee stage. The point here is:
"On receiving the statement the Board shall… recommend that the whole or any part of the work specified in the statement, so far as done at the premises … be classified for the future as dock work.".
Then the provision continues:
"the Board shall not so recommend if … the work is done at premises which would be outside a dock labour scheme area designated under subsection (2) of section 4 …".
If it had been designated already the Board would know whether or not it was outside a Dock Labour Scheme. If it has not been designated the Board would not know whether it is going to be and therefore "would be" would be inappropriate. I am not certain—and this is not a political point; it is rather a grammatical point—whether "premises", that is, one premises, is singular or plural. In order to make the matter clear that I was dealing with it in a single context, I put down "is", treating it collectively. That could be changed to "are" if it were thought to be more elegant or correct.
The point again is that what we want to know is at what stage the new Scheme to be made under Clause 4 is going to appear and how soon it will be before the Dock Labour Scheme areas are designated. If I am right in interpreting what the noble Lord said on the last Amendment, the Government are going to do this piecemeal—to designate areas one at a time or certainly piecemeal—and it is very difficult to see what the correct words would be to cover that point; for the Board could not know for certain whether the premises in question would be outside a Dock Labour Scheme area if the area had not been designated as a Dock Labour Scheme area. If it had been, it would know and the right word is

1221
"is", and not "would be" or "is" or "are". But I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us something of the time-scale. We cannot consider this Bill and get it into perspective without knowing the time-scale. Perhaps he could tell us in more precise terms what "as soon as may be" in Clause 4 is intended to mean.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord's second thoughts were best. Estate agents say, "These premises are desirable" and not "This premises is desirable".
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I would add to that, before the noble Lord answers, the substance of the question that it may be that "premises" like "assets" is a singular word but it is not an elegant word. Would not a better form of the Amendment be simply to say, "premises outside", obviating the whole question of whether it "is" or "are" but not "would be"?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is an Amendment to a previous Opposition Amendment made to the Bill at Committee stage. The previous Amendment was accepted by the Government as consequential to those Amendments to Clause 4 which removed the cargo-handling zone from the Bill. As this Amendment does no more than modify the Opposition's own wording, the Government would not wish to resist it. However, the Amendment would seem to create something of a nonsense. It would have the clear effect of preventing any work from being recommended for classification under this clause unless the place where it was being done was already within a Dock Labour Scheme area. But Clause 4(2) says that Dock Labour Scheme areas are areas for which the Scheme has been brought into force by order of the Secretary of State. The Scheme would therefore have to be applied in advance to all areas where it seemed possible work might be recommended for classification, even if none eventually was classified. The Secretary of State would have to decide what he thought he might want to do about an area so that the Board could make a recommendation about whether the
1222
Scheme should be applied. That would not be a sensible arrangement. I advise the Opposition not to accept this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I shall have to look again at what the noble Lord said. The one thing we agree on is that these words are in the Bill as a result of an Opposition Amendment. It is difficult to get any inkling from what the noble Lord said as to the answer to my question on timing. It looks as if, by and large, most of the classification decisions as to premises in particular areas will be taken before the new Scheme is made, at any rate before a particular area is designated as a dock area. That seems to follow from one of the things he said. But, nevertheless, there will be scope for classification after that. This does not bring us any nearer the time-scale. I regret that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.22 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Confederation of British Industry regarding the handling of food and other perishable goods;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that a similar Amendment was moved by me at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was cavalier with it. Looking at the time on that occasion, lie may have been hungry as it was rather late after lunch. I was certainly hungry. He made two points: one, the Amendment was unnecessary because the CBI was going to be consulted about the composition of the Board and there would be people on the Board who would speak for the CBI. It was not necessary to ensure that they were consulted under the heading of subsection (9). Secondly, he made the same play about the fact that there might be subjects which might not be suitable for other employers' bodies which I had included. I did not entirely accept that point for the reasons given at the time.
I have accepted that it is probably reasonable for the CBI to represent all employers' organisations, notwithstanding

1223
the fact that food in particular is perhaps the most important commodity that passes through the ports, because we all have to eat. Therefore, I have modified my Amendment considerably. I hope it appeals more to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. On the question of duplication, because the CBI has a say in the composition of the Board, I suggest that duplication already occurs in the Bill as put forward by the Government.
It will be noted that subsection (9) says:
"they shall in particular consult—"(a) the National Ports Council …".
If your Lordships would turn to Clause 2(5) you will find this:
"the Board shall maintain regular consultation with the National Ports Council".
So there is a certain duplication there which I should have thought was no more of a duplication than that which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was pointing out earlier. I do not really see that it matters if an important body has to be consulted. Where bodies are required to make decisions, perhaps that is another matter; but if it is just consultation, as I endeavoured to say at Committee stage—I will not go into further detail about it now—the question of food supplies of the country is very important and the Confederation of British Industry can be relied upon to look after the interests of the food trades. Indeed, they have given me an assurance that of course they will consult the trade associations concerned if they themselves are consulted under this proposed Amendment. It would therefore seem to me not unreasonable to include them in this subsection.
Finally, perhaps I might remind your Lordships of the point I made during Committee stage, which is that if they were consulted they would be representing in fact the only people who have the technical experience of running the industries which are concerned with the goods that have to be imported and exported. I do not know whether I should begin to talk about something else for a moment but, as I am just coming to my conclusion, perhaps I could have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—
Lord JACQUES: You have never lost it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am glad to hear that: how splendid. I might have lost my attention in the circumstances. But if I might just come back to my thread, there is in fact the important point that the other bodies which compulsorily have to be consulted under the subsection are themselves official bodies without specialist knowledge of the problems of the goods which have to be exported and imported—in particular, the handling of food and other perishable goods. So it would seem to me there is a special case and that this time perhaps the Government might accept this Amendment as being reasonable in the circumstances. if it pleases the House, I would be happy to consider with this Amendment No. 40, Amendment No. 50, which is very similar. I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I shall try to save time by speaking to Amendments Nos.40 and 50 at the same time. The effect of Amendment No. 40 is to require the Board always to consult the CBI under Clauses 7 and 8 on procedures in the way in which the Amendment indicates. Similar Amendments were tabled at the Committee stage, except that the requirement then was also to consult the Food and Drug Industries Council and the National Cold Storage Federation—
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, it is the Food and Drink Industries Council.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The Government's position has not changed. Clause 7(9) and Clause 8(7) require the Board, for the purposes of their recommendation, to consult such persons as appear to them to be concerned with the subject matter. There seems to us to be no reason to single out food as a commodity for which there should be consultation with the CBI. Why food and food only? A further point is that the amount of food that is likely to be affected, so far as non-Scheme ports are concerned, is about 10 per cent. of the food of this country. About 50 per cent. of our food is imported, but 80 per cent. comes through the Scheme ports, so that a spread of the Scheme to the non-Scheme ports would affect only 10 per cent. of the food supply. I would also point out that the Amendment is also unsatisfactory, in

