Sitting of 8 November 1976

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

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has held with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on future prospects for the industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): This Department is regularly in touch with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the future prospects of the industry.
    Mr. Dykes: Are Ministers prepared now to set up an official inquiry into the disturbing allegations of corrupt payments in British Leyland?
    Mr. Cryer: I understand that the matter is being investigated by the com-
    2
    pany through the normal company disciplinary procedures. I understand that the AUEW, the union concerned, is anxious that the matter should be cleared up as soon as possible, but it is no part of the Department's duty to conduct an investigation and the matter is best left where it is, in the hands of the company.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not a more important factor the fact that foreign importers have now achieved a 42 per cent, penetration of the British market? Does not my hon. Friend agree that we now need something more than exhortation from the Prime Minister to get people to buy British? Do we not rather need curbs on these foreign imports?
    Mr. Cryer: In the first eight months of this year, the total balance for car, car components and commercial vehicle components was £727 million as opposed to £595 million for the comparable eight months in 1975. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, and, of course, the Department is very much concerned that that level of imports should not be maintained. We hope that in future the British motor car industry will make a much bigger impact on sales in this country.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for low productivity is the lack of incentive for skilled men and managers? Is he further aware that over 50 members of the tool-room of British Leyland at Longbridge have written to me complaining about

    3
    the erosion of differentials? Surely the labourer is worthy of his hire.
    Mr. Cryer: I am surprised at the direction in which some messages are sent these days by members of toolrooms. The Government recognise that the British trade union movement has made an enormous sacrifice this year and last year in contributing to the social contract. One hopes that that sacrifice is recognised by the management side of British industry by improving and increasing the level of investment in industry.
    Mr. Heseltine: While on a purely personal basis one welcomes the Undersecretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, may I ask the Secretary of State to understand that some of us are surprised that he did not himself choose to answer this critical Question about a critical industry? Will the hon. Gentleman take seriously the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)? The allegations about British Leyland, about both union and management, are very serious. Does not the Secretary of State think that there should be an independent inquiry so that the allegations may be disposed of rapidly one way or another?
    Mr. Cryer: We understand the seriousness of the allegations, but it is not for the Department to give credence to these serious allegations. We are satisfied that the company and the unions are co-operating in investigating them to the fullest extent. I should have thought that it would be better, since they are only allegations, for the Department to reserve judgment in this instance until we receive the sort of evidence that the Department of Trade received, for instance, in the case of Lonrho. When we receive that standard of evidence, we shall be in a much better position to make judgments.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that no one in the trade union movement would condone any such things as have been suggested, if they are going on? However, is he also aware that over the years, particularly in the construction industry, the docks and the ship repairing industry, many workers had to go to bosses in order to get jobs and trade unionists were excluded because they refused to accept that sort of prac-
    4
    tice? What then did the Opposition do about that sort of practice?
    Mr. Cryer: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I should like to reiterate that we would not wish to comment on the particular allegations, since they are entirely allegations and no evidence has been provided so far—[Interruption.] As far as we understand them, no evidence has been provided to the Department. We are satisfied that the company is conducting investigations in accordance with the correct disciplinary procedures.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Undersecretary think again about his answer, particularly since the Department of Trade set up an inquiry into Lonrho and, therefore, the facts were independently considered? That is precisely what we suggest should happen in the case of British Leyland.
    Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has taken a long time to think of that supplementary question. Whenever further substantial evidence of this sort of allegation is presented to the Department, we shall have to review the position.

    Electrical Engineering
    Mr. Conlanasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to announce the Government's decisions on the future of the heavy electrical engineering industry arising from the report of the Central Policy Review Staff.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I fully appreciate the need for early decisions on how best to deal with the problems affecting the industry. The CPRS report has only just been received and Ministers will need time to consider it. I can assure my hon. Friend that decisions arising from the report will be taken as soon as it is practical to do so.
    Mr. Conlan: Is it not clear to my hon. Friend that immediate action is required to avoid further redundancies in areas of very high unemployment? Furthermore, to avoid irreparable damage to this industry, is it not necessary that action should be taken at once and that a firm commitment should be entered into for steady ordering programmes, including the replacement of obsolete power stations, so that the industry will know

    5
    precisely where it stands? Will my hon. Friend urge these policies on his colleagues?
    Mr. Williams: I fully accept the urgency of the situation for the industry and the affected areas. Equally, my hon. Friend will recognise that general approval was given to the setting up of the CPRS investigation, and it seems reasonable that we should analyse it thoroughly and effectively. The industry is happy with the rate of progress that is being made. My hon. Friend will also bear in mind that we have to balance the questions of the future of the industry and the public expenditure implications.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: I agree that this is an extremely urgent matter. However, does not the Minister agree that the Think Tank is totally unqualified to report on this matter and has shot the whole thing out to a firm of consultants? What are needed are ministerial decisions on a long-term energy programme for the country which has hitherto been unforthcoming. When will those decisions be made?
    Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be so naive as not to understand the complexity of all the issues involved. He must also appreciate that a great deal of analytical work is required before a proper decision can be arrived at. As the implications for several industries are serious, we must carry out a thorough investigation. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should want quick answers even though they might be wrong answers.
    Mr. Buchan: Does not my hon. Friend accept that this industry is of vital importance to employment in several depressed areas, including mine, and that, no matter what situation we face in terms of public expenditure, public expenditure on this industry is necessary if we are to regenerate British industry in future and to achieve the required phasing forward of the power station programme?
    Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is right in saying how important is the industry. That is why we want to take the necessary steps to ensure its survival. As I said, simply phasing forward might not be the answer. It might solve the initial
    6
    problem but it would leave a further problem at the end of the phase. Therefore, we want to look thoroughly at the CPRS recommendations and then make our decisions.

    Nationalisation
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans for further nationalisation.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman):
    Depending on parliamentary progress, the Government's published proposals on nationalisation which fall within my Department's responsibilities will shortly have been implemented in full.
    Mr. Rost: Is it not criminally irresponsible and sheer lunancy, in the week when the Government have so disgraced Britain that the international bailiffs have been called in, for the Government to bulldoze through Parliament a further nationalisation measure which we cannot afford, which will hinder further the prospects of national recovery and which the electors have decisively rejected?
    Mr. Kaufman: Unless the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is enacted urgently, the bailiffs will be called in to a number of shipyards in England and Scotland and certain aircraft factories. I draw attention to the particular gravity of the situation for Scottish Aviation and the jeopardy in which the future of Hawker Siddeley in North Wales will be placed if the Bill does not go through quickly.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the turbo-generator manufacturing industry will become a prime candidate for nationalisation if he does not listen to the representations made to him and his right hon. Friend? Why has he not published the NEDO report which shows that the bringing forward of the Drax B power station would save Government money? Why has not that report been published? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that nationalising this industry is not the only way left to save it?
    Mr. Kaufman: Sufficient unto the Parliament is the public ownership thereof. We are concentrating on the public owner-ships of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries at the moment.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that uncertainty has been caused in the aerospace and shipbuilding industries by the Government's nationalisation policy? Will he take a sensible look—even at this late stage—at the position to find other ways of proceeding in a less spendthrift manner?
    Mr. Kaufman: That is not the view of the newly elected President of the Shipbuilders and Repairers Association or of the Sunday Times yesterday, both of whom urge the rapid enactment of the Bill.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that had it not been for the nationalisation of the Rolls-Royce engine division in Derby that great company would have gone to the wall and tens of thosuands of workers would have been thrown out of work?
    Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is accurate. Instead of the parliamentary process for that nationalisation taking nearly a year—as is the parliamentary process on this Bill—that Bill went through in 17 hours. That is the way the Tories nationalise.
    Mr. Tom King: That may be the view expressed in a recent article in the Sunday Times, but it is clearly not the view of the electors of Walsall, North and Workington that further nationalisation is required. The Minister has not answered the Question. He has not given a categorical undertaking that there will be no further nationalisation. Does he not realise—as does the CBI in "The Road to Recovery"—the unique damage that the threat of nationalisation is doing to Britain's industrial recovery?
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should know that in the only by-election last Thursday in a shipbuilding area the Tory candidate was hard put to it to hold his deposit.

    Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a further statement about the progress of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has completed Report stage in another place and the debate on Third Reading there is scheduled for tomorrow.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the importance of the Bill to the workers in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, will my hon. Friend make a special plea to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists—especially those who pretend to be Left-wing back in their constituencies—to have the courage of their convictions for once and vote with us this week instead of meekly obeying their party Whips by going into the Lobby with a Right-wing ragbag of Tories, Liberals and Ulster Unionists?
    Mr. Kaufman: A number of shipyards in Scotland are in jeopardy, and the consequences to Scottish Aviation of the failure of the Bill to pass will be exceptionally grave. It is for Opposition Members who for those reasons did not oppose the original guillotine motion on the Bill to consider whether three months later more delay is acceptable to the workers in those industries.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend that if the Government had accepted the amendment put forward by Plaid Cymru to cut out the ship-repairing industry the Bill would have had a greater chance of going through? Will he accept that the vast majority of people who have anything to do with the ship-repairing industry—including the comments in yesterday's Sunday Times—point out the absolute stupidity of nationalisation?
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later in the week to raise ship repairing. No doubt the House will discuss it in detail. It is for him and his hon. Friends to weigh the consequences for 300 ship-repairing workers in South Wales whose jobs are not in jeopardy with the consequences for 4,500 aircraft workers in North Wales, near his constituency, whose jobs will be in considerable danger if the Bill does not go through.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Managing Director of Scottish Aviation has told the workers there that unless the nationalisation proposals are proceeded with the company will be in liquidation in the spring?
    Mr. Kaufman: I would not like to comment upon what may or may not have been said in Scottish Aviation. What I will say with all due gravity is that if Scottish Aviation does not come within British Aerospace within a measurable period the consequences will be extremely grave for the workers there.
    Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister accept that SNP Members are listening extremely carefully to his pronouncements on job opportunities? Will he therefore take this opportunity to confirm or deny rumours currently circulating in Scotland that the Organising Committee has in mind 30 per cent, redundancy throughout the shipbuilding industry and the closure of three yards?
    Mr. Kaufman: I can deny such rumours categorically. We have not had any report or recommendations from the Organising Committee about the future of shipyards anywhere in Great Britain. Unless the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders is swiftly turned into British Shipbuilders as a corporation, there will undoubtedly be thousands of redundancies in Scottish shipyards.
    Mr. Warren: Will the Minister say how it will be possible to have the debate which he says we can have when we bear in mind that the total number of Lords amendments, if voted on, will take up more than the time he is proposing to allow for such a debate?
    Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman examines the proceedings in another place, he will find that all amendments which have been debated and passed there are on matters which have been discussed during the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee and on Report in this House—for example, the subject of ship repairing, debate on which I ensured against querulousness from the Opposition. These matters have now been debated in this House for a total of 269 hours. It is about time the Bill was enacted.
    Mr. Heseltine: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is to be no time for a debate, or is he agreeing with the suggestion from Plaid Cymru that a debate on ship repairing should take place?
    Mr. Kaufman: If the timetable motion is passed this evening, we shall employ the arrangements that were made last
    10
    time in deciding how the debate will be allocated. It was I who last time insisted, with the disagreement of the Opposition, that ship repairing should be debated. I have no doubt that if the timetable motion is passed we shall debate ship repairing and vote on it.

    Investment
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied fled with the current level of investment in manufacturing industry.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): No. I hope to be able to announce new measures in the near future to encourage more investment.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not the policy of dear money fatal to industry? Since in 1971–72, under the then Conservative Government, the minimum lending rate went as low as 5 per cent., does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a minimum lending rate of 16 per cent, makes it virtually impossible to borrow money for investment in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Varley: I agree that that is one of the factors involved. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it plain on more than one occasion that he hopes that the minimum lending rate will come down so that we can stimulate investment. If we had more support from the Opposition on some of the economic measures we are pushing through, I am satisfied that industrial confidence would improve. The Opposition are doing all they can to destroy confidence and undermine our currency, and they never cease to take the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that British private industry would be in a far more powerful position than it is now if the Opposition were to persuade their patriotic friends to invest in industry, because there has been a strike in terms of capital in that respect for some years? Will he encourage those people to put that money into investment because, although they always talk about these matters, they regularly ask for public funds to boost faltering private industry?
    Mr. Varley: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The

    11
    Opposition have been completely irresponsible in the last few months and have contributed a great deal to the present situation.
    Mr. Hordern: Will the Secretary of State explain how manufacturing industry is to invest more when the Government need to borrow every single penny which is available in the private sector for the whole of next year? Was not this situation reflected in the weekend Press in articles to the effect that the Government's borrowing requirements will grow by another £2,000 million? Does not that make the Government's industrial strategy a complete and utter farce?
    Mr. Varley: That is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier. The Opposition and their friends time and again do not contribute to the rebuilding of British industry but take every opportunity to snipe at our industrial strategy. The House knows about the tripartite arrangements that are being built up through the NEDC. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to indulge in consistent carping criticism but to help the country to get back on its feet. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are doing all they can to undermine the strategy.
    Mr. Watkinson: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the profitability of industry this year is rapidly increasing? Therefore, does he not agree that it is essential for industry to be encouraged to invest those funds? Does he not think that a prime element in that progress is to bring about an increased number of planning agreements between the Government and industry?
    Mr. Varley: I shall be answering a series of Questions on planning agreements presently. We have done a great deal as a Government to help to stimulate investment—for example, in terms of the Accelerated Projects Scheme and some of the other industrial schemes which we have developed. Such schemes are generally of value to British industry. Unlike the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), others recognise those arrangements as extremely valuable. It is a pity that the Opposition do not do more to help in this regard.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is the policy of the present Government that is in ruins and that the Opposition have consistently been telling the Government what they should do? They should cut public expenditure, drop nationalisation and deal with the £11,000 million deficit on borrowing. Until the Government take that action, we shall not see the recovery of investment.
    Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman, in common with all his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, is always in favour of cutting public expenditure in general but never in particular. Time and again they come forward asking the Government to increase public expenditure. We have heard such pleas this afternoon during Question Time. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that progress has been made following the disastrous 1973 period when we saw Lord Barber and his right hon. Friends then in Government spurring on the inflationary spiral. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties experienced since that time.

    Successes and Achievements
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will publish each month a list of the recent successes and achievements of both private and public sectors of British industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): My Department's weekly magazine Trade and Industry regularly publishes details of industrial successes of British firms both at home and overseas. There are sections devoted to new products and technology developed by both private and public sectors of British industry, and I understand that the editor is always pleased to hear of new developments. Copies of Trade and Industry are available in the Library.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of the obsession with damaging despondency cultivated by the Opposition and displayed by many sections of the national, if not the local, media, is it not time in the national interest for firmer emphasis to be placed on the frequent and continuing achievements of British industry than is currently to be found in the details given in the

    13
    Department's literature? Is it not desirable to see some spoon-feeding so that there can be recognition of success?
    Mr. Huckfield: I note my hon. Friend's useful suggestion, and I agree with him that many of the contents of the Department's documents make a far more worthwhile contribution to the image of our country abroad than do certain sections of the British Press and certain speeches made by the Opposition. I assure him that Ministers in my Department and in other Departments will continue to do their best to stress the achievements of British industry. I hope that in laying stress on those achievements we shall be emulated by a similar effort on the part of the Opposition.
    Mr. Nelson: If the Under-Secretary will not confirm the success of the public and private sectors of industry, will he comment on some of the worst aspects of the failures in the public sector, particularly on the findings of the special report by the British Steel Corporation last week on absenteeism which discovered that absenteeism figures had reached 28 days per annum among manual workers and at one plant in Scotland 42 days per annum? What action will the hon. Gentleman take in conjunction with the Corporation to try to reduce days lost in this way?
    Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not inviting the House to look a little more carefully at the record of absenteeism on his Benches. As I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Did you vote last time?"]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not vote—which answers the question interjected. We are going very slowly. Let us try to move more quickly.
    Mr. Huckfield: As I have said, the continued denigration, running down and knocking of the achievements of British industrial performance pursued by the Opposition does not help this country abroad at all.
    Mr. Madden: What will be the likely impact on British manufacturing industry of the handing over of information to the Germans and Americans about a new British tank development, which looks as though it will result in a number of orders going to overseas companies, as
    14
    was revealed yesterday in the Sunday Times?
    Mr. Huckfield: That is an interesting question, but it is not one for my Department. I can only suggest that my hon. Friend puts down a Question to the appropriate Minister.
    Mr. Tom King: The Under-Secretary talks about praising the successes of British industry. Has he noted the contrast between the warm and vigorous way in which he himself plays a part in that endeavour and the rather more enthusiastic approach which might be helpful towards that very important topic? Since the Secretary of State has agreed that there is an investment strike in British industry, as he tacitly did in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), has the Under-Secretary of State noted that Lucas has just announced a £100 million investment programme and ICI has announced a £400 million programme—an act of real courage in the present economic situation and against the current borrowing requirement? A little more enthusiasm from the Government for the achievements of the private sector would not come amiss, would it?
    Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the hon. gentleman will not exclude from the catalogue some of the very large public sector investments which also are planned. If he studies the plans of the British Steel Corporation and of other public sector enterprises, especially the National Enterprise Board which he want to wind up, he will see that in very many areas it is the public sector which takes the lead and sets the pace

    Aerospace Projects
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has yet decided which British civil aerospace projects merit launching aid.
    Mr. Kaufman: With the Government's encouragement, the Organising Committee for British Aerospace and the industry are considering all the available options in consultation with possible collaborative partners. At present, the discussions are not sufficiently advanced and the market situation is not sufficiently clear for them to be able to put any proposals to the Government.
    Mr. Tebbit: That is the sort of answer we have had for two and a half years. Is the Minister aware that cheapjack appeals to the patriotism of his Tribunite friends will do damn-all good if he cannot make up his mind about any single major industrial development, which he has the power to do right now under the Civil Aviation Act?
    Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friends, whether members of the Tribune Group or not, have far more patriotism than the hon. Gentleman will ever have if he goes on asking that ignorant, malicious and snide sort of question. The fact is that under private enterprise we have had not one proposal for a new aircraft project. The only new aircraft project launched in the past few years has been from the nationalised Short Bros and Harland. Only when we get this industry into public ownership shall we have the new projects, and if we do not get it into public ownership there will be no new civil projects.
    Mr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an area in which public expenditure is necessary and desirable, especially as the aerospace industry is finding it difficult to cope with the longstanding consequences of the recession? Will he agree that in aerospace engines as well as in airframes we need to move forward quickly, especially with projects such as the JT10B?
    Mr. Kaufman: The Opposition wish to leave the future of the civil aviation industry to the free play of market forces. I do not know whether that implies Government money too, but I can only say that if the Tories had left Rolls-Royce to the free play of market forces there would be no future for Rolls-Royce, and my hon. Friend's constituents who are looking forward to that engine would now be waiting to find other opportunities.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister give an assurance that not a penny more of taxpayers' money will be wasted on a stupid project such as Concorde or Concorde II?
    Mr. Kaufman: Without accepting that this superb technological achievement is a stupid project, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have made perfectly clear both to our French partners and to the workers of the British Aircraft Corporation that
    16
    no more Concordes will be built unless firm orders can be obtained without loss to the taxpayer. M. Cavaillé and I agreed at our metting last week that we would not go ahead with the £500 million that BAC has asked us to spend—without a penny of its own money, of course—on a stretched Concorde.
    Mr. Warren: To return to civil aviation projects, can the Minister explain why, with the full authority of the 1949 Act, he has not taken the initiative, which he has power to do under that Act, to help civil aviation? Why must it wait for nationalisation?
    Mr. Kaufman: For two and a half years now, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been telling us not to bail out lame ducks and not to spend public money on them. We have made our position clear. On 29th June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that there would be an assured future for Scottish Aviation within British Aerospace, and that statement is available for the hon. Gentleman to see. I wish that I could say that if the Bill fell the same assured future would exist. It would not.

    National Enterprise Board
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the interim accounts of the National Enterprise Board for the period 20th November 1975 to 30th June 1976.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: No, Sir.
    Mr. Grylls: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied with a meagre profit of £29 million on sales of £1,100 million by the National Enterprise Board? If a private sector company did so badly, it would never be able to raise money in the market. How can the NEB go on spending and spending? Is the reason that it is using taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Huckfield: That is a rather peculiar remark to come from the hon. Gentleman, especially since he and his hon. Friends are constantly running down British industry. He should appreciate that if the regeneration of British industry is to be achieved, and if we are to secure a shift of the nation's resources into manufacturing industry, the National Enterprise Board must play a very prominent part.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is not the NEB concerned with rescuing vital parts of British industry which have been abandoned by private enterprise—or the lack of it—and are not the initial losses bound to reflect that, although the ultimate gain to British employment and prosperity will be well worth the cost?
    Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without this Government, the country would not have a car industry. Without this Government, it would not have an aero-engine industry or a machine tool industry. The Conservatives voted against each of those decisions.