1225
that it provides for some consultation with the employers' side but not with the employees' side. That, we think, is undesirable.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, perhaps I might answer the noble Lord's questions before we conclude on this Amendment. I suggest that perhaps he is rather over-simplifying the case in trying to separate out the non-Scheme ports, the percentages of food and so on, because are we not, under this clause and the later one, talking about consultation with regard to the classification of jobs as dock jobs?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, what we are largely concerned about in Clause 8 is classifying as dock work that which has left the docks and is being done elsewhere as a result of containerisation.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Yes, my Lords; but not necessarily containerisation. It is the classification of jobs as dock jobs, and this is by no means limited to the non-Scheme ports. It will certainly apply in the non-Scheme ports, but part of our worries is that certainly in the Bill as originally written, though it is in much better shape now, there was all kinds of scope for all kinds of jobs, not just relating to containers, to be classified as dock jobs, and this applied to existing ports, to the hinterland above existing ports and it still applies to half a mile outside existing ports. All kinds of jobs could fall within the various classifications which the Bill now has, and there will be even more if it is ruined by another place when it goes back there. So, altogether, I do not think it is fair to imply that we are talking about only 10 per cent. of the food imports, because that is what goes through the non-Scheme ports. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is almost by way of being a red herring, and perhaps he should rap his advisers over the knuckles for suggesting such an approach to your Lordships' House.
So let us think for the moment about all the jobs that there might be in existing dock areas in the non-Scheme ports and the like, and consider why it is that I have sought to single out food and perishable goods—but particularly food—for special consideration, and for the CBI to be the agent for consideration. The reason is that we all have to eat, as I have said many times,
1226
and 50 per cent. of our food, on each and every day in every year, come, into this country through the ports. Therefore, we find ourselves in the position that if there is any form of an embargo on a major scale upon our importing and exporting we shall starve. It is as simple as that and it is very serious. I do not suppose that it will actually happen, but think what a weapon this is if a fair amount of safeguards are not contained in the Bill to try to make sure that a blackmailing power is not granted to relatively few people. It is the power that is important rather than whether it would be used.
This is one of the underlying threats in the Bill and why, in particular, we need to safeguard our food supplies. It is because of that threat that we believe the Confederation of British Industry ought to be an obligatory consultant when it comes to the two stages—both the report and, under Clause 8, the actual classification of dock jobs—because they represent people who will be able to give practical advice as to the effects of making this or that job into a dock job.
I would strongly recommend to the Government that the people who, in the end, stand to lose the most by not having the necessary regulatory powers contained within the Bill are the Government themselves. When it comes to threats of blackmail and stopping the food supplies, we shall find that it is the Government who are losing the battle, not anybody else. It is the Government's power to govern which in the last resort could be under threat from the Bill. We have to make sure that there are enough safeguards to prevent the Government's powers to govern from being threatened by this otherwise perhaps innocuous Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.36 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 10, line 37, leave out from ("that") to ("have") in line 38 and insert ("they").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 follows an earlier Government Amendment to Clause 6 by giving others, as well as employers and the unions concerned, one month within which to make representations. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, again we are grateful for this Amendment as it follows very much the lines of the previous Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 42:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, deals with Amendment No. 42, may I direct his attention to the Companion to the Standing Orders in which we read near to the foot of page 123:
"An amendment to leave out a Clause or Schedule is not desirable on Report if the purpose underlying the amendment is to initiate a general debate, rather than a genuine desire to leave out the Clause or Schedule".
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I absolutely agree. That is why so far I have done it only once. However, I am very glad that I did. While working on the Bill over the weekend I had a hunch that we might be left with one or two unresolved mysteries, but I must confess I had no idea that the mystery would deepen as much as it has. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord that this is a very undesirable practice and, had we had more time, I should have framed an Amendment instead, which is a much better way to proceed.
I do not want to have a very wide-ranging debate, but I want to probe the mystery that has arisen from some of the answers which the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. We must start by going to the overall purpose of the clause. So far I have rested my understanding of it on the Explanatory Memorandum to which I shall draw your Lordships' attention?
"Clause 7 requires employers, who are paid in the course of their business to load cargo into sl ps or unload cargo from ships within the cargo handling zone"—
that is the dock labour area now—
"during a period of a month beginning on the appointed day, to give details of such work and the names of relevant trade unions to the Board within 3 months of that day. There are specified exceptions"—
1228
and we have debated some of those—
"including work in a port where the 1967 Scheme is in force. Within 9 months of the appointed day the Board is required to report to the Secretary of State whether it recommends that such work"—
that is presumably work of the same kind as that referred to in the statement—
"should be classified as dock work."
It was on the basis of that statement, with all its shortcomings, that I, and I think my friends, had assumed that a final recommendation would be made as to whether the work to which the statement referred should be classified. Therefore I regarded Clause 1 as one of the clauses which would lead in the end to classification and a recommendation to the Secretary of State accordingly. What is the purpose of the statement if it is not the basis for classifying work? The noble Lord has now said that it will serve in some way to indicate the priorities by which ports are to be surveyed in more detail prior to being introduced—one after the other, I suppose—into the overall dock labour scheme. That is the impression he left me with.
The third question that follows is: If the work is not to be classified on the basis of the statement—and in the course of his remarks he has said that that is not the case, despite what it says in the Explanatory Memorandum—then we want to know on what information the decision to classify the work is to be taken. How is it to be arrived at? And, if it is not to be done as part of the machinery under Clause 7, under which clause is it to be done? If it is to be done under some other clause, does the statement referred to in Clause 7 play any other part different from that indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum or different from what the noble Lord has said about giving an indication of priorities?
The fourth question which we need to probe is what is meant by the trade unions vetoing something? What can they veto in this clause or anywhere else in the Bill? I hope the House will agree with me that these are mysterious matters which ought to be resolved now, or, if that is asking too much, in correspondence which will have to go into the Official Report between now and the next stage. I beg to move.
Viscount KEMSLEY: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend

1229
in this case. I, too, have listened to all the debates on the various Amendments moved on this clause. I started by being very mystified as to what it was all about. I do not think I have learned a lot since, but trying to trace it through I found that starting, as it were, in subsection (2) one finds:
"… the employer … shall send to the Board a written statement …"
and then in subsection (4) one finds reference to the particulars required in the statement as to the number of individuals employed during the month. And then on to subsection (6) which says:
"On receiving the statement the Board shall"—
(a) invite unions to make representations, and (b) recommend that the whole or part of the work be classified. If they receive the statement and invite the union to make representations, surely the representations might be made to the employer who originated the statement and not to the Board, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he said that the Amendment moved by my noble friend was no longer required.
Secondly, as my noble friend has just said, when the statement is received by the Board, it decides what work shall be classified. There is no mention there of the priorities or full investigation which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, indicated earlier, and I should like to have some information about it.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will first deal with the main issue, which is to leave out Clause 7. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the special procedures for ensuring that non-scheme ports could, where appropriate, quickly be brought within the new scheme.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I really think this would be a waste of time. I clearly indicated that it was not my intention to leave out the clause.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should have thought that the purpose was under the Standing Orders—Standing Orders makes that clear.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord of course read that part of the
1230
Standing Orders which supported his case, but if he had read on he would have found that it said:
"Such an amendment is not, however, out of order; it may, indeed, he appropriate when, for instance, a Lord wishes to learn the outcome of an undertaking given in Committee".
That was what I wanted to do, and I thought that I had made it clear.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will deal with the points raised by the noble Lord when we were discussing Amendment No. 36. Subsection (6) requires the Board to tell the union which is named in subsection (4)(d) the contents of the statement so that the union can comment. Under Clause 4, the Board is responsible for issuing the first notice to both employers and unions, indicating what work is under consideration and what is carried out. The statement under Clause 7 is intended to fulfil the purpose of a first notice; in other words, to make clear exactly what is under consideration and where it is to be carried out.
There should be no argument about the information in subsection (4)(a), (b) and (d) going to the union. In the case of subsection (4)(c), we take the view that the union recognised by the employer would be aware of what the employer has said, so that he could make representations, for example, that the manpower situation in the month is untypical. The point of Clause 7(4)(c) is that it enables the Board to determine priorities and should lead employers and unions to say whether the figures in that month are typical. It will not matter in large non-scheme ports; it will only matter in the smaller ports. I think that clears up some of the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I really cannot say that that is in the least satisfactory. I asked the noble Lord four questions; I have not really received answers to any of them. The noble Lord has clarified a little of what my noble friend Lord Drumablyn asked before. I am afraid that this means we will have to raise the matter in some detail and put down a series of Amendments to probe each of the points when we get to the Third Reading. If the noble Lord would like to help me by writing to me on these points, I should be most grateful, because then the time we spend on this clause on Third Reading will be put to better use.

1231
I must say that having listened to the discussion, and having ploughed through this clause, I am not at all sure that a more orderly way of dealing with it would not be to recommit the clause to Committee, and then we could have the kind of debate it seems to me we need to have. That is something I will think about between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Cargo-handling operations in general]:
10.51 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 5, leave out from beginning to second ("work") and insert—
("( ) Where more than one half of all the hours worked by persons engaged in the handling of cargo on the premises in any continuous period of twelve months within the preceding five years have been spent on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this particular Amendment we come to Clause 8, which as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was saying, deals with cargo handling. The noble Lord thought that this was particularly apposite to work that had left the dockside and moved inland. I think that is a paraphrase of what the noble Lord said, but his meaning was clear.
My Lords, the Amendment that we are now discussing follows one which I moved on Committee stage, and as noble Lords who were with us then will be aware, it concerns work on premises which the Board shall not classify as that which must be done by registered dock workers. This is the vexed question of premises where there is what we would call a split labour force, where some handle cargo coming from overseas, either by roll-on or roll-off vehicle, or by inter-modal container, and where we find some employees handling home-produced goods.
Many of the fears expressed in respect of the Bill arise from work done in substitution for work at present or in the past few years carried out by registered dock workers at the port side. Noble Lords will notice that the Amendment attempts to give a definition of what we
1232
were seeking in a similar Amendment which I am afraid was not correctly drafted on Committee stage. It appears fairly reasonable where a small proportion of the work done is quantified in man hours, and is classifiable, that the major part of the work carried out on such premises should not be classified, but we cannot see that the figures would require to be taken in absurd detail in order to determine the basis for whether the work might or might not be classified.
My Lords, the Amendment itself does not affect any work which has been transferred from dock areas, so we hope we can discount fears from registered dock workers. The Amendment is concerned with the inland warehouses and stores where the employees are not, and never have been, registered dock workers.
My Lords, at the earlier stage I pointed out the fears of those unions who represent employees other than dock workers or transport drivers. There are also fears among employers at the inland depots that their existing agreements and practices, and the flexibility of their workforce, may be jeopardised by the Bill. Whatever has been said in this House on earlier stages of the Bill, these fears continue to be expressed to us by employers who already have satisfactory arrangements for dealing with a split labour force working on their premises. We consider this is a reasonable Amendment. It also seeks to define more clearly what we moved and intended to mean on Committee. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have not a long brief, although it is quite substantial, and on the second page I have a last sentence. The last sentence is that: "The Opposition wish to press the Amendment; the Government will not, however, seek to oppose it". I am prepared to leave it at that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.56 p.m
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of moving this Amendment is to find out just how mischievous this particular clause is. This word "other"

1233
which I am moving to leave out comes in the sentence which says:
"The Board may under that Schedule"—
that is, Schedule 4—
"determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work—
(a) is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …"
What I want to know is just exactly what "other work" means and what are the limitations placed here. In this clause we are setting down the main conditions for the classification of dock work. This is laid down first of all in Clause 5(4) where it is said:
"… the work that may be classified is any which—

(a) is done or to be done at premises in a dock labour scheme area; and

(b)is within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule".

Part I defines work that may be classified as dock work, and Part II excludes work and makes it not classifiable as dock work. That subsection starts with the disruptive words, "Subject to this Act". In other words, you are setting out a principle and immediately qualifying it. Here again Clause 8 starts up very nearly, but not quite the same—I do not know why it is different—" Subject to the provisions of this Act", and goes on:
"and in particular to subsection (2) below the Board may, in the case of any work done or to be done at premises in a dock labour scheme area and within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule, report to the Secretary of State with a recommendation that the work, or some specified part of it, so far as done at those premises, be classified for the future as dock work".
That lays down the principle of what may be done "subject to the provisions of this Act", and here we have what I think is one of the most objectionable provisions in the whole Act, the one I have read out. It refers to, "work which is done or is to be done by way of substitution for other work". What I want to know is whether "other" means different work. Must that work in all cases still come under Part I of Schedule 3, or is that somehow or other made invalid also by the qualifying words, "subject to the provisions of this Act"? We do not know where we are when you state principles of this kind and then immediately start to take away what has been made clear.
Noble Lords are well aware of our real difficulty here. We simply cannot understand why, when an employer has shown enterprise and initiative n finding ways of reducing transport and shipping costs, he should then be penalised in this way by having the work done on his premises classified as dock work when it was precisely because it was impracticable in the ports, because the difficulties were so great, that he simply had to go elsewhere, and moreover when he showed the initiative of adopting modern methods. For that reason, the system that he has established is going to be disrupted by classification as dock work for work which is done elsewhere—I should not have minded if it were done on the same premises—which has absolutely nothing to do with the work previously done by registered dock workers.
The point I am trying to make here from the point of view of clarity of definition is that the Board car make a recommendation if it appears to them that the work is,
"done by way of substitution for ether work previously done by registered dock workers …"
This, I take it, means different work done by registered dock workers. How can anybody say that a particular job on a particular premises is being done in substitution for some other work which at some time in the past was done elsewhere? I cannot understand it. You would have to identify the particular work done, the particular work for which it was being substituted, before you could operate this at all.
I disagree wholly with the purposes of this, but I do not believe that it will work unless the law is stretched considerably. I think that the noble Lord owes us an explanation. I suggest that the word "other" might be left out altogether, because I do not think it adds anything whatsoever to the definition. I should like to be assured that it means different work, and I want to be assured that it must at any rate be work which is defined under Part I of Schedule 3. My last point is that I simply do not see now you can identify what has been substituted for what. I beg to move.
11.4 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I would support what the noble Lord, Lord

1235
Drumalbyn, has said, and put a specific point by way of example to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. Work which may be classified under Part I of Schedule 3 as dock work includes:
"… recording the time spent in handling, loading or unloading cargo."
May we assume, as is not improbable, that at some time in the future that manual job will be replaced by computers? Am I right in thinking that under the provision as drafted, registered dock workers would have a right to the work of the computer programmers and would be entitled to the vacancies as and when there were shortages of existing computer-programmers? That seems to be exactly what the provision means.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the omission of the word "other" would make no difference to the sense of the clause. If work is done in substitution, then the work for which it substitutes was necessarily "other" work, whether or not the word is used. The use of the word "other" helps make clear that there is a difference between the work which the Board is considering for a possible recommendation and the work which it is in substitution for. That deals with the use of the word. I think I can best deal with the matter in principle by answering the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, because in so doing I will cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
The deletion of the word "other" would not in the Government's view affect such questions as whether skilled engineering work on complex machinery might be considered to be in substitution for work done by registered dock workers, in cases where that machinery replaced manual cargo-handling. This point was raised in Committee, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, whose remarks can be found at column 384 of Hansard. Because the matter was raised, we have given it special consideration. The Government's view is that if the work is of a sort requiring specialised skills which registered dock workers would clearly never have been expected to do, had it arisen in the previous situation, then it cannot in any meaningful sense be considered to be done in substitution. In other words, we do not think that the
1236
work of an engineer who was looking after the maintenance of, say, a cold store, could be regarded in any way as work which was in substitution for manual work which was previously done by a docker as handling. I would say the same about the clerical work mentioned by the noble Lord. Recording by computer would obviously be in substitution for handwork that was done by, say, the tally clerk. In our view, work on computers requires a skill and is the kind of work that is never required of a registered docker and therefore could not be regarded as work which was in substitution. The ultimate result was in substitution but not the work itself; the work was entirely different.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, is there anything in the Bill—I do not think there is—which provides that the work is to be regarded as being in substitution only provided no special skill is required?
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords, there is nothing in the Bill to that effect, but in our view it is not work in substitution if the work is entirely different. The work is different. It is the effect that is the same and not the work that is the same.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for taking so seriously the point we raised in Committee about this subject. I agree with what he says about the intention of the Government in saying that it should not be in substitution, but I am still not happy—nor is my noble and learned friend Lord Wigoder, in view of the question he asked—that the phrase "work as it stands" means what Lord Jacques tells us it means. It seems to me that, "in substitution" as it stands must mean that work which is in substitution is work which is done "in the place of". While I am entirely in agreement with the meaning that the noble Lord has given to it, I very much doubt whether that is a proper interpretation of the wording as it stands. Could he therefore look at the wording again. We are in agreement as to what we would like it to mean but I very much doubt that it means that.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Baroness has made. We will certainly have a look at this matter and will write to the noble Baroness