    Planning Agreements
    Mr. John Garrettasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will report progress on drawing up planning agreements with leading companies.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether any planning agreements under the Industry Act 1975 have yet been concluded.
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have so far been reached; and with what companies.
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Industry what is now the extent of progress towards the achievement of planning agreements; and with which sectors of industry negotiations are taking place.
    Mr. Varley: As the House knows, detailed discussions are in progress with eight companies in the process plant, turbo-generator and motor vehicle sectors of industry. Planning agreements are also being introduced with three nationalised industries. Announcements will be made as further companies agree to enter into operative discussions, and statements on the conclusion of planning agreements will be laid at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Garrett: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that any strategy for the development of British industry must be based on plans drawn up between the Government and leading companies?
    18
    Does he accept that some of us at least think that the efforts so far have been wholly inadequate and that we cannot settle down to the orderly planning of industry without a far greater number of planning agreements?
    Mr. Varley: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. I am not satisfied with the progress either. These are voluntary agreements, as was set out in December 1974, but British industry and industrialists continually come to me and complain that, even where investment and technology are comparable with investment and technology overseas, they are not getting enough out of them. The best way to get a better performance by industry is to enter into planning discussions, and I hope that more companies will do so.
    Mr. Hal Miller: What is the Government's input into these agreements, particularly with the motor industry? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is real lack of confidence among all those working in that industry in the Government's plans for it, whether through fuel tax, interest rates, the size of the market or licensing policy? Is there any firm Government purpose and policy towards that industry?
    Mr. Varley: There would not have been much confidence in that industry if—
    Mr. Miller: Tell us the Government's policy.
    Mr. Varley: I can stand here all day if necessary and wait for the barracking to stop. The input of taxpayers' money into the motor industry over the last two and a half years has been about £250 million. The discussions with British Leyland and Chrysler are going extremely well. I hope that in due course we shall be able to announce the conclusion of planning agreements, and a statement will be made.
    Mr. Clemitson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that two of the vital elements needed for the recovery of the economy are the better planning of resources and the development of democracy in industry, in both of which planning agreements have a vital rôle to play? Is it not therefore extremely disappointing that no

    19
    planning agreements appear yet to have been concluded?
    Mr. Varley: It is disappointing, and I think that British industry is taking an extremely negative view of planning agreements. I know that the companies I have announced are anxious to enter into discussions, but by and large the response has been pretty poor and it is plain that the Government will have to take stock of the position very soon.
    Mr. Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect British industry to have confidence in him or the Government when a sizeable percentage of the Labour Party wishes to see the mixed economy reduced to ruins and equates planning with nationalisation and complete State takeover? How can he expect to preserve credibility?
    Mr. Varley: A year ago we entered into the industrial strategy exercise, if I can call it that, through the framework of the National Economic Development Council, and we have had about 40 sector working reports in which 1,000 people have been involved. But it is plain that, if we are to make progress and improve performance, that work has to be translated to the level of the company and the plant. That is not being done. Planning agreements have a role to play, and I hope that industry recognises it.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the calamity at Courtaulds would not have occurred had a planning agreement been established with that company? Does not he also agree that restriction on wages and salaries in isolation is both unfair and futile if we do not also control and influence investment in industry?
    Mr. Varley: British industry has, over the last few months, had a climate in which it could enter into planning agreements. The voluntary pay policy has helped considerably. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of disputes and strikes. Sometimes I ask myself what more industry requires. If it believes in an industrial strategy, it really should enter into planning agreement discussions.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first requirement for industry to co-operate with the
    20
    Government is that it should have confidence in the ability of the Government to govern the country? How does he think he will inspire that confidence when, in the year since the dialogue about planning agreements took place, the Government have seen their own borrowing requirement rising by £2,000 million, they have put up the borrowing rate to 15 per cent, minimum, and they have imposed a payroll levy in order to take another £1,000 million out of industry's resources?
    Mr. Varley: At the same time the 100 per cent, capital investment allowances have been maintained, there has been substantial help to British industry on the basis of stock appreciation and the Price Code has been relaxed considerably, sometimes to the disappointment of my hon. Friends. All that has to be set in the balance. At this time, British industry has no reason to complain in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman complains.

    Growth Sectors (Trade Balance)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the balance of trade surplus-deficit figures from each of the growth sectors included in the industrial strategy planning.
    Mr. Cryer: I shall arrange for the figures for the past three years to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Moonman: Will my hon. Friend give due attention to the concern in one of the growth sectors, the computer industry, where management and specialists are worried about the lack of forward planning being shown by officials of his Department, and—perhaps more important—the fact that there seems to be no relationship between sector reports from one industry to another? If we are to have a total plan, does not this seem an obvious thing to do?
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I hope that when he sees the figures in Hansard he will accept that, in general—it is difficult to judge any specific sector in this context—the position in the first half of this year shows a slight growth and a slight improvement in the balance of trade position.
    Following are the figures:

    TRADE BALANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY INDUSTRIES* Exports (fob) less imports (cif)

    £ million

    1973

    1974

    1975

    Food and Drink Manufacturing

    -1,609

    -1,615

    -1,599

    Organic Chemicals

    7

    39

    56

    Pharmaceuticals

    139

    180

    239

    Plastics Materials

    9

    -6

    70

    Synthetic Rubber

    7

    8

    -4

    Iron and Steel

    75

    -139

    -72

    Ferrous Foundries

    Machine Tools

    18

    11

    59

    Pumps and Valves

    † 87

    104

    155

    Fluid Power Equipment

    Process Plant†

    62

    80

    138

    Industrial Engines

    90

    77

    124

    Textile Machinery

    76

    103

    142

    Construction Equipment

    116

    170

    310

    Mechanical Handling Equipment

    32

    58

    117

    Industrial Trucks

    Office Machinery

    -6

    2

    16

    Mining Machinery

    13

    25

    37

    Printing Machinery

    8

    8

    36

    Heating and Ventilating Equipment†

    3

    6

    11

    Food and Drink Processing, Packaging and Bottling Machinery

    3

    -2

    44

    Constructional Steelwork

    28

    30

    47

    Bearings

    6

    -2

    5

    Gears

    4

    7

    7

    Drop Forgings

    5

    9

    12

    Scientific Instruments†

    21

    29

    52

    Electronic Components

    -80

    -69

    -23

    Computers

    -54

    -82

    -54

    Radio, Radar and Electronic Capital Goods

    48

    85

    145

    Telecommunications Equipment

    33

    28

    33

    Electronic Consumer Goods

    -223

    -157

    -94

    Heavy Electrical Machinery

    75

    96

    253

    Industrial Electrical Equipment

    Domestic Electrical Appliances

    -22

    -25

    -31

    Man-made Fibres

    78

    85

    73

    Wool Textiles

    146

    157

    141

    Hosiery and Knitwear

    8

    7

    -15

    Clothing

    -140

    -163

    -213

    Paper and Boards‡

    -501

    -841

    -738

    Rubber Manufactures

    71

    91

    139

    Total

    -1,367

    -1,606

    -415

    * It is not possible, in all cases, to identify separately the products relevant to each industrial strategy sector in the Overseas Trade Statistics. Figures for some sectors are therefore presented as combined totals. No trade figures are available for the products of the non-ferrous foundries sector, but trade in these products is believed to be very small.

    † Because it is not possible to identify exactly products of these industries in the Overseas Trade Statistics, these figures include trade in products of some sectors of industry which are not included in the industrial strategy exercise.

    ‡ The balance for the paper and board industry is significantly affected by the inclusion of imports of pulp for paper making.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will instruct the National Enterprise Board to reduce its support of the motor car industry in proportion to the strike record of whichever company is in receipt of subsidy.
    Mr. Kaufman: The National Enterprise Board does not provide subsidies to
    22
    any industry, nor does it have responsibility for the motor car industry as a whole.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although it is true—and one must be thankful for it—that the strike record in the motor car industry has greatly improved, it does not help if loans are provided by the NEB which are open-ended, since what the industry needs is better delivery dates, better quality and

    23
    a general effort on the part of everyone concerned to improve the export record? Thankfully, that is happening, and it is therefore desirable that the NEB should not act as a crutch.
    Mr. Kaufman: I acknowledge the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. What we need within British Leyland and the other subsidiaries of the NEB is the kind of concerted effort that the hon. Gentleman rightly recommends. The NEB has strict rules about the terms on which it makes loans. The House debated the terms upon which the further tranche of finance was given to British Leyland last summer. There have been commitments by vote of the work force to the new Mini since then, and the hon. Gentleman is right in wishing to encourage British Leyland and the other subsidiaries of the NEB to move forward in this constructive fashion.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the first nine months of this year Britain had the lowest number of industrial disputees for the past 23 years? Does he not further agree that the trade union movement has played a major part in bringing about this favourable development? Is it not now time for attention to be focused on the investment strikers who have failed Britain so badly?
    Mr. Kaufman: This country owes an unparelleled debt to the trade union leaders for the voluntary restraint which they have provided and as a result of which we have managed to halve the inflation rate since the pay policy came about after the disastrous spiral upon which it was started by Lord Barber, who was also one of those chiefly responsible for urging the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) into the Conservative Government's disastrous confrontation with the trade union movement.

    CBI
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Director-General of the CBI.
    Mr. Varley: We met at the National Economic Development Council meeting last week, and I expect we shall do so again shortly.
    Mr. Jessel: Has the Secretary of State read the latest CBI publication "The Road to Recovery" which says that to get industrial recovery it is essential to cut Government spending by £3,000 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with this?
    Mr. Varley: No, I do not agree. I have read the document, and there are certain sections in it with which I do agree. I agree with it on the question of improving industrial performance, productivity and profitability. I think that those sections would find support throughout the whole House. However, there are other sections which are pretty disastrous.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Secretary of State tell the Scottish CBI that one sure way to increase investment in Scotland would be to have a sovereign Scotland with a strong Scots pound? Scotland, unlike England, basically can balance its economy.
    Mr. Varley: I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman comes to conclusions like that. I know that British industry is linked throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the Scottish coal industry could not exist on a competitive basis alongside the English coal industry. I am not at all sure that in some parts of Scotland there are those who agree that it is Scottish oil. There are some suggestions that it is Shetland oil. Then there is the nuclear power programme, which in Scotland is linked with the British programme.

    Shift work
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is able to give the percentage of companies in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry that operate more than one shift per day.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: No, Sir. This information is not available.
    Mr. Costain: Can the Minister explain why I can get that information from the House of Commons Library? Will he take advantage of the information in the Library to ascertain that very few firms are now doing shift work? How can he say that British industry is under-capitalised if capital investment is not

    25
    properly used? Will he look at the Employment Protection Act and see how this is affecting the situation?
    Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Member can get the overall statistics of the numbers of workers who work shifts; that information has always been available. If, however, he is talking about specific firms and is asking my Department to undertake detailed research into the number of firms, I hope that his hon. Friends will note the increase for which he is calling in public spending.
    Mr. Tom King: The Minister's answer is even more remarkable in view of a recent parliamentary answer to me which indicated that there are now 1,200 statisticians in the Department of Industry costing the taxpayer about £7 million a year. Is that large number justified if information such as that for which my hon. Friend has asked is not available? What are all these people doing?
    Mr. Huckfield: If they had been put to the good use to which they are now put when the Conservatives were in office, we would not be faced with our present industrial difficulties. I only hope that if the hon. Gentleman proposes an increase in research into industrial activities of this kind he will persuade his hon. Friends that there should be an increase in public expenditure.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike Opposition Members, very many workers who have to spend years working night shifts in industry regard it as very harmful to health and to social and family life?
    Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many Conservatives have never had experience of shift work and do not know what it is all about. Shift work is a matter for negotiation in each place of employment between the management and unions concerned.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Industry what political and economic policy guidelines he intends to frame for the proposed British aerospace industry.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Government will be looking towards the British Aerospace Corporation to develop a strategy based
    26
    upon profitability coupled with maximum employment opportunities, with emphasis on collaborative ventures with suitable partners in Europe, the United States and elsewhere.
    Mr. Adley: In view of what the Minister said about employment opportunities, and as some trade unions are bullying the managers of the nationalised industries into acceptance of the closed shop as the price they have to pay for industrial peace, can he guarantee that if this Bill appears on the statute book all those at Hawker Siddeley and BAC will have the opportunity to express their views on the closed shop in a ballot before it is imposed upon them?
    Mr. Kaufman: We have inserted into the Bill unprecedented amendments which provide for progress towards industrial democracy in both British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. That is the kind of course which is best pursued.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will the Minister say whether the salaries of the directors of the proposed new corporations will be less or more than the salary which our former colleague, Mr. Edward Short, finds so inadequate at Cable and Wireless Ltd. now that he has left us?
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has the unique capacity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I repeat, the hon. Gentleman has the unique capacity for taking hold of trivial questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]— and trivialising them even further. The salaries paid to the board of British Aerospace will be commensurate with the very great abilities of the people who have agreed to serve. The staffs of BAC, Hawker Siddeley Aviation and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics have a great deal more patriotic approach to the future of this industry than have hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the supplementary question relating to the trade unions is to the annoyance of Conservative Members because of the record of British trade unionists in achieving industrial peace? They are robbing the Tory Party of the opportunity to stab Britain in the back, and they are compelling the Leader of the Opposition

    27
    to go to foreign countries to do her dirty work of running down this nation.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Britsh trade union movement sets an example in patriotism which the Opposition would do well to follow.

  POULSON CASE
  Mr. Canavanasked the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to public funds of the prosecutions to date arising out of the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the various prosecutions arising out of the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The total cost of prosecutions cannot yet be ascertained. It would certainly not be less than £126,000.
  Mr. Canavan: In view of the public expenditure involved and the general public interest in this affair, are not the public entitled to know whether there are grounds for any further prosecutions? The public are likely to see the setting up of a private parliamentary Select Committee as a mere whitewashing attempt. I urge the Government to set up a public inquiry to investigate every aspect of the Poulson affair.
  The Attorney-General: There has been a debate on this matter and the whole House has had the opportunity to discuss it. I do not think that the course of action which my hon. Friend recommends would be particularly profitable.
  Mr. Adley: In view of the allegations of human usury at British Leyland at Castle Bromwich, will the Attorney-General have an investigation into this situation? There is double cause for concern here because not only are there the allegations of bribery but there is a frightening situation in which no greased palms equals no jobs.
  The Attorney-General: That is another question.
  Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon and learned Friend aware that the answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch and
  28
  Lymington (Mr. Adley) in respect of the allegations he has just made is that if there is any truth in the matter, which I doubt, the net result would be that those involved would be brought before an open court and tried in the way in which Members of Parliament should be tried? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a pledge this afternoon, in concert with the Prime Minister's remarks a fortnight ago, that we must look to the future and that Members of Parliament should be subjected to the same kind of legislation as people outside? Will he bring in a Bill to ensure that this is done?
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot give that pledge, nor can I bring such a Bill before Parliament. The Prime Minister has told the House that the recommendations of the Salmon Commission asking the House to consider this matter will be gone into.

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

  Robin Granville Hodgson, Esq., for Walsall, North

  Richard Lewis Page, Esq., for Workington

  Harry Lowes Cowans, Esq., for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (DELEGATION)
  Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
  "the negotiations now taking place in London between the Government and Mr. Alan Whittome's team from the International Monetary Fund on the terms of a loan to the United Kingdom of US $3·9 billion."
  This matter is specific. The team is in London and its purpose and broad objective are well known. It is urgent because the discussions with the team have already started. They will continue only for some days, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the alternatives put forward for debate in the House, together with the

  29
  options and courses of action to be considered by the IMF team. That will be possible only if the debate takes place immediately.
  The matter is important and it is made more so by the relevation in the weekend Press that once again the Chancellor has got his figures wrong and that next year's borrowing requirement may be £11 billion and not £9 billion.
  The decisions taken as a result of this visit will have a profound effect on the course of the British economy and on the jobs and prospects of hundreds of thousands of our work force.
  The House would be guilty of derelict stupidity if it did not debate the matter before the Chancellor sent his letter of intent to the IMF.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
  "the negotiations now taking place in London between the Government and Mr. Alan Whittome's team from the International Monetary Fund on the terms of a loan to the United Kingdom of US $3·9 billion".
  As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon.
  30
  Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

  BILL PRESENTED
    COMPANIES (NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND AUDIT COMMITTEES)
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams supported by Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. John Cope, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Tom Normanton, Mr. David Price, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Sir John Rodgers and Mr. Sydney Bidwell, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the appointment and duties of non-executive directors; to provide for the appointment and functions of audit-committees in major public companies; to require the preparation of certain data and estimates for consideration by audit committees; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Medicines (Labelling) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1726) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL AND EDUCATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
3.38 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which hase been already pro posed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, of as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,

(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, or other proposal,

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.
Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.
(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.
(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
The motion is necessary because the Opposition have made it clear throughout that they want to prevent the Education Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill from reaching the statute book. The Government cannot allow that to happen to Bills

33
for which clear mandates were given by the electorate at the last General Election—
Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The Secretary of State is moving a guillotine motion on two Bills. For one of the Bills we have all the papers—we have the Bill, the Lords amendments and the Government's proposals for consideration. However, on the second Bill in the motion we have neither the Lords amendments nor the Government's proposals on them. In view of the need to protect all hon. Members, is it right to proceed with the second leg of the right hon. Lady's motion in the absence of that information? Looking at it quite objectively, how can the House consider the amount of time we should allocate to consideration of the Lords amendments when we do not know what they are or whether the Government will invite us to agree or disagree with them? This situation applies also to subsequent motions which are to be moved from the Government Front Bench later tonight.
Mr. Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that he has advanced a point of argument which no doubt he can use if he is called in the course of debate, but I have to follow the Order Paper, and we are now taking time out of the one-hour's debate on the guillotine motion.
Mr. David Price: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you give no ruling whether the Government have to come forward with their views on their Lordships' amendments before we debate the time to be allocated? You will recall that the late Lord Kelvin said that to measure is to know, and we have no means of measuring how much time this House could reasonably spend on consideration of their Lordsips' amendments in default of the information that is normally available. We have the information on the Education Bill, therefore we could come to consideration of the Government's proposals on that Bill, but we have not the information in regard to the other Bills that we are asked to consider today.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot rule as the hon. Gentleman wishes me so to do. The business has begun and the Order Paper is before us.
Mrs. Williams: As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) was kind enough to say—
Mr. Nicholas Ridley Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just ruled on this matter, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have one hour for the debate that we are now embarked upon. We could be wasting time.
Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can the House be expected to come to proper decisions about a matter if the guillotine papers are not laid before it? I remember that on previous occasions your predecessor helped the House when the Stationery Office was on strike and proper Order Papers had not been printed. I am sure that your predecessors have always felt that hon. Members should have the relevant information before seeking to debate a matter. We have not the relevant information. Surely, therefore, you should intercede with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to move this motion on a day when the House has been presented with the information.
Mr. Speaker: I had notice of the point of order, due to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), therefore I did not rule off the cuff. It was a considered reply that I gave to the hon. Gentleman. The House itself will decide. But the hon. Gentleman has advanced an argument which no doubt will play a great part in the debate this afternoon.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a procedural matter and it would be proper that the Leader of the House should move it rather than the poor right hon. Lady, who has to do the executioner's dirty work for him. We realise that the right hon. Gentleman has been sick, but surely he is able to undertake this act of execution himself. It is extremely bad luck on the right hon. Lady that she has to undertake it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not select who speaks for the Government.
Mrs. Williams: I am always grateful for the commiseration of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser),

35
but I think he will know that on a previous occasion, when these same Bills were under consideration, they were, of course, moved by the appropriate Ministers who were themselves responsible for the Bills. Therefore no precedent is being set on this occasion.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, I was attempting to reply to him a the moment at which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) leapt into the gap. I was going to say that the point raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh would be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, when we come to his section of the debate, dealing with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
With regard to the Education Bill, on which the hon. Member was kind enough to say that the House has before it the Lords amendments, the indication of the Government's advice on those amendments, and the indications of what the Government will call on the House to do, I do not think his point arises.
I was about to say that the House will be clear that the Education Bill had a majority of 41 on Second Reading, and is therefore regarded by the Government as appropriately going ahead in its original form, as far as possible, towards the statute book.
I remind the House that a great deal of time has already been spent on the Bill. It is a 10-clause Bill. There was a day in February spent on the Second Reading, when, as I have indicated, the motion was carried by a substantial majority. It was then considered in Standing Committee between February and May. There was no timetable motion and almost no use of the closure. There were 35 sittings, taking a total of 86 hours. That is far beyond the amount of time spent on much more major education Bills in the past.
Some right hon and hon. Members have referred to how carefully statutes and Bills were vetted in the past by the House of Commons. But in the case of the Education Bill there can be no comparison. When the 1944 Education Bill—which had 120 clauses and 9 schedules—was debated by the House, it was
36
thought fitting to spend less time on it than has been devoted to the 10 clauses of the current Education Bill. The reason for that is quite simply that the then Opposition treated the 1944 Education Bill in a responsible manner. The same cannot be said of the current Opposition in regard to the Education Bill 1976. There were four full days on Report in June and July. There was a debate on Third Reading, when the majority was 34.
The Bill then proceeded to another place, where it was discussed for six hours on Second Reading, for 19 hours in Committee, for seven hours on Report, and was discussed again on Third Reading for most of last Wednesday. Altogether this Bill of 10 clauses, some of which are minor clauses, has had no fewer than 160 hours of parliamentary time in the two Houses of Parliament. I do not think that anyone could describe that as an inadequate consideration of the Bill.
In the Lords some 20 amendments have been made to the Bill. We have accepted some of them because we thought that they had a very substantial point to make. We have indicated that we shall seek to accept one or two others in this House. But I must make it clear that it seems to us that most of the other outstanding amendments simply go over ground which has been ploughed up time and again in Committee, on Third Reading and in the House of Lords, and that it is little more than filibustering to go over all this ground again. Indeed a noble Lord in another place indicated that the Bill had been exhaustively debated, and that it had been taken through to what he described as the end by his hon. Friend the Shadow Minister.
We believe, therefore, that there is every justification for this timetable motion. It allows six further hours for the discussion of these much-discussed amendments. I commend the motion to the house.
With regard to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, 16 hours were spent on its Committee stage in the House of Lords and 29 hours in the House of Commons.
These two matters were discussed, therefore, at the greatest length and in the greatest detail by both Houses of Parliament. I will ask my hon. Friend