1237
and to other Members of the House who have taken part—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We will look in particular to see whether any qualification is required in order to meet the point. I can assure the House that there is no difference on this issue between those who have spoken on this Amendment and the Government.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must make one comment on what the noble Lord has said; that is, that we all know that in this particular field the intentions of Government can be over-ruled from outside Government. It may very well be that a strong trade union will come along and say, "We think this computer work ought to be classified as dock work", however unreasonable it may seem. How can you distinguish? Where will you draw the line? There is a real difficulty here and it would be unsafe in the Government's own interest to leave this matter to the discretion of the Minister. He has been talking in the course of this debate today about pressures being brought on people before. Pressures can be brought on the Government, too, and they may be forced to change their intentions. Having said that, may I say that the noble Lord has been using the word, "different" in regard to work instead of the word "other". I very nearly left out "other" and put down "different". I wonder whether he might wish to consider this, especially as "other work" is used in another context on the next page of the Bill. Perhaps he could have a look at that in the meantime.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I will make two remarks: first, we will certainly look at that. But, secondly, would he agree that he has stated the case for the Bill? He says that a trade union might take it into its head that computer work was in substitution and act accordingly. Might I point out to him that it can do that now and under the present law there is no proper procedure. We have provided the proper procedure. There has to be a recommendation from the national Board to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State has to make an order. We are trying to get things working smoothly and, if ever I heard a case for the Bill, the noble Lord gave us it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think I can treat that as an interruption because I have not yet withdrawn the Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that what we are trying to do is two things: first, we are trying to make the Bill better; and, secondly, we are trying to understand what the Government intends by the Bill. That is what we arc trying to do at the moment. What we are saying in this case is: "All right, the Government have provided a better machinery here; let them make it better still." That is all. Can they look at it from that point of view? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.14 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("both") and insert ("more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord will have a note about this Amendment. It is perfectly clear. It will be within the recollection of the House that we were going rather fast at this time and somebody said, "Consequential" and an Amendment was passed which ought not to have been passed. This Amendment puts it right. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, does the first line and a half of subsection (6) really serve any purpose except to confuse, even as amended? Would it not be better to leave out that first line and a half and simply say:
"The Board shall not make a recommendation without considering …",
and then follow the wording of subsection (6)(a), (b) and (c)? I think that first line and a half of the subsection is only confusing.
Lord JACQUES: May I make two remarks? First, this is a matter for Committee stage, not Report stage. Nevertheless, we will look at the point and I will do something about it or write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.16 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) the cost and efficient performance of the work;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are three Amendments here which are fairly closely linked, but I think this one is independent. They all have to do with the cost of the work which it is proposed to classify. Among the things the Board has to consider is
"whether classification of the work would adversely affect"
a number of things. One thing conspicuously missing from the things they have to consider whether classification of the work would adversely affect is the cost and efficient performance of the work itself. It goes on thereafter to specify that the Board should consider,
"whether classification of the work would adversely affect … the efficient performance of other work done at the same premises",
but what about the work itself? Obviously, I think it should have to consider this and take it into consideration in making its recommendations. I beg to move.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should very much like to support this Amendment, if only because we had the astonishing statement made earlier this evening that efficient performance, as that term is normally understood, is not something which is the purpose of this Bill. We from the Opposition Benches should like to stress that efficient performance still must remain one of the purposes of the reorganised docks.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is to require the Board to consider whether classification of the work and the consideration for classification would adversely affect its cost and efficient performance. Whether classification would adversely affect the cost as well as the efficient performance of other work not being considered for classification but carried out at the same premises—
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? We were specifically not taking these Amendments together. I
1240
rather think he is wishing to take them together. Would it not be better to dispose of them separately?
Lord JACQUES: I was proposing to speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, which in our view have a very similar purpose.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have moved only one, and I did not ask the House to consider the others in conjunction with it.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, a series of similar Amendments were tabled to Clause 7 and to this clause at Committee stage. In replying to the discussion on Clause 7, I said that we would be prepared to consider the matter in relation to Clause 8, but not Clause 7. I repeated this when the Clause 8 Amendments were formally put.
The Government have considered this matter carefully but are unable to advise the House to accept any of these Amendments for the following reasons. First, the Amendments would direct the Board to consider whether classification would adversely affect "the cost of the work". What exactly is meant by the phrase? The cost of the work is determined not only by labour costs but also by the over-heads such as interest charges on fixed installations and machinery and also by the level of profits. It is probably not the intention of the movers of the Amendment that the Board should go into such matters or to require it to consider whether, if the application of the scheme seemed likely to increase costs, the employers' profit margins should be reduced so as to ensure that costs were not adversely affected.
We have also tried to consider what particular aspects of costs the movers of the Amendment might have in mind. Whenever the term, "efficient performance" is used in the Bill and it has rightly been pointed out that this is closely linked to the question of cost, the Board's attention is directed towards particular matters which may affect efficient performance. Thus, in Clause 7(7)(ii) before it was amended, the engagement of a permanent labour force and similarly in Clause 8(6)(b) and (c). These tests are most important and we think it right that they should be clear and leave the Board in no doubt as to what is expected of it.

1241
Reading through the debates gave no clue as to exactly what the Opposition had in mind and what tests they thought appropriate. If the Opposition simply had in mind a generalised sentiment that the Board should not forget about or ignore the question of cost, we think that any Amendments on these lines are unnecessary because Clause 8(6) directs the Board to consider,
"all other matters appearing to them to be relevant".
It is open to the employer and the unions in their representations to give precise examples of how they think classification would affect a particular aspect of all the matters comprehended in the term "cost". It really does the House of Lords' reputation as a revising Chamber no good to seek to include imprecise exhortations of the kind which are in the Amendment.
11.23 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Really, my Lords, I think it does the reputation of the noble Lord's advisers no good at all to suggest that he addresses us in those terms. Costs are well and easily identifiable by those who have to deal with costs and expenses day by day. There is no need to spell out in a Bill what you mean by "cost". There were various aspects of costs which the noble Lord told us about, some of which were relevant and a number of which might not be; but it is perfectly easy for any competent person—and one imagines that the Board, if themselves not competent, will have competent people to serve them—to identify the costs of particular work under different circumstances.
It is quite wrong, I would suggest, and indeed almost beneath the dignity of Parliament to spell out how costing should be done. It is a technical exercise which can perfectly easily be described in the terms in which this Amendment puts it. As to the question of "efficient performance" of work, this admittedly might be, in some cases, a subjective judgment. It is difficult to anticipate, when you examine a job in the abstract, exactly what, in particular circumstances, efficient performance will mean. But it should be perfectly possible, again for a competent person, to make a judgment on these lines.
1242
It is necessary for the whole question of cost and efficiency to be particularly included in those items to which the Board's attention is directed. When he answered my noble friend, the noble Lord was almost complaining that the Board should have its mind directed in this direction. He said that they should consider in particular the beginning of subsection (6) as well as other matters appearing to them to be relevant. He implied that, if it was important, they would deal with it, anyhow. Then in another way he was saying that it is not important under this clause, and so therefore it is almost wicked to include it. That was the impression. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
The fact of the matter is that any work at any time must be seen against a cost and efficiency background. It is a fundamental for assessing whether work should be done at all, let alone who should do it. It seems to me ludicrous to suggest that it is wrong to include it in this clause. It is also wrong to suggest that it cannot be taken into account in the terms of this clause in a sensible way by reasonably competent people. As he has had to do this, I am sure the noble Lord understands exactly what I am saying. I suggest that the noble Lord thinks again before providing the same answer to the Amendments which follow. Perhaps, in the meantime, he can consider whether this Amendment is reasonable and do what seems to be sensible and agree with us that it should be accepted.
11.27 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I started the proceedings on this stage by complimenting the noble Lord on the strenuous efforts he has been putting into meeting the requirements of the House. I am still full of admiration for what he and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, have done in the circumstances. He had not seen any of these Amendments until this morning. The fact that he has been able to answer them as well as he has is greatly to the credit of him and his Department. But from about the end of Clause 7—and certainly now—we have reached the point where I suspect that neither his Department nor the noble Lord have had the time to get to the bottom of what we are dealing with.

1243
Maybe we should continue for a little longer; there is an understanding to go on until midnight. I do not think we can regard his answer as a satisfactory one. When the noble Lord reads this debate he will see perfectly well what we are getting at when we talk about costs. I mentioned one of them when dealing with Amendment No. 21; it is the cost of bearing a share of the 5,000 surplus men—most of whom are unfit—whom every employer of registered dock labour has to take on. That is one of the costs. There are many others which are simple to understand if somebody has had the time to address their mind to the Bill. I do not think any of us have had time to do this Bill justice. I doubt whether we are serving a useful purpose in going on much longer. We will do the best we can if this is what is wanted.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has been so courteous so far in dealing with Amendments that I am sorry he was provided at this stage with such an appalling brief. I have every sympathy with his advisers, because they have had a terrible time. I think their nerve must be beginning to crack at this point. When they had a thoroughly impossible case to defend, they committed the obvious error of attacking the opposing attorney. I think we shall have to come back to this later. It is a most unsatisfactory situation. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has absolutely torn to shreds the reply given by the noble Lord. I think the best thing here is to look at the other Amendments as a whole to see whether we cannot co-ordinate them in an effective way at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.31 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 12, line 15, after ("the") insert ("cost or")
Page 12, line 20, at end insert ("the cost or efficient performance of the work; or
(iii)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it would be to the convenience of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos.47 and 48 together. At Committee stage I moved these two Amendments in
1244
conjunction with others which attempted to amend Clause 7. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in replying to Amendment No. 46, referred to these two Amendments. At Committee stage, the Amendments relating to Clause 7 were accepted, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out—
Lord JACQUES: The noble Lord is mistaken, my Lords. The Amendments relating to Clause 7 were not accepted: they were taken to a Division.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I apologise. They were taken to a Division and are now in the Bill. Those pertaining to Clause 8 were withdrawn because the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out in, I think, column 721 of the Official Report during Committee stage, that there were far stricter tests so far as costs were concerned which would have to be applied in Clause 8. He took great trouble to point out that he was prepared to look at the question of costs on this clause. Indeed, he gave us his answer earlier in reply to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn over Amendment No. 46. I was going to ask the noble Lord what attitude the Government would take over costs and costefficiency, as they are crucial to this part of the Bill. However, the noble Lord gave us a fairly firm answer as to the Government's attitude to these concepts.
So far as cost and cost-efficiency are concerned, these are matters that the Board "shall consider". The problem of the port industry is mainly one of cost and cost-efficiency, not forgetting that there are other problems which cannot be quantified in money or measurable terms. We consider that the provisions of Clause 8(6)(c) have a major bearing on costs and finance. How else can any indication of efficiency, which is written into the Bill, be given or even quantified?
I am at a loss to understand, as also was my noble friend Lord Mottistone earlier, how work could be deemed to be efficient without any indication of how this could be measured. Efficiency is not merely some nebulous concept. Furthermore, we believe it would be a damaging blow to classification of dock work if this process were to lead to a measurable reduction of cost-effectiveness in respect of other work which would not be classified in any circumstances at all.

1245
Here I raise the same point which was raised earlier when speaking to Amendment No. 43 regarding the proportion of work done where there is a labour force which is split, with some performing work which is classified.
The same points are relevant here. Noble Lords will be aware of the strength of the provisions in subsection (6), where it is stated what the Board shall consider. Paragraph (a) deals with casual work, which we do not dispute; paragraph (b) deals with creating and maintaining an adequate labour force; and paragraph (c) is vital, because it deals with the effect of classification on the whole work force at a port or other premises. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, hoped to be able to tell us whether he had had an opportunity for considering the points which I raised in Committee. I have put down these Amendments as he bade me do in Committee, and I now wonder whether he can give me any cause for hope, particularly in view of what he said on Amendment No. 46. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, at the Committee stage I said, particularly when we were discussing a similar Amendment to Clause 7, that in our opinion the question of efficient performance was a matter for the Board, and it was right that it should be laid down in the Bill that the Board should give proper attention to the efficient performance of the work, which is done in this clause. I went on to say that the question of cost was a much more difficult matter and, in our view, was not one which could be handled by the Board. The question of cost, and the bearing upon the overall results of the business concerned, was a matter which should be considered by the Secretary of State rather than by the Board. We felt that the Board was equipped to deal with the question of efficient performance of the work, but not with the technical question of cost.
I also pointed out that it may well be that the employers concerned would not feel inclined to give information as to their costs and results to the Board, bearing in mind that the Board will consist mainly of employers and employees in similar businesses. We felt that it was much more appropriate, if representations were to be made on costs, that they should be made to the Secretary of
1246
State and full facilities are given in the Bill for representations to be made to him. We think that, while the Board should take into account efficient performance, any representation on costs should be made to the Secretary of State who will be able to treat the matter in confidence. The information will never be available to competitive businesses, and that is the most practical method. We feel that in the ultimate object there is no difference between us, but there is a substantial difference in the procedure which should be followed.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am a little confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has just said, because he got me in a muddle over Clause 7. He has told us what he said about Clause 7, but we are now discussing Amendments to Clause 8. In column 720, the noble Lord said:
"When we were dealing with Clause 7 I went out of my way to point out that the Bill took a different attitude towards loading and unloading in Clause 7 and other cargo handling in Clause 8."
The noble Lord went on to say:
"Arising out of that, I am prepared to look at the whole question of costs in Clause 8, but not in Clause 7. But so far as Clause 8 is concerned, I am quite prepared to look at the whole question of whether the costs cannot be introduced and if this matter cannot be, I am quite prepared to let the noble Lord know …".—[Official Report, 15/10/76].
It seems to me that this is slightly different from what the noble Lord has just said, and I would ask him to reconsider it in order to find out whether or not there has been a slight misunderstanding regarding Clauses 7 and 8.
As to the question of the advantage of referring everything to the Secretary of State so that there is no question of rivalry between corn panics, competent cost accountants can work on jobs per se without necessarily having to go into the details of what individual companies have in their accounts. In this kind of exercise may I suggest to the noble Lord that he could stick by what he said at the Committee stage and allow these Amendments, which involve costs, to Clause 8. It seems to me that they fit the line of thought of the noble Lord at the Committee stage.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I said that we were prepared to look at it. We have

1247
looked at it and our conclusion is the one that I gave to the House a few moments ago.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Oh!
11.42 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am tempted to reiterate that comment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone because the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, gave us various indications at the Committee stage which we were pleased to receive. I accept that the noble Lord has considered the matter and has given us his opinion at this stage, but he went on to speak about efficiency. I mentioned in my comments on the two Amendments that efficiency is written into the Bill. The noble Lord believes that the Secretary of State will be able to deal with the practical aspects, but I submit that it will be the port employers and employees who also will be able to deal, in a far more rational and practical way, with costs and cost-efficiency. I do not see why there should be any particular secrecy about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is less than fair with many of the port employers and employees whose main object (and I believe that it is the object of us all) is to see that the port industry in this country becomes efficient. However, it is no good putting something which I referred to as "nebulous" into the Bill and just saying the industry will be efficient without giving any indication of how to achieve efficiency or how to measure it. Without some "teeth" being given to paragraph (c) I think that the paragraph as drafted is entirely nebulous. It may mean well, but that is a very damning phrase and is totally meaningless. However, I accept that the noble Lord believes that he has given us a reasonable answer. I cannot say that we are totally satisfied but, as my noble friends have pointed out, it is getting late and possibly we might reconsider the matter. I see that later on there are one or two more Amendments which are in the same vein. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments, albeit fairly reluctantly, at this stage.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment for me to move, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CROMARTY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships will recall that in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, suggested that when a Bill such as this one comes to your Lordships' House from another place endorsed with the Speakers' Certificate that it is a Money Bill then the fact that it is a Money Bill should be stated clearly on the text of the Bill. I undertook to take up this suggestion, which appeared to me, with respect, to be a valuable one. I have now done this, and I can tell the noble Earl that his proposal is at present being considered by the House authorities, and I am optimistic that we may be able to take one small step towards greater clarity as a result of his initiative. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to make one small point. I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I omitted to give him his "learned" appellation in my congratulations on his maiden speech. I had not appreciated at the time that all Law Officers of the Crown in this House were "learned". I now do know that, and I apologise to him for the omission.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. It is a wonderful thing in this House actually to get something done; and may I say that the noble and learned Lord has already made a deep impact in this House in the short time he has been here.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I would not take the time of the House on the Third Reading of a Money Bill especially when we are so pressed as we are if it were not for a very exceptional circumstance. When the Bill was debated on Second reading last Tuesday the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made his businesslike maiden speech which I am sorry I missed. But he devoted a significant part of it as your Lordships will see in col.412 to the provision of capital expenditure for the nuclear power station at Torness in East Lothian where I live. The figure he mentioned—and it is commonly known; it came out in a Government Paper—was £600 million at current price levels. On that very day came the announcement of the proving of some 50 million tons of good quality coal under the Forth near Musselburgh some 25 miles away and right beside the existing Cockenzie Power Station. The Scottish Press rang with the news and The Scotsman's headline was:
"Major coal find may mean end of nuclear power plan".
The local weekly papers in East Lothian reacted in the same strain.
My object in taking your Lordships' time is simply that I feel this should go on the record as we give this Bill its Third Reading, as we must, especially because this announcement came the same day as the Second Reading—and that is what is so odd. Torness is already beset with difficulties. Inevitable indecision as to the type of reactor to be employed, as the noble and learned Lord said in his speech; bitter technical objections to the selection of the site and its costly seawall—a problem which is still unsettled so far as I know—local fears about nuclear dangers; loud local protests on environmental and amenity grounds not only in regard to the powerhouse which is not necessarily unattractive thing but the labyrinth of power lines which must radiate from it; there are local demands for more labour-intensive undertakings and now next door work for almost 500 miners for 100 years. These were the figures of the East Lothian Courier; they are not mine.
There it is, my Lords: The space in the Cockenzie—Musselburgh area for more generating plant with an existing cats-cradle of power lines. I hope your Lordships will agree that, in giving this Bill a Third Reading, these factors should

1157
be recorded—as they must now be registered in the mind of the Government which I am sure they are. That was the object of my intervention; and of course willy-nilly I support the noble and learned Lord's proposal that this Bill should be read a third time.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend. He used the very mild word "odd". It is indeed a most odd situation that we should be engaged on a Bill to deal with a nuclear power station and suddenly there is sprung upon Scotland—at least, upon those in Scotland who are not closely involved in the coal industry—this marvellous discovery of coal under the Forth. Of course, it had been known that there was coal there, but not, I suppose, the extent of it. Suddenly to have this discovery made at the same time as we arc talking about making plans for building a nuclear power station seems most extremely odd. I should like to reinforce what the perspicacity of my noble friend has brought to the surface today.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if I may say so, the Government endeavour to be farsighted and farseeing but, in fact, the consent which is issued under Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 for construction of the Torness generating station followed a public local inquiry in February 1975. The consent carried with it planning permission for the use of the site for the erection of the nuclear power station but, as I said in my speech on Second Reading, no work on the construction of the station will be undertaken before the completion of the examination of the future of the steam generating heavy water reactor programme. An examination is now being carried out by the Government. I think my remarks are contained in column 411. While acknowledging what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, I do not think I used the expression "beset with difficulties".
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.2 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion pass without registering my regret concerning the composition of the licensing boards and the fact that the Bill as it now stands makes the boards virtually another committee of the local authority. With all the pressures on councillors, it is almost a certainty that the licensing boards will not infrequently find themselves short of a quorum. Last week-end I took the opportunity of consulting informally with members of both a district and a regional council. On the grounds that I have mentioned, I found considerable apprehension among them and also regret that the Amendment of the Committee was reversed by the Government. This Bill has been long delayed and the need for a proper reform of the drink laws of Scotland goes back a very long time, at least 20 years. My regret is that due to purely political, or very largely political, exigencies it contains so many half measures. However, it is better than nothing. It is rather longer than three years since the Clayson Committee reported, and something like 12 years since the Guest Committee reported, so I wish it well.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I bid this Bill farewell with mixed feelings, as well on account of what may yet happen to it as on account of what has or has not been achieved in this House. Since our Report stage, when he and I were obviously at cross purposes in points concerning any clash between an application for permanent transfer and one for essential renewal of a licence, I have corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. The noble Lord has written to me to the effect that he can see no reason why, when coincidental, they should not be taken together; that the drafting of Clause 13 does not prohibit this dual consideration; and that the Government view this as the common sense approach which licensing boards will have adequate discretion to adopt.
I thank the noble Lord for that reassurance and his very prompt response and also for the several occasions when he has been able to meet the points that I have raised. I wish to add a word of thanks to the Scottish Office team who