37
the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to deal with any points that may arise in regard to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill when he winds up the debate.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: It was interesting that today of all days the right hon. Lady should have invoked once again the suggestion that the Government have a mandate for these motions. If they ever did, that mandate was made to look singularly flyblown by the events of last Thursday. I very much hope that the fact that the Leader of the House is not participating in the debates today does not mean that his recovery has been in any way arrested.
This is the last chapter in the saga of excessive and ill-conceived legislation. It also marks an unusually peremptory brushing aside of the views of other people.
It is not my intention today to burrow either into precedent or even into past speeches of the Leader of the House—rich mine as they offer for arguments much more respectable than those upon which he relies these days.
Although I am aware that only two Bills are dealt with in this motion, it is necessary to cast an eye over the whole of the Government's proceeding today to judge the enormity of their misconduct. We have had again from the right hon. Lady this argument about the manifesto. In the light of events, that manifesto is beginning to look more than ever like a noose round the neck of the country.
The Leader of the House made it very clear on Thursday afternoon that the Government did not know and perhaps did not care how many amendments would fall to be disposed of under this procedure; nor did he seem to be aware or to care how many of the amendments were Government amendments; nor were we given any estimate of the number of amendments which would be totally un-discussed during these guillotined proceedings.
As yet, there has been no Third Reading in the Lords of either of the two main Bills with which we are concerned. The Education Bill is due to receive a Third Reading today, with 22 marshalled amendments to be considered, some of them Government amendments. One Bill
38
has had only one day in Committee in the Lords. Another Bill has had 40 out of 59 Government amendments during its Committee stage. In the case of another Bill, there have been 20 out of 42 Government amendments on Report.
So it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say that all the proceedings and the discussion have stemmed from the Opposition. Many of the Lords amendments are concerned with clauses and schedules which were guillotined here. Are we to have no assurance at all from the Government about an opportunity to discuss measures included in the Education Bill which have never been discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons, the amendments to which evidently are not to be touched upon here?
During the overspill, the House of Lords will have dealt with more than 200 Government amendments to the torrent of legislation which it has before it. I think that this House will agree that it would be hard to find a more eloquent condemnation by the Government of the poor quality of their own legislative product.
In The Daily Telegraph, Mr. Paul Johnson—[Interruption.] Always derision is reserved by Government supporters for people with whom they do not agree or for people who have departed from the strict party line. Whether they like it or not, Mr. Paul Johnson defined the issue very well in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday when he wrote:
"The issue is whether the Lords should join the Commons in passing bad laws and so bring the whole legislative process into disrepute."
One of the arguments constantly put forward by Government supporters who are bereft of anything better is that the House of Lords is an anachronism. But under what Act does the House of Lords now operate? It operates under the 1949 Parliament Act passed by Mr. Atlee's Government.
If there is so much wrong with the House of Lords, why has there been so little attempt to reform it? Who has been the most consistent advocate of reform of the House of Lords? The answer is, none other than Lord Carrington. I need hardly ask who did most to prevent and frustrate reform of the House of Lords. We all know that no one did so more than the present Leader

39
of the House. Events have taught us that he and his colleagues want a single-chamber Government with a House of Commons which is prepared to become the lackey of the administration.
From Government supporters who sit below the Gangway, all that we have heard about the House of Lords is the rather unpleasant cry "Off with their heads". Hon. Members below the Gangway make one think of some nightmare endured by Lewis Carroll which somehow has come to reality.
Mr. John Lee: The right hon. Gentleman evidently regards as important the continuation of the second Chamber for the purposes of revision. Will he tell the House, or ask his Leader to say if he does not feel able to do so, since there is a Conservative majority at present performing these revisory functions to Labour legislation, is it the Conservative Party's intention that there shall be a Labour majority in the House of Lords if and when we have another period of Conservative Government?
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) teaches one yet again how foolish it is ever to give way to another hon. Member. It would have been much more merciful to the hon. Gentleman if I had refused to give way to him.
The hon. Member for Handsworth, however, raises the question of the Labour content of the House of Lords, and that brings me on to the matter with which I was about to deal. What have Labour peers been up to? During the past two inglorious and ignoble years, the so-called Wilson creations, as they might be dubbed—
Mr. Lee: Hear, hear. I quite agree.
Mr. Peyton: —have contained no fewer than 40 or 50 people of quite staunch fidelity and loyalty to the Labour Party. I am the last person to question the zeal or the loyalty of those worthy men and women—
Mr. Russell Kerr: Permission granted.
Mr. Peyton: All that one can say about them is that they have had the prudence,
40
the judgment and presumably the discrimination to think ill of this rubbishy legislation. In any event, they have not been very active in the Division Lobbies. However, I do not wish to stir up bad feeling amongst Government supporters by making any more extensive references to patronage, especially the patronage spooned out by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), whom we so greatly miss today.
We are told that the conduct of the House of Lords is undemocratic. Who on earth are the critics of the other place to say that—they who are not prepared to give even a backward glance at the events of Thursday of last week and who pretend that Thursday never happened, when the public, given the opportunity to pass some judgment and to express an opinion on this rotten Government, did so with such striking results?
Sadly, we have all to face the fact that the House of Commons has gained no lustre in the past two years. It is far from being able to bask in the sunshine of popular approval. Ministers are provided by the House of Commons which is then content that those same Ministers should get their orders from elsewhere.
I do not wish to prolong my remarks on what should be a short but, I hope, still painful debate for Government supporters and certainly for those of them who still have some regard for parliamentary government. I know that there are a number of Government supporters who are much concerned about the damage inflicted upon our country by Left-wing extremists. Parliament and the nation will watch them today, not without sympathy, hoping that one or two of them—I am not referring to the nightmare figures below the Gangway—will, in the interests of moderation and tolerance, step back from these oppressive measures.
I hope also that those who represent parties other than mine on this side of the House will think that they would best do their duty today by rejecting measures which would have the effect, designed or otherwise, of wounding and damaging Parliament.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: The reason for these guillotine motions is that the Government have overloaded Parliament. It is a travesty of

41
democracy that we should be asked to pass procedural motions on Bills that have not even reached us.
There is none of the usual excuses for these motions. There has been no filibustering. The Government certainly have no mandate—they attracted only 38 per cent. of the votes at the last General Election and would attract a lot fewer today. Nor is the passage of the Bills essential.
We face the gravest economic difficulties which have come upon us even though we have not suffered from war, pestilence or famine. They have come upon us because of the mismanagement of our affairs and too much and too bad government.
These Bills are at best irrelevant to the crisis we are facing and at worst positively damaging. The Government's only argument is that they were in their manifesto. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science urged voters at Thursday's by-elections to vote for Labour candidates so that the Labour Government might succeed in carrying out their programme. That was a terrifying thought to most of the electorate. Even if the Government's programme had any relevance to our present situation, it is totally unnecessary for it to be carried out by next week, which is what we are being asked to do.
The House of Lords is primarily a revising Chamber and it is necessary, judging from the fact that the Government have tabled 200 amendments there this autumn. Peers have been performing their job and scrutinising these Bills, some parts of which were hardly touched on in this House. They have passed many amendments which were supported not just by Liberal and Conservative peers, but by Labour and Cross-Bench peers, and they have given serious consideration to the matters sent to them by this House.
Surely in return we must give serious consideration to their pronouncements upon these Bills. If eventually there is disagreement, this House will be in a very much stronger position if the Government have at least allocated adequate time for discussion of the Lords' proposals. Under this motion, not only will some proposals not be discussed, but some will be voted on en bloc and this will cut the ground from under any
42
criticism that the Lords are exceeding their proper authority.
If there is disagreement, the Lords have the right to hold up legislation for a limited time. They were given this right not by a Tory or Liberal Government, but by a Labour Government, so hon. Members opposite can hardly complain if their own statute is carried out.
We are now faced with a serious constitutional issue. The fact that we have no written constitution does not mean that we have no constitution at all. We have established constitutional practices which have so far been respected by leading statesmen of all parties. One is that Governments with a very small majority in the Commons and no majority in the country do not attempt to force through highly controversial legislation. Mr. Attlee did no such thing in 1950–51.
Another unspoken practice of the constitution is that Governments should look to the interests of the people as a whole and direct their minds to the basic troubles and needs of the country and not simply act as the political wing of certain organisations.
A reformed second Chamber may be necessary. I have long advocated that it should be elected. But at present it is there, under Labour legislation, carrying out its job and defending the essential unwritten constitutional practices of this country. If the Government are not careful, they will find themselves involved not in a battle of people versus peers, but in a battle of people and peers versus a Government who are on the way to a corporate State and becoming a dictatorship by a minority.
4.6 p.m.
Mr. John Lee: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is an inappropriate person to make a speech in defence of the House of Lords. His grandfather-in-law, in a similar position to that faced by the Government today and not even a member of the largest party in the House, rightly carried through some of the most contentious legislation this country has ever known. He did so in the face of the House of Lords after delivering a threat to that body that it would be reduced to a state of ridicule.

43
I hope that the Government will at long last have the guts to invoke the precedent of the example of the right hon. Gentleman's grandfather-in-law. I can hardly imagine any party that would face a General Election with more trepidation than the Liberal Party. My party might suffer a measure of defeat, but the Liberals would face not defeat, but extinction.
I should be sorry if that happened, because I regard the Liberal Party, for all its oddities, as, on the whole, a civilising and leavening influence in this House. So do not let us hear any calls from hon. Members on that Bench for a General Election. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is the only one likely to survive an early election.
It is clear that we are moving towards a constitutional crisis. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Government's legislation and whatever criticisms are made of it, it is plain that no Government for the past 50 years have been treated in this way by the non-elected Chamber. No Government have been treated in this way since the Liberal Government before the First World War. Certainly no Conservative Government have ever been treated in this way.
There was none of this trouble over the European Communities Bill, or the denationalisation legislation of the 1950s. None of this took place when the Trade Disputes Act 1927—a contentious piece of legislation if ever there was one—was going through. Most of this sort of legislation was passed with hardly a Division. There have been more Government defeats in the past four or five months than in all the years since the Second World War.
To a considerable extent the blame for this lies not in the reasons advanced by hon. Members opposite, but in the cowardice of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in the way that he failed to face up to the challenge of the Lords and in the kind of people put there on his recommendation.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) had a perfectly valid point when he made fun—
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is
44
it in order for the hon. Member to accuse the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) of cowardice? Should he not qualify that term in some way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I was unaware whether the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) was referring to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) personally or to his policy. There is a difference. Perhaps he will inform the Chair which he meant. If it was a personal attack, it is to be deprecated and must be withdrawn.
Mr. Lee: I shall refer to his policy then. My right hon. Friend's policy was singularly ignominious.
It is difficult for us to advance arguments in support of these motions and it is easy for the right hon. Member for Yeovil to pour scorn on them when we have had a large number of persons recommended for peerages in the past two and a half years—indeed, in the past 10 years—who do not bother to take their places. Even when they do, it seems to me that—and, of course, we must distinguish between non-attendance, on the one hand, and rebellion, on the other—they take up a position quite independent of their party. Looking at the people there, with the exception of Lord Paget, Lord Bruce of Donington and the late Lord Bradwell, hardly one of them is worth a bag of beans.
Many Labour Members, not only those below the Gangway—my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), who is no Left winger, made the point in a recent article in The Times—have attacked the absurdity of inherited legislative rights. It is incredible that the House of Lords should have been used as an eventide home for clapped out political deadbeats—
Mr. Peyton Mr. Peyton rose—
Mr. Lee: I shall give way in a moment—retired directors of Odhams and non-speaking secretaries. Some of us have had enough of that.
Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I ask whether he proposes to circulate copies of his speech to those about whom he has been talking? I am sure that they would find it most interesting.
Mr. Lee: If they ever bother to turn up at the Palace of Westminster, they can read what has been said about them. Indeed, it might encourage them to attend.
I propose to take only a minute or two, because this is a short debate. I am glad that the Leader of the House is here, because I know that his heart is in the right place. I shall vote for the motions on this day, but I warn the Government, as I am now their majority of one, that they have between now and, I suppose, three months of the next Session to create sufficient Labour Peers to give us a majority in the other place.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman going to the other place?
Mr. Lee: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would be glad to see the back of me. In due course he will see the back of me, but not at a by-election.
If we are faced with this situation next year because the Government have not created enough peers to dispose of this absurd situation, I shall ask my hon. Friends to join me in refusing to vote for motions such as these in future. if we face defeat in the Commons on Lords amendments, that may force the Labour Government to face the absurd situation created by a non-elected Chamber which has never been occupied by any party other than the Conservative Party year in, year out.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Leader of the House know that we have had about as much as we can take of this situation. It is one thing for the House of Lords to be used as a revising Chamber, but it is another for it to be used, as it is being used by the Conservative Party, as an instrument for trying to bring down this Government. While most of the blame lies with the Conservative Party for inciting their Lordships to this position, a great deal of blame also lies with the lack of guts of our own Government. Some of us have decided that we have had just about as much as we can take.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I shall not follow the hon. Mem-
46
ber for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in his series of confidential reports on his colleagues. It would be an impertinence to intrude upon such public grief.
The amendments proposed by the Upper House have been in consequence of the exercise of powers given to it in the Parliament Act 1949, which was passed by a Labour Government. It is worth reminding ourselves of what was said on Second Reading of the Parliament Bill by the then Leader of the House. We had a Leader of the House then, not merely a Leader of half the House. On 20th September 1948 the then Leader of the House, Mr. Herbert Morrison, said:
"As a revising Chamber, the Upper House is entitled to ask that the Commons should be required to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they have proposed to Bills sent up from the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 20th September 1948; Vol. 456, c. 531.]
The Prime Minister, in his much-heralded speech at Ruskin College the other day, placed great emphasis on the importance of mathematics. We might do some mathematics on the result of this motion if by some mischance it is passed tonight. We see that there are 16 Lords amendments with which the Government ask this House to disagree. There are to be 360 minutes for the Education Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill to be debated. On the Education Bill, we shall have only 22½ minutes for each amendment. If there are, say, eight Divisions of 15 minutes each, that will bring down the time to 15 minutes for each amendment. Is that the degree of "time and consideration" that the Leader of the House, if he is Leader of the House, not leader of half the House, thinks appropriate for this House to give to those amendments?
Does he believe that there is any virtue in a revising Chamber? The truth of the matter is that he does not, and that he has not got one-tenth of the quality to bring to the office that he holds that his predecessor, Mr. Herbert Morrison, had. The great statesman, as he was by comparison with the right hon. Gentleman, sought to justify the Bill which he was then introducing by saying that it would enable the Commons to do that which it

47
was their duty under the constitution to do—namely,
"to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they have proposed to Bills sent up from the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 20th September 1948; Vol. 456, c. 531.]
What will be thought by those in counties of England whose education authorities have not given way to Government by circular, and which have said that they will not submit plans for total comprehensive reorganisation under the Education Bill? For example, my authority in Kent has said that it is not against the principle as a whole but that, in certain selected areas where parents do not want it, it will stick to its selective schools. What will Kent say?
It will say that it wished that it had the opportunity which was given to Workington and Walsall because the Government have spat in its face, and that it looks forward to the day when retribution will come.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The Conservative Party has an infinite capacity for being disgusted, as we know. In fact, the opening speech for the Opposition by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) sounded as though it emanated from the original disgusted of Royal Tunbridge Wells. From that I gather that there is a certain amount of anger on the Opposition Benches.
I am deeply ashamed of the Labour Government who passed the Parliament Act in 1949. The Socialist Party should be in the process of getting rid of that anachronism, that undemocratic body to which the Opposition look when they want undemocratic procedures carried out. The House of Lords will always be the obedient puppet of the Tory Party. It carries out the Opposition's behests and does everything that they want done. The immense propaganda machine at their disposal, because of the riches possessed by them, pumps it home as though it were democracy. [Laughter.] The Opposition may laugh if they wish.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: No, there is not time. The right hon. Gentleman can go to his
48
friends in the House of Lords who can give him endless hours. We have little time to get through the democratic procedures that we want to go through.
The Opposition are again resorting to their infinite capacity for being disgusted. However, I should like to bring out one or two home truths about which they know, but which I shall reiterate because there are wider audiences than this one. Therefore, let us all listen to some home truths.
I served on the Committee considering the Education Bill, and I can report that it was the longest Committee stage that there has ever been on an education measure. Conservative Members wanted to go on for ever and ever and ever discussing the Bill. They wanted to filibuster and to stop this progressive measure from getting on to the statute book.
I speak as a former executive member of the National Union of Teachers. As the House knows, that organisation upholds the Bill which, unlike the undemocratic House of Lords, is another step in the process of the democratisation of the educational system in this country so that we ensure that large numbers of children do not go through that other anachronism, the 11-plus.
The purpose of the Education Bill is to allow children to go as of right into the comprehensive education system where they will have the opportunity to do what has been done since comprehensive education was introduced. The system has doubled the number of examination successes compared with the results that were achieved under the type of education that Tory Members still espouse, even though the official Opposition spokesman says that the Conservative Party agrees with comprehensive education. We welcome that statement, but let them carry out their professed belief by supporting the Education Bill.
Let me inform the House of the realities of the situation. There were 160 hours of debate, which means a longer period than ever before taken to discuss an education measure. How can anyone talk about a guillotine when there has been a longer period of debate on this measure than on any previous education legislation, including the 1944 Act? That is the democratic reality of

49
what has been happening on the Education Bill, and that is the reality which the undemocratic, out-dated geriatric ward of the House of Lords is trying to thwart in the name of undemocracy and anti-democracy.
Hon. Members on the Liberal Bench may be amused, but the fact is that if there were a General Election in the near future they would be removed totally from this place, and they know it. They would do well to support the Government on this issue, because they are liable to be removed in the event of the country being asked to vote at an election. The fact is that no one on the Liberal Benches wants a General Election.
Another reality of the situation is that for a short Bill of only 10 clauses we sat for hours in Committee and listened to absolute nonsense at unending length from the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and his hon. Friends. If Conservative Members want to go through a few hours of torture, I ask them to read the speeches of their hon. Friends in that Committee. It was in that Committee that we were regaled by Conservative Members with anecdotes front the distant past, because they want to restore the educational system that operated in those bygone days.
Members of my party will vote tonight for this motion because we want to put through measures that have been subjected to massive democratic debate but which the various parties on the Benches opposite want to continue to discuss endlessly because they are against these great progressive measures that are to become law in the near future.
4.23 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: It is extraordinary that the first fruit of the Prime Minister's conversion to an interest in education standards should be a curtailing of discussion of a major Education Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been put up, as has rightly been said, to do the Government's dirty work for them—
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Shameful.
Mr. St. John-Stevas:—because it is a fact that throughout the House we had entertained hopes for some kind of new deal in education with the advent of the right
50
hon. Lady to her present position. It is ominous that this curtailment of free speech should be the first fruit of her arrival at the Dispatch Box.
The Agriculture Bill has not even completed its stages in the House of Lords, so we do not know what amendments there are to it. We do not even know what the arguments are, yet the Government have decided to curtail discussion of it in this House.
We had hoped for a less political approach to education from the right hon. Lady. After all, she has had the courage to jettison straight away the idea of monster-sized classes, to which the Government have been wedded for so long, and she has jumped on the ill-thought-out proposal of the Schools Council to abolish O-levels and to have a common examination for the CSE and O and A-levels. We welcome that, too, but we are sorry that the right hon. Lady has lent her prestige to this manoeuvre today, and the feebleness of her arguments indicates that her heart was nowhere near the words that she was mouthing.
What were the arguments that the right hon. Lady adduced? First, she said that this Bill had had more time devoted to it than was given to the 1944 Education Act. There is a simple reason for that. It is that the 1944 measure was a good Act, whereas this is a bad Bill, and that is why it needed full and detailed discussion.
The right hon. Lady then said that it was a short Bill—a rather interesting adaptation of the old illegitimate baby argument, namely, that it was only a small one. Surely the right hon. Lady must realise that what is important about a Bill is not its length but its content. It is what it does that is important.
What does this Bill do? First, it destroys the 1944 settlement, which has lasted for so long and on which the education system has been built. It destroys the powers of local authorities over the organisation of schools, and it takes away for the first time in our history the power of voluntary schools and voluntary-aided schools to organise themselves in accordance with their own wishes. This is a major Bill. It may have only 10 clauses, but the effects of this measure if it passes into law will be felt for many years to come.

51
The right hon. Lady's third argument is equally irrelevant and erroneous. She said that the Bill was not discussed at length in the Lords, but of course it was, and that is why it should be discussed here. The Upper House spent six days discussing this Bill, and it can draw on a range of education expertise that is probably greater than even this House can provide.
My noble Friend Lord Eccles made an important contribution to the debate and Lord Alexander of Potterhill, whose name is respected throughout the education world, made many important and vital contributions to the discussion. Points were made in the House of Lords because they could not be made here as the Report stage had been so drastically curtailed by Government action. It is an insult to the Upper House to say that we can discuss in six hours all the matters that it took six days to discuss. It makes a mockery of having a bicameral legislature if this is to be the attitude of the Government to discussion in the other place.
The guillotine motion is wrong, because the Upper House has not attempted to thwart the will of the House of Commons over the Bill. It has not attempted to reject the principle behind the Bill and defeat it. Members of the other place have accepted it, but what they have attempted to do is to say "We do not like this principle, and we do not like this Bill, but we shall try to improve it; we shall try to make it educationally and practicably viable", and if one looks through the 18 amendments that the Lords have tabled one sees that every one of them fits into that classification.
The first amendment seeks to write into the Bill Section 76 of the Education Act 1944 which says that parents have the right to educate their children according to their wishes. That is what the Prime Minister was saying in his speech at Ruskin College on 18th October. This is a test of whether the Prime Minister meant what he said. If he meant that the opinion of parents should be retained, why not accept the amendment, instead of guillotining discussion of it?
I take at random Amendment No. 4, which provides that there should be an exception for special schools in mathematics. There already are exceptions for
52
special schools for music and dancing. Music and dancing are important, but even as a former Minister for the Arts I think that maths is more important than either for our future.
In his speech at Ruskin College did not the Prime Minister say that a new deal was needed in maths to supply the needs of industry? The right hon. Lady nods. Why does she not accept this reasonable amendment instead of guillotining it and preventing it from being discussed? All that is being proposed by Lord Eccles, supported by Cross-Bench, Liberal and other Peers, is that we should allow this exception because we have a mathematical crisis in our schools.
Amendment No. 13 provides for an inquiry into secondary education. Why cannot the right hon. Lady accept that? Why is she curtailing discussion of that? The inquiry is not to be in comprehensive schools only but in all secondary schools and with an impartial chairman. What possible objection can she have to that?
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 provide that comprehensive schools shall not be imposed unless adequate resources are available. That is not Conservatism, Liberalism or Socialism or any other "ism", it is pure common sense. Why cannot the hon. Lady bring herself to accept that? These amendments are not political. They are reasonable and reasoned. They are not political in nature. they are educational. They are supported not only in the Lords but throughout the education world and the country by those concerned about the future of our education system.
By tabling these amendments the Lords are, not for the first time, much more in touch with political opinion than the Government. The House of Lords is speaking for the people on this. If the Government doubt it, let them put it to the test in a General Election.
4.32 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should like to take the House away from the exaggerated language we have heard in the debate and back to the terms of the motion. In this motion provision is made for six hours' debate on the amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and so six hours' debate on the amendments to the Education Bill. The Bills have

53
been considered adequately and in detail in all their stages so far. The House is now being asked to order the remaining stages so as to ensure that the Bills, which have had critical examination on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place, shall be placed on the statute book in sensible form and within a reasonable time.
My right hon. Friend and others have made special reference to the Education Bill. There is nothing I should like better than to spend the remaining minutes talking about the merits of that Bill. I remind the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that this Bill abolishes selection and prevents local authorities from organising their schools so that labels are placed on children at an early age in their school career. I was under the impression that that had the backing of education opinion throughout the country. To talk about curtailing discussion of a Bill on which we have already spent 100 hours is to stand logic on its head.
I wish to concentrate on the important Bill for which I have had some responsibility, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. This deals with the agricultural tied cottages system, which has been the cause of a sense of grievance to agricultural workers for a great number of years. The Bill was considered by a Standing Committee of the House and the proceedings there were subject neither to a second sittings motion nor to any restriction of time in any way. The Committee sat for nearly 30 hours.
The contentious amendments to the Bill which have been inserted in another place fall into five distinct groups. I want the House to know this because of some of the things that have been said, especially by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who referred to the House not having the opportunity to discuss certain issues and who said that the Government were preventing that discussion. The amendments cover topics on which the Opposition and the Government take markedly different viewpoints. All these topics were discussed during the passage of the Bill in Committee and on Report. No new ground is being covered. That is also true of the Education Bill.
Mr. Peyton: What chance are we to have to look at the 40 Government
54
amendments made in Committee in the Lords? There were 40 Government amendments out of the total of 59 amendments.
Mr. Armstrong: To compare the number of amendments with the time allotted is not a fair comparison, as anybody with any experience in the House would know. The amendments to which the right hon. Member for Yeovil refers are technical amendments and largely agreed. There is no contention about them. I cannot anticipate the results of Report stage in another place but I should be surprised if further substantial changes were made. The situation therefore is that six hours are being allocated in which time we shall be considering technical changes which are not contentious, and five or so issues which have already been subject to careful scrutiny and examination both here and in another place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman need not express his commiserations.
My right hon. Friend and I believe that the timetable motion is sensible, relevant and justified. During the whole discussion on the Bill—almost 44 hours in this House and more than 20 hours in another place with Report still to come—Opposition Members have continually conceded that the present system of tied cottages is often inhuman and creates hardship and misery for agricultural workers. They then support amendments which would have the effect of prolonging that system. This motion is a genuine move to forestall any attempt to prolong discussion beyond what is reasonable—
Mr. Francis Pym Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire) rose—
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West) rose—
Mr. Armstrong: I will not give way. The Opposition Front Bench has had rather more time than we have had.
To spin out arguments about the Bill—going over issues which have been seriously debated on the Floor, in Committee and in another place—is to threaten the freedom of farm workers to enjoy security in their homes, irrespective of the terms of employment included in their contracts. This is a freedom that most people take for granted. This is an

55
injustice which the Government are not prepared to tolerate.
The agricultural tied cottage has been an issue inside and outside the House for many years. To ensure that Parliament comes to a decision—far from denying free speech in Britain as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested—is an act of justice long overdue to a hardworking and vital group in our community. Ample time to complete the Bill is allowed in this motion.
On that basis I commend the motion to the House. No new ground is being broken. The Opposition have to make up their minds whether they are prepared to remove a long-standing injustice for
one of the most hard-working groups in the community, the agricultural workers. We are determined to do so.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I should like to try to set aside some of the claptrap we have just heard. First, Scotland does not regard such a Bill as necessary. Secondly—
It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them:—
The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 296.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

61

(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Poceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
62

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,

(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, or other proposal,

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.
Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.
(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.
(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL AND DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
4.55 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,

(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forth with a separate Question on any other motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.
Supplemental
5.—(1) In this Paragraph "the Proceedings" means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by the Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.
(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 7 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.
(6) If the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matters that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
After the resounding success of the victory on the last motion, it is essential that this one should be carried if the declared will of the House is to be fulfilled, Their Lordships—[interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to anyone trying to address the House that there should be this noise. Perhaps the Minister could wait one second for hon. Members who appear to need refreshment to leave.
Mr. Ennals: No doubt they will be drowning their sorrows.
Their Lordships have their rights and duties, but it is no part of their rôle to seek to block action already clearly determined by this elected Chamber.
My right hon, Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will deal later with the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I would simply say on that that the Government are firmly of the view that the Bill is essential to the secure stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate to the efficient operation of the industry and that it should become law this Session.
The Health Services Bill is an important measure which the Government believe should be enacted this Session. The deep wounds that dissension over the issue of pay beds has inflicted on the NHS must be healed. This dispute has gone on too long and the sooner it is healed the better. Indeed, there is positive evidence, supported in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that more and more people who understand the NHS are coming to realise that the only remedy for those wounds is the passing of the Bill. The Government are therefore determined that it shall not fail for lack of time.
There can be no question that the Bill has had adequate, thorough and careful scrutiny in Committee. In Standing Committee D, 29 sittings and 74 hours were devoted to its line-by-line scrutiny. We dealt with every clause and every amendment and we had time over at the end. Another two days were then set aside for consideration on Report. Originally, a motion of the House provided for one day but it was decided to respond to requests by hon. Members opposite and add the second day. On Third Reading the Bill got a majority larger than it had on Second Reading. There is no doubt that the will of the House has already been expressed.
66
I suspect that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) will say that it was not possible for the House to consider all the Opposition amendments on Report and that Part III was not debated at all. I accept that—
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is true.
Mr. Ennals: Of course it is so: I do not deny it. Two days were available—14 hours—for Report and Third Reading. If the Opposition decided to use the time as they did, they cannot protest to us. We gave them the time and it was their decision how it should be employed.
Few measures of the length of this Bill have received such close and meticulous scrutiny. After all, it is a Bill which seeks to give effect, by and large, to a set of proposals which emerged after protracted discusson between my Department—also under my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—and representatives of the medical and dental professions, and which a majority of consultants who took part in the ballot accepted as the basis for legislation. Therefore, we have a commitment to put this legislation through Parliament in this Session.
The Government's case is clear. Both Bills have been considered in great detail by the House. On the Dock Work Regulation Bill there was an even longer Committee stage, running to 100 hours. The Opposition have the effrontery to suggest that we are trying to curtail serious debate on these issues, but both Bills have been considered in great detail by the House.
Amendments have been proposed in another place most of which are identical with those which have already been fully considered and decided upon in Committee and the House. If their Lordships should pass any amendments it will be easy to determine which of them upset the carefully balanced compromise on which the Bill has been based. There is no reason to go into detail over ground which has already been comprehensively covered.
Temporary setbacks in Walsall, North and Workington in no way upset the Government's determination to govern and to fulfil their commitment both to Parliament and the people.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Not for the first time has the Secretary of State mistaken government for the churning out of this mad sausage-machine of ill-digested legislation which the House and the country do not want. The debate is concerned with dockers and doctors, and their euphony is not the only thing they have in common. Both Bills are wholly irrelevant to the nation's dreadful economic plight. Both Bills are widely detested, and their detestation goes far beyond the ranks of the official Opposition. Both Bills have opponents on the Labour Benches in both Houses. Both Bills will damage the interests of ordinary working people. Both Bills are nothing more than sops to a few politically-motivated trade union bosses.
The Dock Work Regulation Bill had but one day on Report in the House of Commons. Because of that the debate was restricted to two new clauses, with the second of which were taken several amendments on small ports. The whole of the rest of the Bill was entirely undiscussed on the Floor of the House. The other place made a great many amendments, 17 of which were reached after Divisions. Those amendments included the reintroduction of the former practice of the holding of a public inquiry for the extension of the dock registration scheme, the reduction of the dockers' corridor from five miles to half a mile and the exclusion from the Bill of a large number of the small ports, many of which, if the Bill goes through in the form in which it left the House, would he due for extinction.
These are all absolutely key issues, they are all the concern of every establishment threatened by the Bill and they involve, I suspect, the constituencies of well over 150 hon. Members, including myself, because I have constituents who work at the Frigoscandia cold store in Stratford. It is hardly surprising to read that on Report Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
"I have never seen such a list of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate."—[Official Report, 26th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 121.]
How few did!
Each of these three major issues would justify a six-hour debate on its own, yet we have only six hours for all three and
68
for all the other amendments which will come back from another place. We do not know how many amendments there will be, because another place is sitting on Third Reading today and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said, there are many amendments down for debate during Third Reading.
Government supporters cannot claim that this is all the work of Tory peers. The Dock Work Regulation Bill was attacked by three former Labour Cabinet Ministers. All the votes bar one—which was on a minor issue—were supported by Cross-Bench peers and, whereas the Labour peers on other issues were able to muster 65, 70 or more votes, only 27 Labour peers voted against excluding small ports and only 34 Labour peers voted against the half-mile corridor. As The Guardian rightly said on Friday:
"the maximum number of Socialists is wanted to give extra moral weight to Labour Bills."
Votes like that, mean not only that the Dork Work Regulation Bill has no moral weight but that Socialist indignation against another place is nothing more than empty rhetoric. The Socialists cannot even get their own Members into the Lobby to support their Bills.
I am indebted to Terence Lancaster's column in the Daily Mirror for the information that in one month this autumn the Government in another place lost 46 Divisions, half of which would have been won if 48 per cent. of the Labour peers had been there. The Government cannot conceivably argue that the Tory peers are frustrating the will of the Commons.
No, the House of Lords is performing its rightful task under legislation passed when Clem Attlee was Prime Minister and when the Labour majority in this place was 200 over all other parties. The function of the upper House will be rendered entirely purposeless unless this House has a proper opportunity to debate Lords amendments. If we are not given time to debate Lords amendments, the answer is given by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) in The Times this morning:
"Choosing to bundle these Bills through in a week is inviting the Lords to reinstate its amendments."
That is the view of a Labour Member and I leave it to him to express it.

69
The Dock Work Regulation Bill is wholly unnecessary. It is not even a manifesto commitment, so that arguments about the manifesto are irrelevant. Its only virtue is that it displays for all to see the craven subservience of a Government prepared to flout the electorate and damage the economy in order to gratify the ambitions of one of its power-hungry trade union masters.
On the Health Services Bill our case is even stronger. The Committee stage in another place started only on Thursday. Even as we discuss this motion the other place is discussing the Health Services Bill in Committee. How can the Government claim that six hours will be enough to discuss the amendments that will come back from another place? According to the Order Paper, so far 142 amendments have been tabled in another place, 30 of which are amendments on which we tied in Committee—a point to which the Secretary of State made no reference. The amendments were lost or the clauses stand in the Bill solely by the Chairman's casting vote. Those 30 amendments received not one word of debate when the Bill came back here on Report. There has been no opportunity for the House to make up its mind upon those amendments. They stand solely by the Chairman's casting vote.
It must, of course, be for another place to decide what to do, but I am advised that it would be perfectly proper for all 30 of those tied amendments which were never discussed here on Report to be returned to us to enable us to reach a decision as we have not yet done upon those amendments and clauses.
It addition, the Government introduced amendments here on Report which were not discussed and on which, therefore, no view was expressed. There are at least six substantial new points on the Lords Order Paper which have not been considered in the House of Commons. The Government in another place undertook to look again at one point which was considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House and rejected each time, namely, compensation for consultants who lose their private practice and cannot be given full-time consultancies in the National Health Service.
70
The Government argue that we have had enough time. The Secretary of State said that there was one sitting left over in Committee, but the House should know that the right hon. Gentleman specifically requested us to finish the new clauses by lunch-time on 3rd August because several of his hon. Friends wished to get away to their constituencies. To throw that back at us and to say that it shows that we had more than enough time in Committee to discuss these matters is not only absurd but is a breach of the conventions of the House.
To suggest that it was up to us to decide how to spend the time on Report and that we wasted such time as we had is rubbish. By far the longest debate we had on Report related to New Clause 2, which was a Left-wing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and which also took in another clause. That debate lasted 4 hours 48 minutes, of which Labour speeches occupied 2 hours 21 minutes. There were two minority spokesmen, whose contributions took 17 minutes, and other Opposition speakers made contributions lasting only 2 hours 10 minutes, including three of my hon. Friends who did not serve on the Committee. As a result, 47 amendments on Report were left entirely undebated. The majority of those were amendments on which we had tied in Standing Committee. Yet if the other place decides to return the other amendments to this House it will be impossible for them all to be debated here, even if confined to the 30 tied amendments that were guillotined on Report. If we were to discuss 30 amendments in a period of six hours, that would allow a 12-minute debate on each, during which time would have to be found for Divisions.
This is a gagging of parliamentary debate and it is an outrage. It is all very well for Labour Members, including Government spokesmen, to giggle, but they know that after the events of last week none of their seats is safe.
My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) and Workington (Mr. Page) have taken their seats today, and that represents a visible demand by the people that the Government should drop all this offensive legislation. It shows the Government's arrogant determination to force through this legislation

71
despite last week's results in the by-elections and it demonstrates the hollow pretensions of the Labour Party to be a democratic party. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in dividing against this motion.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate.
I wish to deal specifically with the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Some of the arguments advanced from the Labour Benches are bound to be repetitious since many of them apply to the provisions of the Education Bill and the National Health Services Bill.
Hon. Members spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the docks industry and the Opposition both in Committee and on Report displayed a great deal of ignorance about the industry. However, it has been surpassed only by the obvious ignorance of the other place in its comments on the industry.
Those who work in the industry and understand it recognise that there is bound to be a major change in the structure of the industry to enable the opportunities for employment to be preserved. They appreciate that there must be some regulation of the situation from the centre.
Although the Bill does not deal with the reorganisation of the National Dock Labour Board, new powers will be given to the board and that will be the beginning of a changing process. Those who know the docks industry appreciate that, because of technological and other changes, there has been a tremendous amount of disorder in the past. Those changes have reduced the labour force and at the same time have converted dock labour into a new form.
These problems have not been fully dealt with by the National Dock Labour Board in its existing framework, although in postwar years that board has played a tremendous part in organising the docks industry and securing better conditions of work for its employees. There is now a need to review the situation since the board has been in existence for 30 years. The new task must be seen against the changes in the industry, bear-
72
ing in mind security of employment for dock workers.
If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackmail."] I believe that those people in the industry will be as entitled to take such action as are the members of the House of Lords who have taken decisions to wreck this Bill. I represent people in the industry whose future will depend on some changes taking place, but members of the other place will not be affected if the Bill falls. Therefore, it may in the end be the responsibility of the people in the industry outside to determine the future of their industry as affected by this Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. David Price: I am tempted to take up the first point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) who at the conclusion of his remarks made an unconstitutional threat, but I shall refrain from so doing. I do not wish to discuss the merits of either of these Bills, I wish only to deal with the more specific point involving the manner in which this House has been treated in this motion.
The kindest thing I can say about it is that it is on the lines of a blind date. In my younger days I might have been attracted to the idea of a blind date in a hospital or on the docks, but certainly the idea of a blind date in terms of legislation is not at all acceptable.
I raised this point with Mr. Speaker when these debates began. I pointed out that of the five Bills before the House on only one, the Education Bill, were there Government proposals to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments. Without the Lords amendments and Government proposals before us as to the way in which we should handle them, I do not believe that we are in a position to determine whether the amount of time proposed to be allocated by the Government is correct. That is a simple parliamentary point and it contains no party political element.
I should have thought that Labour Members, particularly those who sit below the Gangway and who may soon suffer a transfer of geography in the

73
House, might think about preserving their own future position. I would hope that some Labour Members still care about preserving the rules of this House, both explicitly and implicitly.
I do not deny the Government's right to deal with Lords amendments by bringing forward timetable motions for the consideration of the House. In regard to the Education Bill, we have the necessary information in order to debate the timetable. But in regard to the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the National Health Services Bill the situation is different. We are concerned with whether we can give proper consideration to these proposals within a debating time of only six hours. In the case of the Dock Work Regulation Bill the other place has not yet even concluded its consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If such cries are to be heard from the Government Front Bench, I must remind the House of what was said in the Cousins Report in respect of the situation in London which affects particularly Clause 6. I shall not go into that matter now, but it reflects a changing situation in the docks. Therefore, the situation is different from the one that faced the House on Second Reading. There is a new situation.
I believe that we should not pass this motion because we have not the necessary information before us. The job of the Leader of the House is not only to be a fixer of Government business but to lead all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, has failed in that duty. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the Opposition Benches I regarded him as a great parliamentary figure and a person who cared for parliamentary procedure and the rights of Parliament. But that is not how I regard the Leader of the House today. I only hope that he finds his jackboots comfortable.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Time is of the essence of this debate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) did, I shall keep my comments brief.
I deeply resent the idea that we shall not have proper debate after all the time
74
spent in the House of Commons, both in Committee and on the Floor, on the two Bills which we are now considering and on which we have still to spend more time. I give an immediate answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he asks whether we shall have enough time. I reply unequivocally with regard to the Health Services Bill, the pay beds Bill, that we shall have more than adequate time. It is one of the thinnest Bills with which I have ever had to deal in the House. About four points of fundamental difference between the parties arose, and those four points have been rehearsed and examined time and again both here and in the other place. We are thus landed at a stage when we can no longer have the same questions raised again and again.
What is happening in the other place is a rehearsal of the same arguments. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made some play of the fact that in Standing Committee we often had a tied vote. If there are eight Opposition Members on one side and eight Government Members on the other, I cannot see how one can avoid having a tied vote time after time, and that was our situation.
In my view, comparing the present Health Services Bill with the massive reorganisation Bill of 1973, with its 54 clauses, the time we have had and shall have is more than adequate for us and for the other place.
Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, anyone who has concern and care for the National Health Service—in which I include hon. Members on both sides, since that concern and care is shared in all quarters of the House—is aware that the longer things remain in limbo, the more difficult it is to resolve difficult situations and relationships. That applies, in particular to the pay beds issue. Argument has gone on between the ancillary workers, on the one hand, and medical staff, on the other, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that matters be resolved at an early date, since there are so many other questions of far greater importance.
We are talking here about 4,500 beds out of a total of 500,000. We are talking about tens of thousands of private patients compared with 5½ million ordinary

75
patients. It is, therefore, for the resolution of this problem that the guillotine motion comes before the House again.
To my right hon. Friend I say that of course we shall get the Bill, and six hours will be adequate. If, by some strange chance, we do not get it through this Session, naturally, the Parliament Act will give it to us before August next year. But I urge that we do not have to use the Parliament Act for the reason put by my right hon. Friend—that the sooner the matter is resolved, the sooner we can get on with more important questions, and the sooner we shall see the end of the symptoms of dissatisfaction and conflict in the service and start to build up morale—not only the morale of doctors, but the morale of all those who work in and who use the service.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall refer in a moment to the constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). I wish to deal first with the question of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I was very surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), because in his last few sentences he said, in effect, that, irrespective of what the House of Lords said, irrespective of what the House of Commons said and irrespective of what Parliament said, the dockers would have their way. I believe that that is what he intended to convey, and we shall have to look in Hansard tomorrow for it. I am sure that that was the gist of what he meant. I can only say that, if any confrontation does take place, not only we but the country will know where the blame lies.
It has been said that the Bill has been debated at length in Committee, but it has not been debated at length on Report in the House. The unique feature of the present docks Bill is that, whereas other such Bills in the past have concerned only one industry, the docks industry, and usually only a handful of major port areas, this Bill affects the whole coastal area of Scotland, Wales and England and, in addition, it affects many industries not remotely concerned with the docks industry.
That is why the Dock Work Regulation Bill requires the fullest debate on
76
the Floor of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said, not only are coastal constituencies affected by the Bill but, much further than that, many inland constituencies are affected, too, since the dockers' corridor extends along the tidal rivers. Therefore, every possible opportunity should be given to those who did not serve on the Standing Committee to represent their constituency interests on the Floor of the House.
The Report stage was restricted to one day, which did not allow many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to speak for their constituency interests, although they had received many representations from companies in their constituencies simply asking how the Bill would affect them. It certainly will affect them, and it is pointless for hon. Members on the Government side to say that the anxiety about the Bill has been worked up by the Press and it is all a great Tory ruse to excite and inflame people who work in warehouses or cold stores with the fear that their jobs are in danger.
We all know from the volume of correspondence received from our constituencies that many companies are seriously worried. It is absurd to argue that it is all the doing of a Tory Press. Are we asked to imagine that workers in warehouses and cold stores read partisan articles in the Daily Telegraph, nudging their workmates and asking them to pass them the latest inflammatory article in the Investors Chronicle and Stock Exchange Gazette? The truth is nothing of the sort. Everybody knows that many people in the cargo-handling industry will be affected by the Bill. Therefore, the fullest possible time should be given for hon. Members to represent their constituents' interests on the Floor.
In introducing the motion, the Secretary of State said that the Bill was essential—essential for the cargo-handling industry and essential for our import and export trade. Let him try to persuade the people from the IMF that the Bill is essential for the regeneration of British industry. They will not believe him, and he cannot expect us to believe him. The Bill is in no way essential to the regeneration of British industry or the stimulation of our exports.