1159
dealt with the points I have raised in correspondence and at short notice for the way in which they have dealt with them. Let us hope that when this Bill becomes an Act the reforms will benefit Scotsmen and Scotswomen who enjoy a social dram in licensed premises.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add a few words on this occasion. I should like to support wholeheartedly my noble friend Lord Balerno in what he has said about the composition of the licensing boards. I wish that in another place they would look at this and realise how vitally important it is not to have simply another county council committee, the members of which will be people who have been elected and that there will be no, as it were, outside wisdom or interest on the licensing boards. The licensing boards are very important because it is on them that the standard of public house and licensed premises will depend. As I said on Second Reading and on Report I should like to have seen a mixture of people on the licensing boards some of whom undoubtedly would be members of the elected county council or town council, as the case may be, but others who would bring to the licensing boards a wider experience, one which is not influenced by the electoral system but one which will help to raise all standards of the licensing authorities. Of course, I do not mean to imply that people who represent the county councils will not also be of high standard; but that it would be a good thing to have two types of persons on the licensing boards and not only as the noble Lord said, where we are satisfied entirely with the elected representative. I am not satisfied with the elected representatives on this particular matter. I should be entirely satisfied with them on elected committees like education Committees or social work committees, but this goes further. It affects more people and it is a matter in which we should have advice from outside and from knowledgeable people in the districts or regions.
My Lords, the second thing I hope another place will look at with extreme care—I feel strongly about it; we did not divide on it here because we wanted another
1160
place to have the opportunity of discussing it—is that there shall not be one law for the licensed premises and one law for clubs that are licensed. In my opinion, the police should be able to go into club premises and inspect them in the same way as they can go into public houses and inspect them. I can see no reason at all for differentiating between the clubs and the licensed premises.
I am particularly worried about this because of the enormous increase in so-called drinking clubs in the last few years. I do not bear the figures in my head, but at Report stage I gave the noble Lord figures. The simple reason for people starting these clubs is that they should be private and open on Sundays. Now that we are going to have liberalisation of the licensing laws on Sundays, these clubs are not in the least necessary. An ordinary club, perhaps a political club, which people can join is one thing; but a lot of these little clubs, enormous numbers of which have sprung up, are simply drinking booths and nothing else. That is a great mistake.
I should like to see the same treatment for the private club as for the licensed premises in relation to inspection by the police. The good private clubs will have nothing to worry about. They will be open to inspection and they will not mind the fact that an inspector has asked to see them. The ones that do not have so high a standard will object. Those are the clubs that I want to get at. I hope that when the Bill is discussed in another place people will realise that this is an opportunity to improve the standard of ordinary licensed premises, to see that the standard in clubs is also of the highest quality and to try and do away with those clubs which have simply sprung up because we were, in my opinion, illiberal on the subject of Sunday licensing laws. Now that has been done away with we should be in a better position to demand that all licensed premises shall be of the highest quality and shall, if need be, be open to inspection. With those remarks, I hope this Bill will go through another place and we shall have a great improvement in the licensing laws in Scotland. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the patient way in which he has listened to us and the way in which he conducted the Committee in the Moses Room.
7.12 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I wish to add a couple of words to what the noble Baroness said to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to thank him for his patience and courtesy in helping us with this Bill. I wish it well through its passage in another place. It is a subject which has been chewed over for some 40 years by Committees and by both Houses of Parliament, rather like the cud of a cow. I like to think that we are as far as the sixth stomach—there is one still to go. The subject of this Bill is intensely Scottish. The problems in it are entirely Scottish. The attitudes have been Scottish throughout. The local elected assembly—properly elected I hope—will have one final chance of looking at our work in both Houses of Parliament to see if there is one final Scottish touch that can be put on it before we can say at last that the drinking laws in Scotland have included the improvements we have been wanting for so long.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will speak; I know that his voice has been troubling him for the past two days and I sympathise with him in having a painful throat. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for being able to deal with most of the points which we raised during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. At the same time, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who was on the Committee and dealt with a number of the Amendments. I should like to express appreciation to all the members of the Public Bill Committee who took part—it was a small, select group—particularly my noble friends who played prominent parts in the Committee stage. This is the kind of Bill on which there is bound to be disagreement on certain points about the best ways of achieving the agreed aims. I am glad that has not stopped the reform going through. As the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, reminded us, reform has certainly been due in Scotland. The difficulty has been to get enough agreement to enable it to be carried out.
I should also like to express appreciation of what must have been a very difficult task for the officials helping the Minister. On the Conservative side, this was a Bill in which there were free votes. The appearances in another place were that
1162
there was something similar on the Government side, too. I know this causes a great deal of difficulty and problems for the Parliamentary draftsmen, among others, who have to try to make the Bill consistent after a number of unexpected Amendments have been made. I know a lot of work has gone on behind the scenes. I should like to express appreciation to the officials.
Some useful Amendments have been made where the Government listened to the arguments which were put and responded. They came back with Amendments or accepted our Amendments. There were other points on which the Government were clearly not prepared to move in your Lordships' House and where the Minister clearly had not been given latitude, I believe they are to be considered tomorrow in another place. I hope that the observations made by my noble friends and also the Cross-Benchers who took part in the debates will be considered carefully in another place when they decide what to do about those Amendments. We are modernising the licensing law in Scotland, which has been a task waiting to be carried out for some years.
I think the principle aims which should underly this, and which we have observed throughout these debates, are first to reduce drunkenness in Scotland; secondly, to improve the quality of life generally in Scotland, not only for residents but for visitors. The Scottish tourist trade will welcome this Bill. In giving this Bill our blessing as it goes from us—though there are some Amendments we should have liked to see made to it—I hope that it will go through the other place and that as a result there will be improvements in Scotland.
7.16 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as your Lordships can hear, I have difficulty with my voice. But it would be churlish not to mention those noble Lords who took part so effectively and constructively in the discussions on this Bill in its various stages. I need not have troubled: in a typically Scottish manner noble Lords have presented their cases again this evening. I am delighted to have heard the main points made again by those who felt very strongly earlier and who sustain that strength of conviction now. I personally appreciate the co-operation within the tolerable limits

1163
between an Opposition and a Government Front Bench which was afforded me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. This has helped to put the Bill to the other place in a shape where decisions which will be taken there can be properly voted upon.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASHHELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION) BILL
7.19 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1972]:
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out second ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was kind enough to apologise on my behalf for my absence last Thursday, I should like to make my personal apologies to the House for having been unavoidably absent on that day to move these Amendments—or virtually identical ones—in Committee. As noble Lords will know, the date of the Committee stage was altered at twenty-four hours' notice and I had a very long-standing engagement on the revised date in question. It was a pity in so far as we could have had a more wide-ranging and probing debate on these Amendments, and indeed on the Bill as a whole, than we are allowed under Third Reading procedures.
It will probably be for the convenience of the House if I speak to all the Amendments together. I feel that a fairly full explanatory preamble will be necessary; and perhaps I could take the opportunity to clarify something I said on Second Reading, because I understand that some members of the Sikh community were,
1164
unhappily, upset by my references to "agitation". Such are the pitfalls of leaning over backwards to be tactful! One is consequently ambiguous and vague, and remarks are misinterpreted: I was not actually referring to agitation over crash-helmets. I believe that peaceful demonstrations, on this or any other topic, are entirely justified, provided that third parties are not thereby harmed or inconvenienced. In "peaceful demonstration" I would include seeking the martyrdom of courting arrest. Indeed, if I were myself a Sikh, I might well have acted in the same way, whether or not I was a practising Sikh, if I wanted to ride a motor-cycle. However, I am not a Sikh but I come from what is still, for the time being at any rate, the majority community in this country; and so I believe it is incumbent upon me to scrutinise legislation of this kind carefully to see that the rest of us are not inadvertently put at a disadvantage by what may superficially appear to be innocuous and, indeed, welcome legislation in so far as it is of liberalising nature.
I see three possible dangers in this Bill. Granting exemption in respect of what I hold to be a religous custom rather than a religious obligation could lead to demands for exemptions on the grounds of religious obligations of a less innocuous nature. I am thinking of the possible demand for the right to carry the kirpan—that is, the kirpan as such rather than the symbolic indentation in the comb. Secondly, I wonder whether passing a Bill like this towards the end of a Session might not slam the door on the possibility of extending similar liberalising legislation to other members of the community who ride motor-cycles. Thirdly, I wonder whether it might not cause resentment among the majority of motor-cyclists, who are not Sikhs, and perhaps thereby contribute to a worsening of community relations, which I am sure noble Lords would agree would be highly undesirable.
There has been a great deal of discussion in this House and in another place on whether or not the wearing of the turban, as opposed to the non-cutting of hair—which I entirely accept as being a religious obligation—is a religious obligation or merely a religious custom which has grown up over the years as a consequence of the hair not being cut. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and