77
I come now to a point of even deeper significance. I do not object to the use of the guillotine. Governments of all complexions have the power to use the guillotine. But when a Government use the guillotine constantly on a whole series of measures, as the present Government have been doing, they undoubtedly strain the ancient links which bind our constitution. Debates in Standing Committee and on the Floor are essential to the life of Parliament, and the House must be exceedingly jealous about surrendering any time for such debate.
When the wheel of fortune turns, as inevitably it will, and hon. Members opposite find themselves on these Benches, they will agree with every word that I am saying. Indeed, the great argument against the Government's present policy and conduct is the attitude of the Leader of the House himself, who, when he sat on these Benches, and even when he had another position on the Government side, constantly opposed the use of the guillotine to curtail debate. Until he assumed his present office, he was the embodiment of debate in the House. He was one of the greatest parliamentarians. [An HON. MEMBER: "He still is."] Then why is he pressing through this guillotine motion to curtail debate? The answer is that he has joined the Executive, and he realises, as all who join the Executive do, that the Government must have their way.
One of the most worrying features of our constitutional history over the past few years is that there has been a significant shift in favour of the power of the Executive. The time has come for the House of Commons to assert its position as a legislature. We must examine legislation properly. The House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, has become a sort of midwife who produces more bad legislation more quickly than does any other legislature. That is one of the reasons why this House as a body is held in contempt in the country.
Second, we must reassert our power to call the Executive to account. Part of that power lies in the preservation of a second Chamber—certainly, a reformed second Chamber—a second Chamber
78
which is elected and which can review and improve Bills which we send to it.
If we are not prepared to accept this measure of constitutional change and reform, the trend that I have been talking about will continue, and the Executive will become more and more powerful until we become part of a single-party, single-chamber constitution. That is the road that we are sliding down.
I believe that all those checks and balances which have been built into our constitutional practice over the years and, indeed, centuries no longer operate. The most worrying thing about our constitutional practice today is that those checks and balances which are supposed to operate within the House no longer check and no longer balance.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: One of the funniest remarks so far today was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). He invited the Government to create 200 new Labour peers. I do not know whether he was thinking of the ennoblement of some of his hon. Friends. If that were to happen, it might leave the Labour Party somewhat vulnerable in the by-elections which would follow. But perhaps he was thinking that the Government might ennoble people who are not Members of this House. Yet, methinks, are there 200 Socialists left? Are there 200 people left in the country who would support the Government's line?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that Labour peers already in another place cannot bring themselves to support these measures, not even to draw the £13·50 per day which is the reward for going along there and voting. What is it that makes the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government could find 200 or 2,000, or 200,000 Labour peers to support this legislation?
The doctrine of the mandate is suspect because the only scrap of justification which the Government have for these motions today and for clinging to these Bills at all is that some time, a long time ago, they had a mandate for them. Let us examine this doctrine. The mandate, such as it was, was a 38 per cent. vote of the electorate two years ago. Do the

79
Government now have a 38 per cent. vote of the electorate? I see that the Secretary of State for Employment is grimacing. Barrow-in-Furness, which he represents, is very near Workington. He, too, might be in the unemployed queue if he had to go for re-election.
I do not believe that the people of the country have the slightest confidence in the policies represented by these five Bills. They do not believe that they are the right things to do. Let us look at the effect upon the economy which the Government have had. They have brought the country to a really low pass. So I believe that the vote which will take place in about 20 minutes' time is of monumental importance. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) is going to grace us with her presence, or whether she believes that her baby is more important. Indeed, I think that the child unborn may rule the voting on this issue.
I am glad that the Leader of the House is here because I want to say a few words about him. He and the Prime Minister remind me of King Lear and Gloucester. I do not know quite which is which, although I imagine that the Prime Minister is Gloucester, because the Leader of the House looks, in my imagination, so like King Lear himself. They are wandering about, lost and depressed; their army is routed; both of them are blind—over one eye is written "Workington" and over the other is written "Walsall, North". They are wandering midst mist and fog after defeat in battle. I remind the Leader of the House of King Lear's words to Gloucester:
"Get thee glass eyes;
And, like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thous dost not."
to which Gloucester replied,
"The king is mad;"
At that stage, Edgar said,
"… methinks, I hear the beaten drum."
It is the beaten drum that we hear. Why do the Government persist with this legislation? Do they not realise that they are lost, defeated and beaten? Will they not at least accept the common will, the democratic desire for them to leave office, take away their legislation and withdraw this motion?
5.37 p.m.
Sir George Young: I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said about the guillotining of the Health Services Bill. It is different from the others we are discussing today. First, it is at the back of the queue. It is the last of the five Bills to go to the Lords. It would help if we could have some idea of its future timetable, when it will come back to this House, and what scope there will be for reversing Lords amendments and perhaps giving the Lords another opportunity to look at the Bill. Will there be time for this process of consultation and consideration to take place?
Secondly, the Bill is different because a large number of points in Committee were resolved only by the casting vote of the Chair, and this House has not had an opportunity itself to resolve those points. The time scale envisaged for the Bill now will not give the House an opportunity to come to a final view on those matters.
Thirdly, it is a discourtesy that the motion should have been announced even before the other place had started its discussion of the Bill in Committee. The Lords started considering the Bill in Committee. The Lords started considering the Bill in Committee at 3.56 p.m. last Thursday, after the guillotine had been announced here. It seems rather precipitous to announce a guillotine here before the Lords have even begun their deliberations in Committee.
Then there is the matter of the tied votes. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) implied that it was perfectly natural that there should have been tied votes because there were equal numbers of both sides on the Bill. There were nine Government members of the Committee, eight from the official Opposition and one Ulster Unionist, whose voting behaviour was unpredictable, which is the best way to describe it. One reason for so many tied votes was that the Secretary of State had to absent himself on a large number of occasions in order to attend the Cabinet.
The Secretary of State said something which I believe to have been a breach of a convention. He implied that the Opposition were unable to fill the allotted

81
time in Committee. I think that he said that we ran out of debate and the Committee rose early. I believe that the arrangement was arrived at through the usual channels that it would be for the convenience of his hon. Friends as well as ourselves that debate should end at a certain time. I believe, therefore, that what the right hon. Gentleman said today was a breach of a convention of arrangements reached through the usual channels.
The Health Services Bill was introduced far too late in the Session, went into Committee far too late, and has gone to the other place far too late. It is intolerable that this congested timetable should have been presented to us, because the Government's own mismanagement is entirely responsible for the congestion.
Mr. Speaker: Would hon. Gentlemen be kind enough to confine themselves to speaking as briefly as possible?
5.40 p.m.
Mr. John Prescott: In the short time available I should like to answer a number of the comments about the guillotine which have come from Conservatives. Every one of us has had to take a different position on the guillotine, depending on whether we were in opposition. When we were in opposition, naturally we voted against any guillotine imposed by the previous Conservative Government. We all understand the arguments involved.
However, it is a bit much to hear Conservatives complaining about the guillotine on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which affects only a small number of people, when they were quite prepared to impose a guillotine on the Industrial Relations Act, which affected considerably more people. Of even greater consequence was the guillotine which they imposed on the Common Market legislation which, above all other pieces of legislation, affected everybody and which was only a 12-clause measure. To that extent the Opposition are the last people to complain about this.
A number of hon. Members opposite have complained that we should be convincing the IMF, the House of Lords, in fact everybody but the House of Commons. Yet it is here the decision is made.
82
Another reason why I consider that we should support the Government is that I come from Humberside, where the Dock Work Regulation Bill is a very important issue. The previous Conservative Government should be aware of the riots and problems at a Hull Wharf, the reasons for which are shown in the report of the Jones-Aldington Committee, which was set up by the then Tory Government. That report showed that many dock workers were being exploited as far as hours, wages and periods of time involved were concerned. This legislation is required to rectify that position and to give these workers advantages and rates of pay equal to those enjoyed by the dockers in the registered schemes.
I have gone into this subject in greater detail in previous speeches in this House, so I shall not continue this argument. Suffice to say, that there are solid arguments why this Bill should go through, and I hope that the House will pass this motion tonight.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. David Madel: I wish to put one brief point to the Employment Secretary. He will recall that in Committee on the Dock Work Regulation Bill he said he would do his level best to avoid a guillotine. Therefore, it must come as rather a shock to him to find this Bill being guillotined, first in July and again now. If the Secretary of State reflects on what he said in Committee, the situation in the docks, in employment generally and in investment must cause him to pause for thought. Since July unemployment has gone up and uncertainty about investment in the industries affected by this Bill has increased.
The legislative record of the Department of Employment is pretty good. By that I do not mean that it is necessarily good in content, but the measures themselves—the Health and Safety at Work Bill, the Employment Protection Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill—have been pushed through very quickly. No one can say that the Department has lagged behind in putting Bills on the statute book.
But in taking this course of action on this measure the Department is getting into bad habits. If it does this now, what will it do with the industrial democracy

83
legislation next Session? Will the Government push that ahead without adequate discussion? If the Secretary of State goes on the way he has started there is a horrible risk that there will be inadequate discussion on industrial democracy, in the same way that there has been inadequate discussion of this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Leon Brittan: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has been more candid and honest on this matter than anyone on the Government Front Bench. He has said that it is improper for the House of Lords to carry out the function allotted to it by a Labour piece of legislation, and that it is proper therefore for the Government to take the action which they are taking today. That amounts to treating the House of Lords and the process of legislation in that House with contempt. What is more, if the House of Lords refuses to take that contempt lying down, the hon. Member says it is right and proper to resolve the matter by industrial action. That shows a disregard for the proper constitutional practices of this country which is extremely worrying, but it is no more than a reflection of the attitude of the Government.
The Government must know that in asking the House to decide how long we should take on debating matters which the House of Lords has not yet debated they are making a travesty of two-chamber legislation. The Government cannot be serious in expecting the Houses of Commits to begin to decide how long to take on discussing matters which have not yet reached the House of Lords, as is the case in two of the Bills under consideration. It is absurd to suggest that this is the right way to go about things.
If the Government want to operate the constitution as it stands, they must organise their legislation to give the House of Lords sufficient time to consider it, so that this House can then decide how long it needs to consider what the Lords have done. If the Government find this objectionable, the procedure they should then adopt is to introduce legislation to reform the House of Lords, which we would be perfectly prepared to consider on its merits.
84
To go around by the back door and pretend, as the hon. Member does, that the House of Lords does not have a function allotted to it by a piece of Labour legislation, that this function should be bypassed, and that it would be proper to resort to industrial action if need be, seems to us an extremely dangerous procedure which we rightly regard as savouring of the Reichstag.
5.48 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): When the House last debated the timetable for proceedings on the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Health Services Bill, I said that there was an urgent need to reach a conclusion on the dock work legislation. Now, nearly four months later, the urgency is even greater.
In the Standing Committee, which ran for 36 sittings, we debated carefully and at length every aspect of this Bill. Subsequent consideration brought no new aspects to light and no further or new principles were proposed. When the Bill was sent to another place, it gave it another 41 hours debate, so in all since it was introduced the Bill has been discussed for 140 hours. Its principles have been considered its details thrashed out and its desirability has in my view had more than sufficient discussion to enable this House to reach a conclusion.
In another place the inbuilt non-elected majority made a mockery of the democratic process by trying to frustrate the underlying principles of the Bill. All the amendments passed in that place against the advice of the Government have been on matters which were fully covered and approved by the House of Commons.
Mr. James Prior: Since the Secretary of State considers that the House of Lords has been making a mockery of the democratic process would he take time to explain to us the actual motion on the Order Paper and what it does?
Mr. Booth: What the motion does is quite clear. It allocates six hours to the Lords amendments and three hours on any subsequent stage and it makes provision for voting so that voting can take place after the six hours have expired on the proposition "That this House doth disagree with the Lords" and on a separate proposition for amendments

85
which involve matters of privilege, or matters in which this House might seek to agree with the Lords. There is no question of voting cutting into the time proposed in the motion.
Had the House of Lords raised some great new issue, we would have had to give the time, but the other place made amendments which were designed to change the composition of the National Dock Board. In Standing Committee the Opposition withdrew exactly the same amendment as the Lords have now passed. Furthermore, they did so without even forcing a Division.
The other place has inserted a new clause providing for appeals against classification. We discussed that proposition for one and a quarter hours in Standing Committee and it was defeated. On Report we discussed it again for three and a quarter hours and again it was defeated.
Mr. David Price: There might be force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if we had before us the Lords amendments and, even more important, what the Government propose in respect of them. Maybe if the Government supported all the amendments we could dispose of the Bill in an hour, but we do not know. We have no way of determining whether the Secretary of State's argument is correct.
Mr. Booth: I have studied all the amendments passed by the House of Lords, but I do not have the time to deploy the arguments upon them now. On the two that I have mentioned, the Government propose that the decision of the Commons should be upheld.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question of the tied votes on the Health Services Bill. Would it not be utterly deplorable if amendments were sent back to the Lords without any discussion here on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Booth: No, the Bills are coming back with Lords amendments and the question is how we should deal with them. I am suggesting that on the Dock Work Regulation Bill no new issue of principle has been raised by the other
86
place. Not only do the Lords amendments repeat word for word amendments which have been considered in this House, but they fail to take account of the arguments which this House accepted.
When we debate these Lords amendments we shall find, for example, that the Bill, as it has been amended, excludes all scheme ports from the scope of Clause 4(3). Clearly the other place does not understand matters which are regarded by this House and the Standing Committee as issues of major importance.
This House has had unique opportunities to consider the principles involved in the Bill. On 14th April 1975 we debated the consultative document, and we approved that document. In the debate on the Queen's Speech we debated an amendment, and on Second Reading we approved the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) now says that the Bill is unnecessary. If it had been unnecessary it would not have been passed in principle three times by the House. It seems strange to me that a man who was a Minister in a Conservative Government which presided over two national dock strikes should set himself up as a judge of what legislation is necessary to deal with industrial relations in that industry.
The problems with which the Bill seeks to deal have grown steadily since the late 1960s. The Government believe that it is essential to deal with the underlying industrial relations problems of the industry. If the record of this Government is compared with the record of the last Conservative Administration, our success and our judgment in these matters speak for themselves. We judge the Bill to be essential for industrial peace on the docks, and on that basis I call upon my Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I call upon my hon. Friends and all other Members of the House of Commons who seek resolution of the problems confronting the docks industry to pass the motion in order that we can make a proper determination of the issue.
It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them: —
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 307.

Division No. 374.]

AYES

[4.39 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cronin, John

Gould, Bryan

Allaun, Frank

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Gourlay, Harry

Anderson, Donald

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Graham, Ted

Archer, Peter

Cryer, Bob

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Armstrong, Ernest

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Ashley, Jack

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Grocott, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Dalyell, Tam

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Davidson, Arthur

Hardy, Peter

Atkinson, Norman

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Barnell, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hatton, Frank

Bates, Alf

Deakins, Eric

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bean, R. E.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Heffer, Eric S.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hooley, Frank

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Horam, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Dempsey, James

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

Bishop, E. S.

Doig, Peter

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dormand, J. D.

Huckfield, Les

Boardman, H.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Bradley, Tom

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hunter, Adam

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eadie, Alex

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Edge, Geoff

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Janner, Greville

Buchan, Norman

English, Michael

Jay, Rt Kon Douglas

Buchanan, Richard

Ennals, David

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

John, Brynmor

Campbell, Ian

Evans, John (Newton)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Cant, R. B.

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Carmichael, Nell

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Carter, Ray

Filch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Judd, Frank

Cartwright, John

Flannery, Martin

Kaufman, Gerald

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Kelley, Richard

Clemitson, Ivor

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kerr, Russell

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Kllroy-Sllk, Robert

Cohen, Stanley

Ford, Ben

Kinnock, Neil

Coleman, Donald

Forrester, John

Lambie, David

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lamborn, Harry

Concannon, J. 0.

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

Lamond, James

Conlan, Bernard

Freeson, Reginald

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Corbett, Robin

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lee, John

Cowans, Harry

George, Bruce

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gilbert, Dr John

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Ginsburg, David

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Crawshaw, Richard

Golding, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Lipton, Marcus

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stoddart, David

Litterick, Tom

Ovenden, John

Stott, Roger

Lomas, Kenneth

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Strang, Gavin

Loyden, Eddie

Padley, Walter

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Luard, Evan

Palmer, Arthur

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Park, George

Swain, Thomas

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Parker, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Parry, Robert

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McCartney, Hugh

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

McElhone, Frank

Perry, Ernest

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Phipps, Dr Colin

Tierney, Sydney

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tinn, James

MacKenzie, Gregor

Prescott, John

Tomlinson, John

Mackintosh, John P.

Price, C. (Lewisham W.)

Tomney, Frank

Maclennan, Robert

Price, William (Rugby)

Torney, Tom

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Radice, Giles

Urwin, T. W.

McNamara, Kevin

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Madden, Max

Richardson, Miss Jo

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Magee, Bryan

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Walker Harold (Doncaster)

Mahon, Simon

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Robinson, Geoffrey

Ward, Michael

Marks, Kenneth

Roderick, Caerwyn

Watkins, David

Marquand, David

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Watkinson, John

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Weetch, Ken

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Rooker J. W.

weitzman, David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Roper John

Wellbeloved, James

Maynard, Miss Joan

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Killmarnock)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Meacher, Michael

Rowlands, Ted

White, James (Pollock)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Ryman John

Whitehead, Philip

Mendelson, John

Sandelson, Neville

Whitlock, William

Mikardo, Ian

Sedgemore, Brian

Wigley, Dafydd

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Selby Harry

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Shaw Arnold (Ilford South)

Williams, Alan (Swansea w)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Molloy, William

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Moonman, Eric

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Sillars, James

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Silverman, Jullus

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Moyle, Roland

Skinner, Dennis

Woodall, Alec

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Small, William

Woof, Robert

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Newens, Stanley

Snape, Peter

Young, David (Bolton E)

Noble, Mike

Spearing, Nigel

Oakes, Gordon

Spearing, Leslie

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ogden, Eric

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Joseph Harper and

O'Halloran, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Mr. James Hamilton

Orbach, Maurice

NOES

Adley, Robert

Budgen, Nick

Dykes, Hugh

Aitken, Jonathan

Bulmer, Esmond

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Alison, Michael

Burden, F. A.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Elliott, Sir William

Arnold, Tom

Carlisle, Mark

Emery, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Carson, John

Eyre, Reginald

Awdry, Daniel

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Baker, Kenneth

Channon, Paul

Fairgrieve, Russell

Banks, Robert

Churchill, W. S.

Farr, John

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Fell, Anthony

Bell, Ronald

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Clegg, Waller

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Benyon, W.

Cockcroft, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Biffen, John

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Forman, Nigel

Biggs-Davison, John

Cope, John

Fowler, Norman (Sutton c' f' d)

Blaker, Peter

Cordle, John H.

Fox, Marcus

Body, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Corrie, John

Freud, Clement

Bottomley, Peter

Costain, A. p.

Fry, Peter

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Boy son, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Critchley, Julian

Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.

Bradford, Rev Robert

Crouch, David

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Crowder, F. P.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Brittan, Leon

Dean, Paul (N Somerest)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Brotherton, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Drayson, Burnaby

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Bryan, Sir Paul

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Goodhart, Philip

Buchanan-Smith, Allck

Dunlop, John

Goodhew, Victor

Buck, Antony

Durant, Tony

Goodlad, Alastair

Gorst, John

58

59

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

McCusker, H.