1165
Stourton, voiced the opinion on Second Reading that this was not a fruitful line of discussion and perhaps we ought not to go into it hut simply accept what the Sikhs themselves say.
The Sikhs themselves are divided in their views about this. I have heard differing views from Sikhs, to which I shall refer in a moment; and the danger of the attitude of simply accepting the assertions of people that it is indeed a religious custom is borne out by the report published in August in a South London local newspaper that certain West Indians had demanded the right to wear knitted woollen caps in court because it was their religious custom. The judge allowed them to do so. But, as anybody who knows the West Indies will know the wearing of woollen caps has nothing to do with religion. It is simply a Black Power symbol found in the English-speaking islands in the Caribbean though not, in my experience, in the French or Spanish speaking islands. Sir Herbert Thompson, who was Resident in the Punjab, wrote in The Times in January 1975 that in his view the wearing of the turban was not an absolute religious requirement. He was opposed by Mr. Neville Sandelson in another place, who said that as far as he was concerned if Sikhs nowadays believed that it was a religious requirement that was all there was to be said about it.
My information on this point, which came from a Sikh lady of some eminence, is that the practice is comparable to the wearing of a nun's habit. That is to say, it is not an absolute religious requirement: it is the custom that nuns should cover their knees but it is not, of course, universal. It might be compared to the way in which many Methodists and Presbyterians abstain from alcohol. Unlike members of the Islamic faith, it is not a sin for them to indulge in alcohol but simply considered bad form. Again, it might be compared to the custom which prevailed until a few years ago among peasants in Mediterranean countries, who believed not simply that it was incumbent upon them to abstain from meat on Fridays, but that there was a positive obligation to eat fish on that day. That was not in fact the case, but they believed it to be so. I hold that it is a religious custom and not a strict religious requirement.
Other religious customs are not always given the sanction of law in this country: they are not always catered for. Many years ago, I remember that we had a passionate debate over the orthodox Jewish custom of slaughtering meat; and I am bound to say I was finally convinced by the argument of a noble Lord from these Benches who possessed great medical knowledge and explained that in his opinion virtually no cruelty was involved. For that reason I voted for a continuance of the practice. Other noble Lords felt differently; as also do the Norwegians, who are a liberal people. On the other hand, we do not allow Moslems in this country, as far as I know, to slaughter sheep on the feast that commemorates the intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. That may be partly for public health reasons, but partly because the average lay Moslem may not be able to carry out such a task without causing suffering. We do not allow Parsees to dispose of their dead in the way that—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I must remind him that before the House are his Amendments and he should be moving them. He is not doing so and, if I may say so—I hope without giving offence—he is really making a Second Reading speech which he virtually made at Second Reading. I think I must remind the noble Lord that his Amendments are before the House.
Lord MONSON: I am sorry, My Lords. I had thought it necessary to give a very full preamble to explain the reason behind my Amendments. Certainly I will cut short the preamble. What I really wanted to know was whether it is the Government's intention to continue to be selective about whether to legislate on certain religious customs, depending on whether or not these conflict with the interests of the community as a whole—because if the Government continue to take this attitude the first doubt I had about this Bill can be completely disposed of. The other two doubts, that is, that the Bill would slam the door on the extending of benefits of such liberalising legislation to the rest of the community and that it might lead to bad community relations, are dealt with by my Amendments.

1167
The Amendment to extend this legislation to those with a conscientious or religious objection (other than those pertaining to the Sikh religion) is comparable to the Amendments moved by the Conservative Party in connection with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act and indeed the Employment Protection Act in 1975. I should have thought that they would commend themselves to the Opposition Front Bench for that reason. Off hand, I cannot think of any other religions which object to wearing helmets, but I can see that there might well be some. As regards extending the benefits of the Bill to other members of the community who cannot prove a genuine religious or conscientious objection, upon payment of £10 to the Secretary of State as indemnification for any increase of burden on the National Health Service, this was inspired by an article in the Sikh Courier to which I referred on Second Reading.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the question of the £10 insurance comes in Amendment No. 3. Can the noble Lord not take the hint of the noble Lord the Minister and move the Amendments, because all these matters will be discussed again individually.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I had not intended to do that. I intended to discuss all the Amendments together, and if the House objected to them I would have withdrawn the first and not moved the others.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was meeting the wishes of the House when he suggested that he would discuss all five of his Amendments in the one debate.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, they all hang together and it is for that reason that I am proceeding in this way.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, are we therefore to have just one discussion and no more, and have the Amendments moved en bloc or rejected en bloc?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the situation, that is so.
1168
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will move all his Amendments in one speech, and any Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to participate will deal with them on that basis.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if I may slightly correct the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is moving the first of his Amendments, but he is speaking to all of them. Of course, any noble Lord is free to touch on any of the matters raised in subsequent Amendments as he thinks fit.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has interpreted correctly what I said at the beginning of my speech. I took paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 3 from an Amendment tabled in another place by a learned Member on the Third Reading of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, which was not in the event moved, and I have adapted it slightly. I have also provided that the Secretary of State could vary the amount by the Affirmative Resolution procedure, if it were found that the amount of £10 was too little or too great. It may be the feeling of the House that the Amendments should be dealt with separately, but Amendment No. 3 is the one on which there is more than one issue presented. The others are all conesquential or to do with the Title, but we cannot divide Amendment No. 3 into its constituent parts.
I have said that I felt that granting exemption to one small section of the community could lead to bad community relations, and that suggestion was rather dismissed in another place on Second Reading by Mr. Sidney Bidwell. But I have some information which is not generally available. The Motorcycle Rider took a poll among members of the British Motorcycle Federation—quite a large sample of just under 900 people—and of those who gave a positive reply 69 per cent. were opposed to granting Sikhs an exemption which was not available to the public at large. This is a significant figure, and I believe that my Amendments would dissipate any feeling of antagonism or hostility towards the Bill as a whole. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I just say

1169
a few words? I cannot understand how anyone could possibly object to persons of the Sikh religion not wearing crash helmets, and I cannot support these Amendments. I understand that we are dealing with the Amendments en bloc, and as regards the sum of £10 to cover anyone who does not come into the categories covered in paragraph (b), I would say that if you fall off a motorcycle and crack your skull because you are not wearing a crash helmet, it will probably cost £400 to £500 to reimburse the Health Service. With due respect to my noble friend—he is not of the same Party, but he is my friend—I do not think he is on the right lines here. If persons are to be exempted through the payment of money, which is a bad principle in itself, it should be more like £400 or £500. Having said that, I will sit down, but I cannot support these Amendments. I do not want to be rude, but I would say that they are rather nonsense.
7.37 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is trying to do. He has the idea that this is a Bill favouring a minority and I accept that, in principle, one does not like legislating for minorities to be exempted from what the rest of the country is doing. But, as I said on Second Reading, we have already in two world wars allowed the Sikhs to fight for us in units organised, commanded, led and paid for by the Crown, and they have died for the Crown wearing their turbans instead of the regulation steel helmet. The principle has been accepted throughout this century. The present Government of India—this is slightly irrelevant—still allows Sikhs to keep their turbans in the Air Force and the Army of India.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I found some of his remarks about nuns' habits slightly irrelevant. Then he talked about peasants in Mediterranean countries feeling that they had to eat fish. So far as I know, everyone in the Roman Catholic Mediterranean countries—peasants, nobles, industrialists, merchants, the lot—merely has to abstain from eating meat on certain days; and since Vatican II, as the noble Lord knows, that does not apply. But, as he also knows, it was never a mortal sin and when there
1170
is starvation this rule will obviously not apply.
These religious arguments are slightly immaterial; they are not comparing like with like. Equally, I do not regard Moslems slaughtering sheep in their houses as comparing like with like. Far more important, we should consider the police who have to enforce all these Acts. Here we have a simple Bill which the Government have put before us—not, with great respect, the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—mind every time we legislate we make the life of the police more complicated. If we were to accept the noble Lord's widening of the defence to include all other people who have a genuine religious or conscientious objection, plus the people who are willing to pay an annual insurance of £10, the task of the police would be that much harder. Are the police to ask to see a motor-cyclist's insurance certificate or something like that? It is too much to ask, and it is not necessary. The noble Lord mentioned things like seat belts, but let us not be drawn into that discussion, either. The question of scat belts is not before us at the moment and we should waste a lot of time if we discussed it. Let us keep the discussion simple because it is a simple Bill.
The Sikh community feel and have always felt passionately about this matter and their reasons were understood by Governments during two world wars and before those wars. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I cannot accept, from what I have learned by speaking to people, that anything like 69 per cent. of the population objects to the Bill. I find that it is a most unacceptable percentage. If you said to anybody, "I suppose you know that Sikhs usually wear turbans and that they wear them in the Army and in the Air Force. If they are willing to take this risk on motor-bikes, a turban is a good protection", I do not believe that he would argue with you. I have met only one or two people who think that it is slightly unfair that, although Sikhs can wear their turbans, they cannot wear their ordinary headgear. It goes no further than that.
I do not believe that the Bill can possibly arouse the racial tension that the noble Lord is worried about. If I believed that I should be much more with the noble