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Macfarlane, Neil

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

MacGregor, John

Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

Gray, Hamish

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Grieve, Percy

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Griffiths, Eldon

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Madel, David

Royle, Sir Anthony

Grist, Ian

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sainsbury, Tim

Grylls, Michael

Marten, Nell

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Hall, Sir John

Mates, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mather, Carol

Scott-Hopkins, James

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maude, Angus

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Hannam, John

Mawby, Ray

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shepherd, Colin

Hastings, Stephen

Mayhew, Patrick

Shersby, Michael

Havers, Sir Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Silvester, Fred

Hawkins, Paul

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Sims, Roger

Hayhoe, Barney

Mills, Peter

Sinclair, Sir George

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Miscampbell, Norman

Skeet, T. H. H.

Heseltine, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Hicks, Robert

Moate, Roger

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Higgins, Terence L.

Molyneaux, James

Speed, Keith

Holland, Philip

Monro, Hector

Spence, John

Hooson, Emlyn

Montgomery, Fergus

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Hordern, Peter

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Sproat, Iain

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morgan, Geraint

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hodgson, Robin

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Stanley, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Mudd, David

Stokes, John

Hurd, Douglas

Neave, Airey

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Nelson, Anthony

Tapsell, Peter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Neubert, Michael

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

James, David

Newton, Tony

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

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

Normanton, Tom

Tebbit, Norman

Jessel, Toby

Nott, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Onslow, cranley

Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Osborn, John

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Jopling, Michael

Page, John (Harrow West)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Page, Richard (Workington)

Trotter, Neville

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Paisley, Rev Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Kershaw, Anthony

Pardoe, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Kilfedder James

Pattie, Geoffrey

Viggers, Peter

Kimball, Marcus

Penhaligon, David

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Percival. Ian

Wakeham, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kirk Sir Peter

Pink, R. Bonner

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Knight, Mrs Jill

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wall, Patrick

Knox, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Walters, Dennis

Lamont, Norman

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Warren, Kenneth

Lane, David

Raison, Timothy

Weatherill, Bernard

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rathbone, Tim

Wells, John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Lawrence, Ivan

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wiggin, Jerry

Lawson, Nigel

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Winterton, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rhys williams, Sir Brandon

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Lloyd, Ian

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Younger, Hon George

Loveridge, John

Ridsdale, Julian

Luce, Richard

Rifkind, Malcolm

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

McCrindle, Robert

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Division No.375.]

AYES

[5.55 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Allaun, Frank

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lipton, Marcus

Anderson, Donald

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Litterick, Tom

Archer, Peter

English, Michael

Lomas, Kenneth

Armstrong, Ernest

Ennalas, David

Loyden, Eddle

Ashley, Jack

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Luard, Evan

Ashton, Joe

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Evans, John (Newton)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Atkinson, Norman

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Faulds, Andrew

McCartney, Hugh

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Fitch. Alan (Wigan)

McElhone, Frank

Bates, Alt

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Bean, R. E.

Flannery, Martin

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mackintosh, John P.

Bidwell, Sydney

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Bishop, E. S.

Ford, Ben

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Forrester, John

McNamara, Kevin

Boardman, H.

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Madden, Max

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

Magee, Bryan

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Freeson, Reginald

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mahon, Simon

Bradley, Tom

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

George, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Gilbert, Dr John

Marquand, David

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ginsburg, David

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Golding, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Gould, Bryan

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Buchan, Norman

Gourlay, Harry

Maynard. Miss Joan

Buchanan, Richard

Graham, Ted

Meacher, Michael

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mendelson, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Grocott, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Campbell, Ian

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Cant, R. B.

Harper, Joseph

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Carmichael, Neil

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Carter, Ray

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Molloy, William

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Moonman, Eric

Cartwright, John

Hatton, Frank

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Clemitson, Ivor

Heffer, Eric S.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Hooley, Frank

Moyle, Roland

Cohen, Stanley

Horam, John

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Coleman, Donald

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

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Newens, Stanley

Concannon, J. D.

Huckfield, Les

Noble, Mike

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Oakes, Gordon

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Ogden, Eric

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Halloran, Michael

Cowans, Harry

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Orbach, Maurice

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hunter, Adam

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Ovenden, John

Crawshaw, Richard

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Cronin, John

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Padley, Walter

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Palmer, Arthur

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Janner, Greville

Park, George

Cryer, Bob

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Parker, John

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Parry, Robert

Cunningham, Or J. (Whiteh)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Pavitt, Laurie

Dalyell, Tarn

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Pendry, Tom

Davidson, Arthur

John, Brynmor

Perry, Ernest

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Prescott, John

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Deakins, Eric

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Price, William (Rugby)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Judd, Frank

Radice, Giles

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Kaufman, Gerald

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Kelley, Richard

Richardson, Miss Jo

Dempsey, James

Kerr, Russell

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Doig, Feter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Dormand, J. D.

Kinnock, Neil

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lambie, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lamborn, Harry

Roderick, Caerwyn

Dunn, James A.

Lamond, James

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Dunnett, Jack

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynett)

Leadbitter, Ted

Rooker, J. W.

Eadie, Alex

Lee, John

Roper, John

Edge, Geoff

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Rose, Paul B.

Lever. Rt Hon Harold

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

88

89

Rowlands, Ted

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Weitzman, David

Ryman, John

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Wellbeloved, James

Sandelson, Neville

Swain, Thomas

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Sedgemore, Brian

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

White, James (Pollock)

Selby, Harry

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Whitehead, Phillip

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Whitlock, William

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Thome, Stan (Preston South)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Tierney, Sydney

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Tinn, James

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Tomlinson, John

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Sillars, James

Tomney, Frank

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Silverman, Julius

Torney, Tom

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Skinner, Dennis

Urwin, T. W.

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Small, William

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Woodall, Alec

Snape, Peter

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

Woof, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Spriggs, Leslie

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Stallard, A. W.

Ward, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Watkins, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stott, Roger

Watkinson, John

Mr. James Hamilton and

Strang, Gavin

Weetch, Ken

Mr. David Stoddart.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Aitken, Jonathan

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Henderson, Douglas

Alison, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Heseltine, Michael

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Drayson, Burnaby

Hicks, Robert

Arnold, Tom

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Higgins, Terence L.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Dunlop, John

Hodgson, Robin

Awdry, Daniel

Durant, Tony

Holland, Philip

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Dykes, Hugh

Hooson, Emlyn

Baker, Kenneth

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hordern, Peter

Banks, Robert

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Beith, A. J.

Elliott, Sir William

Howell, David (Guildford)

Bell, Ronald

Emery, Peter

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Eyre, Reginald

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Benyon, W.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Fairgrieve, Russell

Hurd, Douglas

Biffen, John

Farr, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Biggs-Davison, John

Fell, Anthony

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Blaker, Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey

James, David

Body, Richard

Fisher, Sir Nigel

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

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Jessel, Toby

Bottomley, Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Forman, Nigel

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Jopling, Michael

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fox, Marcus

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Brittan, Leon

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Freud, Clement

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Brotherton, Michael

Fry, Peter

Kershaw, Anthony

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Kilfedder, James

Bryan, Sir Paul

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Kimball, Marcus

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Buck, Antony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Budgen, Nick

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Bulmer, Esmond

Glyn, Dr Alan

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Burden, F. A.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Knight, Mrs Jill

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Goodhart, Philip

Knox, David

Carlisle, Mark

Goodhew, Victor

Lamont, Norman

Carson, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Lane, David

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Gorst, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Channon, Paul

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Churchill, W. S.

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Lawrence, Ivan

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Lawson, Nigel

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Gray, Hamish

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Grieve, Percy

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Clegg, Walter

Griffiths, Eldon

Lloyd, Ian

Cockcroft, John

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Loveridge, John

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Grist, Ian

Luce, Richard

Cope, John

Grylls, Michael

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Cordle, John H.

Hall, Sir John

MacCormick, Iain

Cormack, Patrick

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

McCrindle, Robert

Corrie, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

McCusker, H.

Costain, A. P.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Macfarlane, Neil

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Hannam, John

MacGregor, John

Crawford, Douglas

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Critchley, Julian

Hastings, Stephen

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Crouch, David

Havers, Sir Michael

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Crowder, F. P.

Hawkins, Paul

Madel, David

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Hayhoe, Barney

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

90

91

Marten, Neil

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stanley, John

Males, Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Mather, Carol

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Maude, Angus

Raison, Timothy

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Rathbone, Tim

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Mawby, Ray

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Stokes, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stradling Thomas, J.

Mayhew, Patrick

Reid, George

Tapsell, Peter

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Mills, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Tebbit, Norman

Miscampbell, Norman

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ridsdale, Julian

Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

Moate, Roger

Rifkind, Malcolm

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Molyneaux, James

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Thompson, George

Monro, Hector

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Thorne, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Montgomery, Fergus

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Town send, Cyril D.

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)

Trotter, Neville

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Morgan, Geraint

Ross, William (Londonderry)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Viggers, Peter

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Royle Sir Anthony

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wakeham, John

Mudd, David

Sainsbury, Tim

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Neave, Airey

St. John-Stevas Norman

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Nelson, Anthony

Scott, Nicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Neubert, Michael

Shaw Giles (Pudsey)

Wall, Patrick

Newton, Tony

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Walters, Dennis

Normanton, Tom

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Warren, Kenneth

Nott, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Watt, Hamish

Onslow, Cranley

Shepherd, Colin

Weaiherill, Bernard

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Shersby, Michael

Wells, John

Osborn, John

Silvester, Fred

welsh, Andrew

Page, John (Harrow West)

Sims, Roger

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Page, Richard (Workington)

Sinclair, Sir George

Wiggin, Jerry

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Winterton, Nicholas

Pardoe, John

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Pattie, Geoffrey

Speed, Keith

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Penhaligon, David

Spence, John

Younger, Hon George

Percival, Ian

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pink, R. Bonner

Sproat, Iain

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That
92
this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has

93
already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forward the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,

(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House both agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.
Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.
(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 7 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.
(6) If the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
6.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric Varley): I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall

95
first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,

(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposals.
Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.
(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.
(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
I have heard it suggested in some quarters that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has not been discussed adequately. The Bill was first introduced in April 1975. Although it was not proceeded with in that Session for lack of time, we treated it as a draft Bill as a basis of consultation. When it was re-introduced
96
nearly a year ago in November last year, it already contained a number of significant amendments to meet points of anxiety raised with us by the companies and others concerned.
The Bill had its Second Reading on 2nd December last year. It was considered in Standing Committee for 58 sittings—the greatest number of sittings on any Bill at any time. The Standing Committee proceedings ran from December to June. The total time spent in this House and including Standing Committee was 184 hours.
Since then, the Bill has been debated in another place for 72 hours, with more to come on Third Reading tomorrow. In this House, more than 800 amendments were tabled in Committee and on Report. In another place, some 450 amendments have been tabled at Committee and Report stages. The Government have accepted, or have tabled themselves to meet assurances made to the Opposition at the various stages of the Bill in both Houses, a very substantial number of amendments.
Right through the long Committee stage in this House the Government sought to place no restrictions on debate. When, faced with the obvious intention of the Opposition to delay the Bill on Report, we put a timetable on remaining stages, we allowed more time for it—three days—than the Opposition had earlier indicated they would have been willing to accept without the guillotine. On the basis of this record, it would be flying in the face of truth to suggest that the Bill has had inadequate debate or that the Government have refused to listen to reasonable points raised during the Bill's passage.
I want now to make clear to the House that the changes made in another place are not revising amendments but wrecking amendments. Let me give a few examples. First, the extent of flexibility for the corporations to develop-their commercial activities has been sharply reduced by amendments to Clauses 2 and 3. Secondly, the industrial democracy provisions have been changed in ways already rejected by the House of Commons; restrictive interpretations have been written in, and forms of consultation which are gravely at odds with the Government's general industrial relations legislation.
Thirdly, the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in the public interest have been sharply reduced, yet his powers to interfere to protect private sector competitors have been increased far beyond the Conservatives' own fair trading legislation.
Fourthly, it has overturned the carefully worked out and well-precedented compensation formula which was fair to both shareholder and taxpayer, and instead has left it to an arbitration tribunal, instead of Parliament, to decide not only the interpretation but also the basis of the compensation arrangements.
Fifthly, shiprepairing and warship-building have been removed entirely from the scope of nationalisation, contrary to the decision of this House. Finally, an amendment has been passed which puts the aircraft industry vesting date back till after the next General Election—creating more delay than the Parliament Act itself, and amounting to a constitutional challenge of the first order. That is not revising legislation but, as some of us have suggested elsewhere, it is disembowelling it.
The Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill estimated that some 145,000 people would come into the public sector because of it. The amendments to this Bill, on aircraft, shiprepairing and war-shipbuilding, cut that figure to about 40,000. That is what another place has thought proper to do to a Bill passed by this House.
The motion before the House represents an important stage in the consideration of this Bill by the House. I must make absolutely clear to the House the very serious consequences if this Bill fails to receive the Royal Assent this Session.
If the timetable motion is rejected today and if the Bill subsequently fails, decision about the future of these industries will have passed from the Government into the hands of those who reject the motion. Without the support of public funding through public ownership, shipyards are in danger of going down like dominoes, and that includes important shipyards in areas of high unemployment in Scotland. By denying the means, those who vote against this motion will have willed the consequences.
In order to survive as a shipbuilding nation, we must have a coherent and unified national strategy. Only public ownership can provide this. Every day when I go into my office at the Department of Industry, I am liable to find on my desk details of a new crisis facing a shipyard, almost certainly in a part of the country where unemployment is already unacceptably too high. We cannot go on in this piecemeal way, considering each case in isolation as it comes up—as the Opposition did when they nationalised Govan, for example.
The shipbuilding crisis is world-wide, and we must have a national policy to deal with it. The Organising Committee has already done excellent work, but it cannot make real progress in tackling the problems of the industry until the Bill is on the statute book.
The position is stark, and I know how those who work in the industry will regard the frivolous way in which these facts are treated by the Opposition. I repeat, the position is stark. World orders for new ships in 1975 were less than half those placed in 1974. In the first six months of 1976, they ran at an even lower rate. More than 30 million gross tons of tanker capacity are laid up. We must have a national organisation to deal with this very serious situation.
The existence of a significant civil aircraft industry in this country also depends on this Bill. If the aircraft industry remains in private hands, it will be because the Opposition parties have voted that its future should be governed by the free play of the market forces. Without public ownership, I see little prospect of major new civil aircraft projects. So, if this motion falls this evening and if the Bill subsequently fails, it will be for the Conservative and Liberal Parties and all the other Opposition parties which vote against them to explain to the workers at Filton, Hatfield and Weybridge how the future of their factories is to be preserved. It will be for the Conservatives, Liberals and Welsh nationalists to explain to the workers at Hawker Siddeley, Broughton, how the future of their jobs is to be secured.
Then there is Scottish Aviation. Last week, 400 further redundancies were declared—a token of the future if this

99
firm does not come under public ownership, because the situation will deteriorate, as the management of Scottish Aviation recognises.
At Question Time this afternoon, my hon. Friend referred to the grave position for Scottish Aviation if this Bill does not go through. All Scottish Members should consider this situation seriously. It is vital for these industries that the Bill should reach the statute book this Session and the motion is an essential step in ensuring that. I urge the House to support it.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: One of the most intriguing features of the Secretary of State's speech was the contrast between the harrowing scene which he depicted as greeting him every morning at the Department with crisis after crisis on his desk and the lackadaisical process by which the Government have introduced this measure. What have they been doing for two and a half years? If it was, in their view, essential to nationalise these industries as the only way of saving them, why did they not introduce the Bill and try to push it through in their first one and a half years in office?
If they really thought that this Bill provided the only solution, one would have expected them to apply themselves to trying to get it through. Obviously, they did not regard it as being of such high priority that it should be given legislative time ahead of the other things to which they accorded greater priority.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They either believe in the reforming ability of a second Chamber, as they presumably intended in their Parliament Act 1949, or they do not. They cannot have a reforming second Chamber and then criticise it when it scrutinises legislation from this House.
If hon. Members opposite believe that another place should not have such powers, it is legitimate for them to seek to change that situation, but as long as the current constitutional position exists, another place is fully entitled to send back for further consideration any amendments it thinks correct.
100
One of the issues confronting the Government is the consequence of the dilatory way in which they have behaved over this legislation. On Second Reading, the Government had a majority of five; on Third Reading, a majority of three; and on this motion, on the basis of the current strengths of the parties, the best they could hope for is a majority of one.
Does anyone really believe that this gives the Government a case for nationalising two significant industries at a cost of £400 million to £500 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is because some hon. Members opposite believe that one is enough that they will find after the next by-election that they will not have even that majority. The Secretary of State repeated the argument which was deployed by the Minister of State during Question Time today and which we have heard many times before—that nationalisation will deal with the problem of unemployment in these industries. This argument is becoming shriller as time goes on. In the earlier stages of our consideration, the Secretary of State made clear that there would be redundancies in the industries and that the Government knew that both would have to be run down.
It is a delusion—to use a moderate word—to suggest that nationalisation offers any prospect of protecting jobs in these industries. The reality is that it prejudices jobs in these industries and in many others.
Let the Government explain how nationalisation will protect jobs in either industry. What difference will it make to Scottish Aviation that shares are simply changing ownership? Will the Government use taxpayers' money to subsidise losses in the company? Will they indulge in widespread blanket subsidies for the shipbuilding industry in order to maintain the present level of employment? If so, where will they get the funds? Has the Secretary of State not yet learned that the more funds the Government raise by borrowing or through taxation, the more they will perpetuate a climate of economic decline, the higher will be the rates of interest and the more jobs they will destroy in the rest of the manufacturing economy?

101
Of course, the Secretary of State knows that he cannot create jobs by buying support in the way he has suggested. His own Department played a significant part in the preparation of the Chequers strategy which made clear that the Government were going to deploy assets in productive and profitable sources. How can the right hon. Gentleman believe in that strategy and still hold out the prospect to thousands of workers that, if there are losses in their companies, the Government will continue to subsidise them? He cannot have it both ways.
The other argument pressed by the Secretary of State with great strength is that nationalisation is essential in order to protect jobs as a mechanistic device in itself. Yet the Government took into public ownership British Leyland, Alfred Herbert, Ferranti and Court Shipbuilders without any new legislation being passed. How can they suggest that they need to spend £400 million to £500 million to nationalise 42 companies, many of which are profitable and viable, when they were capable of nationalising the other companies to which I referred without any new legislation?
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that we took British Leyland into public ownership through the British Leyland Act, which his party voted against?
Mr. Heseltine: The Minister is wrong again. The rescue of British Leyland took place under the Industry Act when this House gave £50 million in temporary support. It was only when the Government adopted the Ryder strategy and committed hundreds of millions of pounds that we needed legislation. The rescue of British Leyland was carried out without legislation.
The Secretary of State urged us earlier to be reasonable and moderate and to support the Government's industrial strategy. He made an appeal, which I have heard him make on many occasions, that we need a new sense of national unity behind the private sector, free enterprise society in order to give it a chance to succeed. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman strikes a chord which is widely felt in the country and by many of my hon. Friends who would agree with that
102
general thesis. But why is it always we who are expected to be reasonable and to support Socialist measures when hon. Members opposite will never be reasonable and support measures to help the private sector?
There is no compromise of any kind in this Bill. It is a doctrinaire measure to satisfy the power cravings of the Left in the Labour Party. Everybody knows it. The Bill does not even command the support of a substantial number of hon. Members opposite, but they are not prepared to risk internal dangers to their party by putting the national interest above party interest. That is why they are gathered here to try to steamroller this legislation through at a late hour in the hope of advancing the frontiers of Socialism irrespective of the interests of this nation.
Mr. Ron Thomas: As the Member for a constituency in Bristol, a city with 25,000 aircraft workers, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate. I served on the Committee which considered this Bill, and in view of the hours spent there, at later stages in this House and at the end of the corridor, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that more than enough time has been devoted to the Bill.
In Committee, the Opposition were more concerned with how much compensation they could get for private shareholders than with the jobs of those in the industry, industrial democracy or the future of the industry.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested that the House of Lords was a scrutinising and revising Chamber. But can he really suggest that in the light of some of the amendments that were considered and passed there? Is it a form of scrutiny to accept an amendment proposed in the House of Lords which would have the effect of deleting the aircraft industry from this measure? Is it a form of scrutiny to delete ship-repairing companies from the Bill? Is it a form of scrutiny to delete warship builders from the Bill? On what basis? It is because they are profitable ventures. The Opposition tell us that public ownership is all right provided that we take into public ownership

103
bankrupt industries. We are fed up with that kind of approach.
There is an amendment to leave out Scottish Aviation and another amendment to the effect that the vesting date of the British Aerospace Corporation should be postponed until after the next General Election.
Anyone who goes through the House of Lords Hansard will see that time and again their Lordships have reiterated the speeches and arguments of the Opposition here. Again, they defended the sweetheart associations. They criticised our approach to industrial democracy. They want to put these industries into a straitjacket. We argue that the technological fall-out and skills in industries such as the aircraft industry should be allowed to diversify and to develop. Reading the debates in the House of Lords, it becomes clear time and again that that place is not a revisionary Chamber or the watchdog of the constitution but the poodle of the Opposition. It is high time, in the judgment of myself and many of my hon. Friends that that poodle was quietly put to sleep.
I remind my right hon. Friend, although he does not need reminding, that I have been inundated with letters and telegrams expressing the anxiety of aircraft workers who want the aircraft industry brought into public ownership as quickly as possible. The Government have the support of aircraft workers.
The hon. Member for Henley and some of his colleagues have received telegrams from Tory, Liberal and Labour shop stewards in the aircraft industry condemning them for the way they have held up this important legislation and the effect that this could have on jobs.
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: No. The public ownership of these industries—
Mr. Pattie: On the hon. Gentleman's point regarding the support of workers in the aircraft industry, will he tell me how much support there is at BAC Warton? Is he aware of a petition signed by several thousand employees at Warton saying that they do not want nationalisation?
Mr. Thomas: BAC Filton—
Mr. Pattie: BAC Warton.
Mr. Thomas: The Leader of the Opposition has had telegrams from Conservative aircraft workers, from the BAC shop stewards' committee and the whole mass of BAC workers at Filton demanding to know why the Opposition have continued to delay the Bill purely on the basis of political dogma, ignoring the impact that it will have on jobs and the future of the industry.
Public ownership of the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries was spelt out in our February and October 1974 election manifestos. They are issues on which we fought the February and October 1974 General Elections. As far as I am concerned, these are important measures to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families. These measures have overwhelming support. I am sure that the House will pass the motion tonight.
6.34 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The guillotine procedure has become part of our accepted parliamentary practice, but it is important that what is intended as an aid to the conduct of parliamentary business should not degenerate into an abuse of power and an obstacle to free discussion.
If abuse is to be prevented, certain criteria must be respected. There must be a reasonable relationship between the timetable suggested and the amount of scrutiny given to a Bill. In particular, the timetable should seek to avoid creating a situation in which large parts of a Bill have no discussion in either House at any stage. There must also be a reasonable relationship with the importance of the Bill to the nation.
When dealing with Lords amendments, there should be a reasonable relationship between the timetable suggested and the amount of time given by the other place to the evolution and discussion of its amendments. The attitude of this House to amendments proposed in another place must also, in accordance with our constitutional principle, have regard to the evidence of the degree of public support outside Parliament for the attitude of the

105
other place. All these criteria have failed to be respected in this timetable motion.
Of the 57 clauses of the Bill, 46 have not been discussed in this House. The amendments proposed in the other place are the product of long, serious and late discussion.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not get paid much for this brief.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Regarding public support, I suggest—not that I expect the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to understand it—si monumentum requiris, circumspice. I shall translate for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to shout across to my right hon. and learned Friend that he "will not get paid much for this brief"?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The throwing of charges is always undesirable, and I deprecate it. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has been a Member as long as I have, knows how to deal with an interruption of that kind.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: If you please, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Luton, West must not draw from his own unhappy professional experience. I was about to translate for his benefit: "If you want to see the Government's tombstone, look at Workington and Walsall."
I should like to make one other specific point in addition to the general point which I have made. It appears, this time in the ship-repairing provisions of the Bill, that there is an element of hybridity. The Government have been challenged in the other place on the validity of their list of companies and on their compliance with the statutory criteria for inclusion set out in Part II of Schedule 2.
A series of questions has been put by Viscount Colville of Culross, himself an eminent lawyer, and those questions have been purported to be answered by the Lord Privy Seal seeking to justify the Government's position. Those answers have been submitted to an eminent
106
Queen's Counsel, and his opinion has been—
Mr. William Small: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is one allowed to quote anyone other than a Minister in the other place?
Mr. Speaker: A direct quotation is possible only if one is referring to the speech of a Minister, unless it is a speech by a Member of the other House in another Session of Parliament.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am well aware of these parliamentary conventions. I have made no direct quotation. I do not intend to make a direct quotation from anything said in the other House. I propose to quote—this is certainly in order—the opinion of an eminent Queen's Counsel on this matter. His opinion is that certain companies referred to in the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal, and not now listed in the Bill, call for inclusion on a correct interpretation of criteria. In other words, it is another clear case of hybridity.
The eminent Queen's Counsel goes on to say:
"As the Bill is now drawn, the Government's expressed views about its interpretation, and application to matters contained in the Lord Privy Seal's answer, are unsound and wrong."
That means that the other place has uncovered another case of hybridity, just as in other provisions my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did here.
The relevance to this motion is that Amendments Nos. 217 and 219 made in the other place and designed to remove ship-repairing companies come at the end of the Bill and, therefore, are unlikely to be debated during a six-hour guillotine debate. In that case, they will be put to the vote forthwith. If the Government carry a motion to disagree, the other place may either restore those provisions or proceed in regard to the hybridity. If it restores them, and if the Government wish to maintain their position, they must invoke the provisions of the Parliament Act.
If the other place passes a motion to refer the Bill, either as a whole or the ship-repairing provisions, to the examiners, that examination would in all probability not be resolved by the 24th

107
of this month. Therefore, the Bill would either fall or prorogation would be postponed. Clearly, if the examination shows hybridity, as I submit it probably would, the consequent procedures must bring one or other of those results.
It is clear from our experience in the summer in this House and from the experience in the other place this month that the Government's understanding on the issue of hybridity is tenuous indeed and is likely to be improved only after a full and proper opportunity for examination in debate such as is clearly not afforded by this timetable.
This is a bad motion and a bad timetable, for reasons both general and specific. It derives from a Bill injurious in intent, defective in drafting, imperfectly understood by its sponsors and inadequately discussed by Parliament. As such, the motion should be rejected and condemned.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I have the privilege at the moment, Mr. Speaker, of reading and reviewing a book written by your predecessor in the Chair which is due to be published on Wednesday. In this book he says that one of the depressing experiences of anybody in the Chair is listening to debates on guillotine motions because, he says, one could shut one's eyes and hear the same speeches made by the other side on the appropriate occasion. He refers to accusations of dictatorship and Fascism made by those opposed to the motion, while those who argue in favour of the guillotine say that the Bill has been discussed endlessly and must go through.
We cannot get away from the fact that the attitude to a guillotine motion is totally intertwined with people's attitude not so much to the powers of the House or to the position of the other Chamber but to the merits of the measure. I know that many of my hon. Friends have signed a motion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in which they say that they will not support a guillotine motion on a devolution measure because they dislike that measure and that that would be a way of killing it even if they were not prepared to vote against the principle of
108
the measure. We know the Opposition's attitude and the power struggle that is going on in this House.
I do not think it is any secret that many hon. Members are unhappy about some of the measures that are being forced through tonight. If I had a free vote, I should vote 100 per cent. for the pay beds Bill, completely for the Education Bill and on the whole for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill—[Interruption]. I have a vote, and so has the hon. Gentleman, and I voted with reluctance for the Dock Work Regulation Bill.
We know the score. We know the way party programmes are produced. Those on the Government side have voted for these Bills from First Reading to Third Reading. It is odd to expect anyone who has done that to change his vote now, though we know that both parties take their programmes as package deals. Hon. Members know all the items to which they are subscribing when they stand for election. The Dock Work Regulation Bill is one of these items. Individual Members may have grave doubts about certain measures, but we take them on that understanding.
What I find depressing and worrying is that the party lines that were drawn up in 1974 are not relaxing at all with the economic crisis. Indeed, they are hardening—[Interruption]. I am trying, in all seriousness, to make an argument. The argument is that, although we fought the last General Election on certain matters, there are certain things that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not support 1,000 per cent.
There is now a new situation. There is the national humiliation that we have suffered during the last three months. There is the evidence that policies, for which I am blaming no one, which we as a nation have pursued over a decade of economic decline, are now coming home to roost. This is one reason why I shall support getting these measures out of the way. I do not think that it benefits us to fight over these issues any more. I want to see us applying ourselves to the economic problems facing the country.
I put it to the Opposition and to my Front Bench that one of the most depressing things from the country's point of view is that this House has been here since 11th October, yet we have had only one day's debate on the crucial

109
economic issues facing us. We have talked about matters left over from the past which are not relevant now. This is the fault of both sides of the House, and the shouts of Tory Members have indicated that they are interested not so much in the country's point of view but in that of their party.
Mr. John Gorst: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the courage with which he is speaking, but surely, if he is to be consistent in his argument, he must concede that the expenditure involved in this measure is wrong at the present time, as he has clearly indicated.
Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I regret that the consistency argument catches those of us who have supported these measures as part of a party programme and requires that we continue to support them. If we had laid down markers six months or nine months ago, that might have been different, but I ask Conservative Members to consider whether they are helping if they proceed with this kind of battle rather than apply themselves to the current problems facing this country.
The issue will come to a crisis when we have the package of measures that the IMF will demand of this House and of the Government. When they come before us, will we tackle them in a manner that means the two sides facing each other deadlocked? The speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) at the Conservative Party Conference did nothing to help towards a cross-party approach to our economic problems. If that attitude persists, the two sides will face each other and only one thing will be able to resolve it, and that will be a series of by-elections. It will be a disaster if the public have to enforce some sense upon this House.
If the recent by-election results are taken to be a simple desire on the part of the public for the continuation of the two-party conflict and the substitution of one Government for another, I can only say that Conservative Members have misread the mood of the country. They have misread it deeply, and the more they press their point in this implacable way the more they will unite the forces on this side of the House and the tougher the two battle lines will become. That
110
will mean no change of Government for at least 18 months or two years, because the Government can continue if they hold on.
I hope that the kind of silly counterattacks that we have seen tonight will desist after 24th November and that both sides will look at the package required by the IMF and the economic problems facing us and try to meet them in a manner that will restore some confidence to this country. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to recognise that the kind of battle that they are fighting tonight does this country no good.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: As we discuss this timetable motion, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) rightly said, this country faces the worst economic crisis since 1929. But he is wrong in supporting this measure, because it will make that crisis worse. Labour Members must understand the situation. Today the pound slipped by another 1½c. The stock market is down by another 17 points, affecting the pension funds of workers represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Labour Party has to realise that if the Government continue to thrust nationalisation down the throats of millions of voters who are absolutely against it, that will not assist them to meet the requirements of the International Monetary Fund or of our foreign creditors. If the Government would listen to the views of many of their supporters in another place and drop or postpone this legislation, that would be the biggest single factor in assisting the pound and giving confidence to international financiers.
I believe that the conditions that the IMF will demand of this Government will be worse because of these nationalisation measures. If the Government would drop this measure, the requirements of the IMF would be eased. Even at this late hour, surely some semblance of common sense could be brought to our affairs by the Prime Minister. Can he not see that: the nation would benefit if nationalisation were not pursued now? I do not ask him to give up his dogma but to put Socialist dogma, for once, second to the needs of the country.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I was a member of the Committee which debated this Bill for many long hours. Opportunity after opportunity was given to the Opposition to raise many of the points which have now been discussed in the House of Lords. Some of the issues were raised in Committee. Many others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, were not raised in Committee because the Opposition were more concerned with compensation.
We all agree that the national interest comes first. We must all have the broadest measure of consent in what we are seeking to achieve in righting our country's economic wrongs. It would be as wrong for us, as for the Conservative Party to lend our support to measures which are not in the national interest and not capable of righting our nation's economy.
What people outside do not realise is that when we debate these measures there is disagreement not about the diagnosis but about the remedy for our country's illness. If we were to follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton—
Mr. Peter Emery: Honiton.
Mr. McNamara: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. There are a lot of ship-workers in that part of the country. If we followed the hon. Member's argument, we would find that shipbuilding company after shipbuilding company would go bankrupt. What would happen to the aircraft industry if it did not have public investment? Again, there would be unemployment and more unemployment.
If we want to maintain these two proud industries, if we are to organise and have the regeneration and re-investment that we need to keep our proud shipbuilding industry in the face of difficult international competition, if we are to have a viable aircraft industry, it is essential that this Bill goes through. The workers in my constituency who are involved in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries have only one regret—that not every part of the earlier Bill is to be carried into effect and that we have not nationalised Drypool as we should have done in the first place.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It was the sophists of the French Revolution who said simply "if our second chamber disagrees with the first chamber, it is mischievous. If it does not disagree it is superfluous." That is the attitude adopted now by Labour Members but I remind the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and others who may have a clear recollection of the position between 1947 and 1949 that it was not the attitude adopted then. The other place moved 1,222 amendments to 10 major Socialist Bills during that time and of those only 57, or fewer than 5 per cent., were rejected by this House. That took place during a period which was completely revisionary and sensible.
Yet, in the face of that, it will be remembered that there was a Parliament Act in 1949. That was introduced on three occasions. There was a Second Reading in November 1947, another in January 1948 and the final occasion was in 1949 when the Parliament Act received the Royal Assent.
The relevance of this is that last week the Race Relations Bill returned from consideration in the other place and every single amendment which had been passed by the Lords was automatically reversed here. On this measure we face not a matter of debate but a steamroller machine in which all the amendments which have been carefully considered in another place will be reversed—
Mr. John Mendelson: Wrecking amendments.
Mr. Rees-Davies: They are not wrecking amendments. Many of the amendments we have been discussing on the other Bills are far from being anything of the kind. If only 5 per cent. was reversed during 1947 and 1949, what chance have we here?
The truth is that the Government and their supporters have turned the work of this House into a charade. It is no longer possible for another place to carry out its work properly. It has neither the time nor the opportunity. When it spends a great many hours doing its work properly, it finds that every one of its amendments is thrust aside willy-nilly, even if it has the support of the Liberal Party and Cross-benchers.

113
That makes this debate different from a normal guillotine debate. This is because the Government are concerned, not so much with the quantum of discussion as with the content. There is to be little or no opportunity either to discuss the Lords amendments properly or to see that those sensible and reasonable revisionary amendments become law. That is why Labour Members are running themselves into a situation which they appear to like and are calling for the total abolition of another place.
I remind Labour Members that we on this side, as well as many Labour Members, would like to see a popularly elected second Chamber. If they wish to see the total abolition of the Lords—which was not their general view in 1949 and is not the view of many today—they are going the right way about it. The situation today shows the plainest intention on the part of the Government of setting at naught the whole purpose of the Parliament Act.
I finish with the words of the Lord Chancellor in 1949 when he said that it was perfectly reasonable that the Government should leave the legislation and seek to reverse the Act later so that there could be a second occasion upon which there would be time carefully to consider public opinion. The Government are flying in the face of public opinion today. If they went to the country on whether they or the Lords were right, they would soon find that their place would be, as it is today, at the bottom of the poll.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Tom King: The Government have based their case on the need for little time to discuss the amendments and the fact that they were mainly the work of irresponsible Conservative peers in another place. It is interesting to find that among the Lords amendments which we shall be asked to discuss in the space of six hours are no fewer than 20 Government amendments. It is significant that we shall have to discuss no fewer than 150 Government amendments which are likely to come back to this House, yet we shall have very little opportunity for discussion.
We have been told of the so-called activities of Conservative peers. But anyone who studied the progress of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill will know of the attitude of a consider-
114
able number of Labour peers in another place, not least Lord Shinwell and his extremely disparaging views in respect of this measure. It is also significant that we are being asked to approve a motion when the Third Reading of the Bill has not yet happened in another place. That brings into question the whole constitutional principle of how we can possibly give proper consideration to the motion, because the House of Lords still has the opportunity on Third Reading to table further amendments under its procedures.
What will have concerned my hon. Friends about the Secretary of State's speech was the quite disgraceful form of blackmail which he introduced—the imputation that anyone who votes against this measure or a timetable motion is wishing to see unemployment in specific areas. That was the politics of the gutter, and I make no apology for saying that. Any Minister who has any sense of responsibility in the Department of Industry knows perfectly well that aids are available to that Department, under the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975 and the Civil Aviation Act of 1949, which it can use to take action in these areas.
The passing of the Bill may make it more difficult to help those specific cases because it will apply more generally and widely across the whole range of industry, including acquisition of the shares of a number of profitable companies which at present are in no need of assistance. The Bill will diminish the aid which may be given. I would say to those areas where unemployment has been threatened, both by the Secretary of State and by the Minister of State at Question Time, that that argument is totally fallacious. It is the most base argument that could have been adduced.
It is interesting that the Secretary of State gave absolutely no justification, and made no attempt to do so, for the nationalisation of ship-repairing. Any hon. Member who was present at Question Time will have noted the total contradiction in what the Minister of State said. In one of his usual unctuous approches to the nationalist parties, he sought to say that there would be plenty of time for debating the issue of ship-repairing. Hon. Members will have noticed, however, that, in response to further complaints that there was not sufficient time

115
for debating this important issue, the Minister said that there was no time whatever for debating any of these issues but that because they had all been more than fully discussed by the House it was perfectly proper if the whole time were taken up by voting on the amendments which came to us.
The Minister of State is not all that interested in any discussion on the Lords amendments. He could not care less what views might be held in the Lords, whether by Conservative peers, Cross-Bench peers, Liberal peers or Labour peers. As far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, he wants to roll out what he thinks is his majority and legislate. That is not sufficient for us. We regard this guillotine motion as a travesty of the proper procedures which should follow proper consideration of Lords amendments. I appeal to all hon. Members in this House who care about proper consideration of these matters to vote against the motion.
7.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): This measure so far, excluding the timetable motion, has been considered for 256 hours. That is a lot of consideration. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) dragged in the tired issue of hybridity as well as the opinion of a person whom he quoted as an eminent Queen's Counsel to verify his views. The eminent Queen's Counsel who has offered his opinion is a former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association and a member of the Executive Committee of Conservative Lawyers. That is the impartiality of the opinion which tells us that the Bill is hybrid.
Of course, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was increasingly virulent in his final remarks because he knew that the issue which he is trying to deflect us from considering is the issue of jobs in aircraft and shipbuilding. The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) intervened and spoke about jobs. There would now be 1,000 of his constituents out of work were it not for the money we forced on the British Aircraft Corporation in July in order to underwrite five more BAC111s. The hon.
116
Gentleman is saying that we can rescue with public money in one way but that we must not rescue with public money in a way which the electorate has endorsed.
We are saying to Opposition Members that there will be no new civil aircraft projects of any major size in this country unless the Bill goes through. I have discussed this with the French, the Germans and the Americans. They are waiting for the Bill to go through so that they can get some decisions. They have asked me "When will this Bill go through?" when I discussed aircraft collaboration with them.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes) of the dangers awaiting Scottish Aviation if the Bill does not go through. That company is teetering on the edge of destruction, and only this Bill can save it. The jobs at Hawker Siddeley in North Wales are to a large extent dependent on new projects, and new projects depend on this Bill. There are shipyards in England and Scotland which are in danger and which will require an organised approach to make sure that there is any hope of rescuing them.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that about 30 per cent. of the workers in Scottish shipbuilding will be made redundant if the Bill goes through? There is a report from the Organisation Committee seeking to close the Scottish shipyards
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) raised that issue at Question Time and I told her that those rumours were absolutely without foundation and that we have had no recommendation at all from the Organising Committee. I would tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he votes against the motion on that basis and the Bill falls, he and his hon. Friends will be responsible for tens of thousands of redundancies in the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.
Mr. Heseltine Mr. Heseltine rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Kaufman: I advise hon. Gentlemen to take into account that they are voting about jobs. Let them take account of what will happen if they win. They are hoping to be let off the hook by

117
the Government majority. I would tell them here and now that they will not be let off the hook if they vote, because up and down England, Scotland and Wales we will broadcast how hon. Gentlemen voted on this issue of jobs on which the Bill is based.
I therefore call upon my hon. Friends to vote for the motion and to vote to save the jobs of aircraft workers in England, Scotland and Wales, to save the jobs of shipbuilding workers in England and Scotland, and to save the jobs of ship-repair workers in England, Scotland and Wales. We must carry this motion. We must save these jobs.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Government's own guillotine has fallen on the Minister, he cannot go on speaking, can he?
Mr. Speaker: It has not fallen yet. Has the Minister finished?
Mr. Kaufman: I am perfectly ready to go on talking until the guillotine falls about how the Government wish to save the jobs of shipbuilding and aircraft workers.
Hon. Members: Time is up.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is at 7.11 that I shall put the Question.
Mr. Kaufman: Hon. Members will have to answer. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who talked so much about hybridity, represents an area where there are aircraft workers. He represents the area—
It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them: —
The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 310.

Division No. 376.]

AYES

[7.11 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Concannon, J. D.

Flannery, Martin

Allaun, Frank

Conlan, Bernard

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Anderson, Donald

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Archer, Peter

Corbett, Robin

Fool, Rt Hon Michael

Armstrong, Ernest

Cowans, Harry

Ford, Ben

Ashley, Jack

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Forrester, John

Ashton, Joe

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Crawshaw, Richard

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

Atkinson, Norman

Cronin, John

Freeson, Reginald

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Gacrett, John (Norwich S)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Cryer, Bob

George, Bruce

Bates, Alt

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Gilbert, Dr John

Bean, R. E.

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Ginsburg, David

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dalyell, Tarn

Golding, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Davidson, Arthur

Gould, Bryan

Bidwell, Sydney

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Gourlay, Harry

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, Derail (Llanelll)

Graham, Ted

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Boardman, H.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Deakins, Eric

Grocott, Bruce

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hardy, Peter

Bradley, Tom

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dempsey, James

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Doig, Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dormand, J. D.

Hatton, Frank

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hayman, Mrs. Helene

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Heffer, Eric S.

Buchan, Norman

Dunn, James A.