1171
Lord, but I do not believe that it is true. Much though I admire the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his intentions, so far as I and these Benches are concerned I recomment the House not to accept these Amendments.
7.42 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who has said just about everything that there is to be said on the group of Amendments that is before us and who has said it much more eloquently than I can. I must begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the very short notice which was given, stating that it was necessary to change the day of the Committee stage last week, thereby causing him some inconvenience, as I am aware from the correspondence which we have exchanged. At the same time may I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord on the happy family event which prevented him from being with us during the Committee stage last week, something which I perfectly understand.
We have to ensure, as the noble Lord has said, that the rest of us are not put at a disadvantage by legislation which we introduce in favour of a particular religion. May I point out to your Lordships, if it needs pointing out, that there is nothing in the Bill which in any way affects the status of motor-cyclists other than those who are of the Sikh religion. They are still subject to the restrictions imposed by the Road Traffic Act. There is no alteration whatsoever to those restrictions.
I want to say also that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that the figure of 69 per cent. of responses to the poll which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, probably requires considerable examination, more examination than we have time to give to it this evening. However, if you invite people to say what is their opinion of a particular change it is human nature that nearly always you get the people who are strongly opposed to something writing in and expressing an opinion. If those were the figures which arose from the request by this magazine for the opinions of its readers, I am not at all surprised but I think that
1172
I should tell your Lordships that after the Second Reading of the Bill, when the debates in our House were presumably reported in the motor-cycling Press, I had a total of two letters. One was couched in neutral terms but commented on what that person had read in the motor-cycling journal. The other letter was from a person who is mildly against the exemption of Sikhs. I would not put it any more strongly than that. From the discussions that I have had with non-Sikh motor-cyclists I do not believe that there is any resentment whatsoever against the concession that we are proposing to make. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that it would be a disaster if, by passing legislation such as this, we were in any way to undermine the good relationships which have always existed between the Sikhs and the rest of the population.
If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will forgive me, I do not propose to follow him in detail regarding the general points he has made on exemptions because we are not dealing with the wider issues that he was seeking to raise: whether the Government might feel, if we were to pass this legislation, that it would in any way inhibit their thinking on future changes to the Road Traffic Act. It is not for me to interpret the mind of the Government. However, one is bound to say to the noble Lord that of course the Government are always going to say that they are open to representations on a matter of this kind and that they do not close their mind from one Session to another but that it is extremely unlikely that, having gone down this road, any arguments which might be produced would convince them to make the kind of modifications that the noble Lord is suggesting in these two Amendments.
I say that for two reasons. First, prior to the introduction of the compulsory wearing of crash-helmets I believed that the percentage of voluntary crash-helmet wearing had increased to something like three-quarters of the total number of motor-cyclists on the road, that the increase was beginning to slacken off at that stage and that we had probably reached the limit of what could be accomplished by voluntary persuasion. Therefore if we start to water down the regulations we might very quickly find ourselves back in the situation that we

1173
were in prior to the introduction of compulsion and there would be no point in having the legislation on the Statute Book.
Secondly, if we grant the concession that people who pay a penalty of £10 should not be required to wear crash helmets, there are in the first place the powerful objections voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Also it would extend the concessions so widely as virtually to nullify the whole of the Road Traffic Act. My honourable friend Mr. Bidwell whom I have consulted is not prepared to accept such an enormous widening of the Bill, since it was never his intention when he first introduced the Bill to do more than take care of the very carefully defined and limited claims which had been made by the Sikhs. There is no other religious group which has any objection to wearing crash helmets.
May I suggest to your Lordships that the first part of the Amendment virtually invites the creation of such groups. Also, it invites an individual to declare that he has a genuine conscientious objection to wearing a crash helmet without saying how that objection is to be tested. I believe that it would wreck the principle of compulsory crash helmet wearing if we were to accept this series of Amendments. Therefore I must ask your Lordships to reject them.
7.48 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, at this stage perhaps I should say something on behalf of the Government, although I do not want to repeat in detail what I said at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has put the Government position very well. As your Lordships will recognise, this Amendment would extend the exemption from Sikhs to many more people who object to wearing creash-helmets. The Government remain convinced of the value of compulsory crash-helmet wearing and could not remain neutral to a Bill which went beyond the Sikhs.
The Government take a neutral view at this stage. They recognize that an adequate case has been made out so far as the Sikhs themselves are concerned, but they have no intention to extend that exemption to any other group. If Amendment No. 3, moved by the noble Lord,
1174
Lord Monson, were passed, the cause of an exemption for Sikhs would be gravely jeopardised as a result. It is because the Government attach considerable importance to the wearing of crash-helmets, recognise that in their view the Sikhs have made out an exceptionally strong case for exemption and have no intention to extend that exemption to any other group that I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendments which are before you.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, if I may, I shall deal first with a point made by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. He spoke about the cost of a cracked skull being £400 to £500. Of course the £10 which I suggested was purely as an insurance premium. I am sure he does not believe that every time anybody gets on a motor-cycle they are going to fall off on to their heads. It might be useful at this point to mention the American experience. We have had a compulsory crash helmet law in this country for about 3½ years; the Americans have had it for 10 years. They have found that, although the incidence of fractured skulls is greatly reduced, the incidence of broken necks has increased because the weight of the helmet adds to the weight of the skull and causes a whiplash effect, upon sudden braking. It may be useful to point out that both the American Senate and the House of Representatives have voted overwhelmingly to rein back, as it were, upon compulsory crash helmet legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, rather implied that I was opposing the Bill. In fact I am not opposing it and I hope I made that clear. I am trying to extend its benefits to more people; and I have certain doubts about it. The point about the nun's habit was made to me by a very respected Sikh lady. It is not the case, as he believes, that every Sikh is for the Bill as it stands. Some do not care very much either way, while others would like the Bill widened to include other members of the community, because they do not want to feel that they are specially privileged. It may be that they are in a minority; but they are a significant minority. The noble Lord spoke about the difficulties that would be imposed on the police. There is not time to go into how I suggest that that might be overcome.

1175
I suggest that there are equal difficulties in trying to establish who is and who is not a Sikh. Supposing somebody, a Hindu or Moslem or Indian Christian or indeed someone from the Near East or a Mediterranean country, wants to put on a turban, how are they going to know, if they are doing that simply to challenge the law? Mr. Sydney Bidwell in another place believed that the Bill would apply only to those who practised the full faith, that others who had turned away from the full faith would not qualify for exemption under the Bill. The Bill does not say this. Nobody has to prove or produce a certificate to say that they are practising Sikhs, so I suggest that the task for the police, even with the Bill as it stands, will not be as easy as the noble Lord suggests.
The noble Lord also cast doubt on my figure of 69 per cent. of motor-cyclists opposing the granting of exemption to Sikhs alone, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The poll was not confined to this one question only. There were many questions about the wearing of helmets, and about motor-cycling generally. Not only people who felt strongly about Sikhs replied. We shall know tomorrow morning whether the opinion polls in the United States are wrong, but more often than not they are reasonably accurate. I fear that if these Amendments are rejected, as it appears they will be, there will be resentment. Perhaps it will not be great but there will be some. I think it is a great pity, particularly as so many Sikhs would have liked the Bill extended to other sections of the community. Obviously I am in a fairly small minority tonight and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill passed.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  SCHOOL LEAVERS' ACADEMIC LEVELS
  SCHOOL LEAVERS' ACADEMIC LEVELS