Hooley, Frank

Buchanan, Richard

Dunnett, Jack

Horam, John

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Eadie, Alex

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Edge, Geoff

Huckfield, Les

Campbell, Ian

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Canavan, Dennis

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Cant, R. B.

Ellis. Tom (Wrexham)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Carmichael, Neil

English, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Carter, Ray

Ennals, David

Hunter, Adam

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Cartwright, John

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Evans, John (Newton)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Clemitson, Ivor

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Janner, Greville

Cohen, Stanley

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Coleman, Donald

Fitch. Alan (Wigan)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Silverman, Julius

John, Brynmor

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Skinner, Dennis

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Molloy, William

Small, William

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Moonman, Eric

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Snape, Peter

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Spriggs, Leslie

Judd, Frank

Moyle, Roland

Stallard, A. W.

Kaufman, Gerald

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Kelley, Richard

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Stoddart, David

Kerr, Russell

Newens, Stanley

Stott, Roger

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Noble, Mike

Strang, Gavin

Kinnock, Neil

Oakes, Gordon

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Lambie, David

Ogden, Eric

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lamborn, Harry

O'Halloran, Michael

Swain, Thomas

Lamond, James

Orbach, Maurice

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Leadbitter, Ted

Ovenden, John

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Lee, John

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Padley, Walter

Thome, Stan (Preston South)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Palmer, Arthur

Tierney, Sydney

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Park, George

Tinn, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Parker, John

Tomlinson, John

Lipton, Marcus

Parry, Robert

Tomney, Frank

Litterick, Tom

Pavitt, Laurie

Torney, Tom

Lomas, Kenneth

Pendry, Turn

Urwin, T. W.

Loyden, Eddle

Perry, Ernest

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Luard, Evan

Phipps, Dr Colin

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

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

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Prescott, John

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

McCartney, Hugh

Price, William (Rugby)

Ward, Michael

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Radice, Giles

Watkins, David

McElhone, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Watkinson, John

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Richardson, Miss Jo

Weetch, Ken

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Weitzman, David

MacKenzie, Gregor

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wellbeloved, James

Mackintosh, John P.

Robertson, John (Paisley)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Maclennan, Robert

Robinson, Geoffrey

White, James (Pollok)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Whitehead, Phillip

McNamara, Kevin

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Whitlock, William

Madden, Max

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Magee, Bryan

Rooker, J. W.

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Roper, John

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Mahon, Simon

Rose, Paul B.

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Marks, Kenneth

Rowlands, Ted

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Marquand, David

Ryman, John

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Sandelson, Neville

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Selby, Harry

Woodall, Alec

Maynard, Miss Joan

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Woof, Robert

Meacher, Michael

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Young, David (Bolton E)

Mendelson, John

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Mikardo, Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Sillars, James

Mr. James Hamilton.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bradford, Rev Robert

Cope, John

Aitken, Jonathan

Braine, Sir Bernard

Cordle, John H.

Alison, Michael

Brittan, Leon

Cormack, Patrick

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Corrie, John

Arnold, Tom

Brotherton, Michael

Costain, A. P.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Awdry, Daniel

Bryan, Sir Paul

Crawford, Douglas

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Critchley, Julian

Baker, Kenneth

Buck, Antony

Crouch, David

Banks, Robert

Budgen, Nick

Crowder, F. P.

Beith, A. J.

Bulmer, Esmond

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Bell, Ronald

Burden, F. A.

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Carlisle, Mark

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Benyon, W.

Carson, John

Drayson, Burnaby

Berry, Hon Anthony

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Bitten, John

Channon, Paul

Dunlop, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Churchill, W. S.

Durant, Tony

Blaker, Peter

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Dykes, Hugh

Body, Richard

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bottomley, Peter

Clegg, Waller

Elliott, Sir William

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Cockcroft, John

Emery, Peter

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

120

121

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Eyre, Reginald

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ridsdale, Julian

Fairgrieve, Russell

Knox, David

Rifkiind, Malcolm

Farr, John

Lamont, Norman

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Fell, Anthony

Lane, David

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Lawrence, Ivan

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawson, Nigel

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Forman, Nigel

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rosl, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lloyd, Ian

Royle, Sir Anthony

Fox, Marcus

Loveridge, John

Sainsbury, Tim

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Luce, Richard

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Freud, Clement

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Scott, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

MacCormick, Iain

Scott-Hopkins, James

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

McCrindle, Robert

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCusker, H.

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylda)

Macfarlane, Nell

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

MacGregor, John

Shepherd, Colin

Gilmour, sir John (East Fife)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Shersby, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Silvester, Fred

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Sims, Roger

Goodhart, Philip

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sinclair, Sir George

Goodhew Victor

Marten Neil

Skeet, T. H. H.

Goodlad, Alastair

Mates Michael

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Gorst, John

Mather, Carol

smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Maude, Angus

Speed, Keith

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maulding, Rt Hon Reginald

Spence, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mawby, Ray

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Gray, Hamish

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Grieve, Percy

Mayhew, Patrick

Sproat, Iain

Griffiths, Eldon

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Stanley, John

Grist, Ian

Mills, Peter

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Grylls, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Steen, Anthony (Wavetree)

Hall, Sir John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Molyneaux, James

Stokes, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Hector

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hannam, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Tapsell, Peter

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Hastings, Stephen

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Havers, Sir Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Tebbit Norman

Hawkins, Paul

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Thomas Dafydd (Merioneth)

Henderson, Douglas

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Thompson, George

Heseltine, Michael

Mudd, David

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Hicks, Robert

Neave, Airey

Townsend, Cyril D.

Higgins, Terence L.

Nelson, Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Hodgson, Robin

Neubert, Michael

Tugendhat, Christopher

Holland, Philip

Newton, Tony

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hooson, Emlyn

Normanton, Tom

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Hordern, Peter

Nott, John

Viggers, Peter

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Onslow, Cranley

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Wakeham, John

Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)

Osborn, John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Wall, Patrick

Hurd, Douglas

Paisley, Rev Ian

Walters, Dennis

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pardoe, John

Warren, Kenneth

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Watt, Hamish

James, David

Penhaligon, David

Weatherill, Bernard

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

Percival, Ian

Wells, John

Jessel, Toby

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Welsh, Andrew

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Pink, R. Bonner

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Wiggin, Jerry

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wigley, Dafydd

Jopling, Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Winterton, Nicholas

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Raison, Timothy

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Younger, Hon George

Kilfedder, James

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Kimball, Marcus

Reid, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—
Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,

(b) In the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the proposals.
Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.
(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.
(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

HIGHWAY CODE
7.27 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Paper on A Proposed New Highway Code.
[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the Minister should wait for a moment.
Mr. Horam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for kindly allowing a few minutes for the House to recover its breath after those momentous events.
The present version of the Highway Code was published in February 1969. Since then changes in the law and in traffic and road conditions have made it out of date in several important respects and many minor ones too. It badly needs updating. Since 1969 the total volume of traffic on our road system has increased by more than one-fifth, and the volume on motorways has more than doubled. Many measures have been introduced to improve the flow and safety of traffic, such as zigzag markings at zebra crossings, mini-roundabouts and a big increase in the number of pelican crossings.
Power to revise the Highway Code, under Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, rests with the Secretary of State, and any revision is subject to approval by both Houses. When the present version was laid before the House in December 1968 hon. Members were understandably critical that they had not had an opportunity to debate it before it was laid before them.
To ensure that hon. Members could consider the present proposed revision the Government published in January 1975 the Green Paper "A proposed new Highway Code", which was also available to anyone with an interest in the subject. As an additional help to hon. Members we have prepared a "Paper for Parliamentary debate", a white-covered document—not a White Paper—for the debate; it is available in the Library and sets out on the left-hand pages the text of the Green Paper draft and side by side on the right-hand pages a further revised version prepared in the light of the comments received on the Green Paper. We are debating tonight the white-covered
126
paper which contains the original Green Paper proposals on the left and the revised proposals on the right. The next stage in this long gestation period will be to prepare the final text in the light of hon. Members' comments this evening and comments in another place and to lay that text before both Houses for approval.
I hope that the present position is clear, and that what we are debating tonight is also clear. In referring to rule numbers in this debate, I shall be referring to those on the right hand side of the white-covered paper which is the most up-to-date revised document.
I wish to take the opportunity of thanking all who commented on the Green Paper, including many interested organisations, and Members who made comments themselves or passed on comments from their constituents. This is the first time that a proposed revision has been so widely circulated for comment, and the response has shown that it has been well worth while. Some of the suggested additions or amendments have been accepted, and included in the draft before the House; others have not. I welcome this opportunity of hearing Members' views.
The Highway Code is a familiar document to most people, at least in the sense that we remember that we once mugged it up—or some of us did—before nervously presenting ourselves for our first driving test. Having disposed of that hurdle, we probably put it in a bottom drawer where it rests to this day—or at least it remained until it was thrown out some years ago. In a sense it is like a set book at school: we learned it because we had to do so to pass an examination. I wish to suggest that it is worth reading again, and that it will be more so in its new revised form.
This brings me to an important point. The Highway Code is not just for learner drivers, or for children taking the cycling proficiency test. It is a digest of the rules of the road, the rules of good conduct, for road users of all ages and degrees of experience: pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, drivers, and people riding on horses or leading animals. It sets out the broad framework designed to regulate the flow of traffic of all types, so that it can move at

127
reasonable speed with the minimum of confusion and the maximum of safety. The code does not attempt to deal with every situation, but to be adequate for modern traffic conditions.
The rules are sometimes complex, and there are many of them, but the precepts behind them are simple and the intention is that the code be drafted in straightforward language which is readily understood.
I shall turn shortly to the main changes which have been proposed since the present version of the code was published, but before that there are one or two general points. The code is not a statutory one in the sense that failure to comply with its provisions is a criminal offence, but non-compliance can be cited in legal proceedings as
"tending to establish or to negative"
any liability in question in those proceedings.
Two things in particular flow from this—namely, that the code ought to be kept up to date, and that it should be revised at reasonably frequent intervals. The fact that the present code has remained unchanged since 1969 is a matter for concern.
The second point is that the code can only embody practices which have been developed and tested to the point where they are accepted as good practice. The Highway Code is not the place to introduce new driving techniques, new road markings or the results of the latest experiment at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. All these must be widely tested before they may find a place in the code. This is absolutely right and I hope that Members will recognise a familiar ring to the provisions of the code to which I shall now turn. Members will not want me to comment on all the detailed changes from the present code, so I shall concentrate on the main changes and those points in the draft Green Paper that drew most comment.
The first part of the code contains advice for pedestrians. This is not new to this revised version, but it needs to be more widely understood that the Highway Code is for pedestrians just as much as for any other class of road user. In recent years more emphasis has been
128
given to the provision of facilities for pedestrians, and it is worthy of note that this has been accompanied by a steady drop in the number of pedestrian casualties—down from 84,000 in 1972 to 69,300 last year. This is an encouraging trend, but it must not lead to complacency.
The Green Cross Code—Rules 7 and 8—which was introduced in 1971 as a replacement for kerb drill is now included in the present code. It has been given a great deal of publicity in its own right, and, although many people commented on points of detail, there has been virtually complete acceptance of the Green Cross Code as the safest way to cross the road. It is for use by all pedestrians, but has been devised with children especially in mind, and it is intended that the wording of this part of the code be understandable to young children. The aim of the Green Cross Code was to give pedestrians, particularly children, enough information and advice in a form that they can understand, without encouraging the ritualistic approach—"Look right, look left, look right"—of the old kerb drill. The Department was greatly helped in devising the new wording by a committee set up by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and by research carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to discover how children react to various traffic situations and the form of words they would understand and translate into safe actions.
There is still one point that worries me and that is the use of the word "refuge" instead of "island". Possibly I am a little old-fashioned, but when I remember learning these things as a child they were traffic "islands" rather than "refuges". However, the word "refuge" appears in the revised version. This is something on which hon. Members may care to comment.
The emphasis in the Green Cross Code is on helping children to understand the procedure. It is not enough that children should recite the words. This in turn brings out the need for adequate teaching, and this is an area, particularly with young children, where parents must play a key rôle. Up to the age of 5 a child's safety is entirely the responsibility of the parent or guardian. After that, they must still play an important part in advising and helping their children. The

129
Department began a campaign last year, using leaflets to draw parents' attention to the problem and to offer advice. Incidentally, since the introduction of the Green Cross Code child pedestrian casualties have dropped from 39,300 in 1972 to 30,400 in 1975.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am interested in these figures because I had a good deal to do with the introduction of the Green Cross Code. How does the drop in casualties relate to the number of vehicle journeys? Is it an absolute drop, or a relative drop in terms of the number of vehicle miles?
Mr. Horam: I think that it is probably an absolute drop, but I shall check.
I turn to the question of zebra crossings which are the subject of Rules 10 to 13. These crossings have been with us for many years and are accepted as one of the safer places for crossing the road. However, a study undertaken by the TRRL has shown that crossing the road within 20 yards of a zebra crosing is three times more dangerous than crossing on it. The revised code also explains the procedure when a pedestrian puts one foot on the crossing to gain precedence. Provided that the pedestrian gives drivers plenty of time to stop and the drivers themselves are aware of their responsibilities towards pedestrians on the crossing, dangers or difficulties should be minimised. In 1971 zigzag lines were introduced to mark the danger area.
I turn to the subject of pelican crossings covered by Rules 14 and 15. These crossings are now being installed in greater numbers throughout the country. There are now more than 2,000 of them and they have been the subject of a number of comments. It became clear that there was a need for more guidance on the use of these crossings than had been given in the draft code, and, therefore, we have rewritten the advice to make it clearer to drivers and pedestrians.
So much for the user on foot. I turn to the road user on wheels and the subject of drink and drugs which is covered by Rule 29. The advice about drinking and driving and the use of drugs and their effect on driving ability has aroused a good deal of comment. Most of it has asked for expansion to give more de-
130
tailed advice. However, it is difficult to formulate specific advice to cover all cases which would not be open to misinterpretation. On balance, this is as far as one can go in the Highway Code. There is, however, a need for more general information about drinking and its effect on driving in a form which would he useful to the driver, and the recent report of the Blennerhasset Committee on drinking and driving drew attention to this need. I am, therefore, considering how much information might best be provided, and in what form.
In a new rule about buses and bus lanes, Rule 48, drivers are reminded that buses sometimes have difficulty in reentering the traffic flow in busy urban streets and are urged to give way when they safely can. This is in accord with an international convention on road traffic which the United Kingdom expects to adopt in the near future. There has been some comment that this advice conflicts with the earlier Rule 37 about moving off, but the words "you can do so safely", together with the cautions included in Rule 37, are a clear indication that all drivers in this situation are expected to exercise the necessary caution.
Bus lanes are now being installed in many towns and cities to make more efficient use of road space and to assist the flow of public transport, particularly at peak times. The relevant rules in the draft code have been expanded to cover this, and it is proposed to include illustrations of the bus lane signs and road markings.
I come next to driving in fog—Rule 49. Accidents in fog are a continuing cause for concern. Although they form only a comparatively small proportion of injury accidents there is evidence that in fog the frequency and severity of accidents are higher on fast roads and motorways than on other roads. Some measures to reduce the rate of these accidents have already been introduced, such as lighting selected stretches of road, but there is no substitute for better driving behaviour. The same features which make driving on motorways comparatively easy and safe in normal conditions make it harder in fog. More restraint and self-discipline is needed, and, above all, slower speeds and adequate separation distances.

131
The "Fog Code" brings together the most important rules of behaviour for driving in fog. These have been subject to various suggestions for amended wording. No great advantage has been seen in most of the suggestions, but the revised draft includes advice not to speed up because of a close following vehicle, which was one of the points most often made. It also takes account of new regulations requiring the use of headlamps in poor daytime visibility.
I turn next to roundabouts, Rules 99 to 105. Mini-roundabouts are now sometimes constructed at junctions normally controlled by traffic signs or traffic signals, and studies have shown that they can reduce the number of accidents by up to 30 per cent. Various organisations have asked for an illustration of a mini-roundabout and for more detailed advice about how to negotiate such a roundabout. The rules on procedure at roundabouts were compiled with mini-roundabouts also in mind, but Rule 99 has been expanded to cover the situation where the normal "Give way" rules do not apply. I am considering whether advice on mini-roundabouts should be separated from general advice on roundabouts, and I should welcome Members' views. An illustration will be included of the most usual form of mini-round-about, but it will not be possible to show any of the more complex arrangements.
Rules 125 and 126 deal with what to do at an accident. The revised draft contains more detailed advice on action to be taken by those who are first on the scene of an accident—Rule 125—and new advice on what to do if a vehicle containing dangerous goods is involved—Rule 126. This is related to the new system of "hazard labels" which is being introduced for such vehicles. The labels will be illustrated in the new revised code.
In response to demand from the voluntary aid societies advice on first aid has been restored to the code and is contained in a section at the back.
Rules 127 to 134 deal with cyclists, and there are some extra rules for cyclists. This section contains only minor changes from the present Highway Code, but
132
many comments were received suggesting that Rule 129 contained an error and that
"Ride in single file on busy narrow roads"
should read "busy or narrow roads". The omission of "or" from what is in the current code was intentional. Strong representations had been received from cycling interests that "busy or narrow roads" was too restrictive, and the point has been accepted.
The draft code includes advice about an alternative procedure for cyclists at roundabouts where, because of inexperience or any other reason, a cyclist did not feel able to follow normal roundabout procedure. The wisdom of having such alternative advice was doubted by some commentators, but there is a risk that, if the code were inflexible on this point, inexperienced or timid cyclists might feel bound to follow it, perhaps to their cost. The alternative procedure is therefore maintained—Rule 132.
I come next to the road user and animals—Rules 135 to 141. More people now ride horses for pleasure, often on public roads. There is, therefore, a greater risk of accident between them and vehicles. This section incorporates a change in procedure in that persons leading an animal are now advised to do so on the left, keeping the animals on their left—instead of leading on the right, as previously. This change resulted from consultations with representatives of horse riding interests. There was conflicting advice on this, but the clear balance of opinion was in favour of the change. I do not pretend to know a great deal on this subject, but that was the advice we received.
The next heading is motorway driving, and I direct particular attention to motorway signals—Rules 163 to 167. We have expanded the advice about motorway signals by explaining exactly what to do when red lights are flashing over one or more lanes. Police comments indicated the need for this advice.
I come next to the road user and railway level crossings—Rules 173 to 182. This section of the code has been revised to explain how to use the various types of level crossing. Most important are the updated rules dealing with the

133
use of automatic half-barrier level crossings. These follow new safety precautions and procedures which were introduced as a result of the inquiry into the accident at Hixon level crossing in 1968.
My next heading is metrication. A considerable number of suggestions were received that the Highway Code should show metric units in all cases in addition to or in place of imperial units. This would pose a difficult problem: the complexity would tend to confuse most road users, particularly since speed limits and road signs will not be metricated for some time. This is probably a case where the Highway Code should follow other decisions rather than lead them.
A number of comments were received expressing concern at the length of the revised code. Many other letters asked for even more items to be included. Obviously, the aim must be to keep the code as short as possible; but the volume of modern traffic and the complexity of roads and legislation inevitably meant that additional advice had to be included, and therefore, the number of points has increased from nearly 150 to about 180. However, I am confident that every effort has been made to make the code as short as possible, and I assure the House that, as long as I am a Minister in this Department, that will continue to be the case, for, as I have said before, my personal belief is that the complex of laws, regulations and advice which confronts the motorist should be kept as simple as possible.
Finally, I repeat that this is not the debate after which the new Highway Code will, or will not, go into operation. That has yet to come. What we are doing now is inviting Members' comments on the proposed code so that we may study those comments before submitting a final text for parliamentary approval. I assure hon. Members that we shall listen most carefully and sympathetically to all the points made tonight.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: This is a short debate and I shall be brief. On the last occasion when we debated the Highway Code, Richard Marsh was Minister of Transport and, with the endearing frankness
134
which was and is his characteristic, he observed that, with a bit of luck, somebody else would be dealing with the next debate on it. However, I doubt whether even Richard Marsh believed that the next debate on the matter would be delayed for another eight years, for he spoke those words in December 1968. That, of course, is the first point to be made about the debate, though I hasten to say that I make no party-political point, for I do not believe that issues of safety are in any way matters for party-political dispute.
There has, however, been a substantial delay, and the result is that the code, which is intended to be a complete guide to anyone using the highway, has not been comprehensive. It contains no mention of new developments such as temporary speed limits. That is one matter which comes to mind, and it has been one of the major points raised by organisations outside the House. Both the AA and the RAC, for example, hope that the procedure for making changes can be streamlined, and I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with that view.
Indeed, I go rather further. It seems to me that, in parliamentary terms, road safety is a Cinderella subject. For good reason, there are debates on specific items of legislation, as, of course, there have to be. But a general debate on road safety is a rarity.
Yet, if any subject deserves the regular attention of the House, it is road safety. Last year, 83,000 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads. They included 35,000 drivers or passengers in cars, 20,000 pedestrians, and 16,000 riders of motor cycles, mopeds, or motor scooters. The figures for accidents among children are particularly serious—500 children are killed and thousands more injured a year. These figures alone call for the regular attention of the House.
I hope that it is recognised that there is a limit to the amount of legislation which can he passed in this area. The law clearly has a place, but what also must be recognised is that laws to be effective must be enforced, and that puts extra burdens on the police service, which is already overstretched and overburdened. Therefore, we must as a nation place more and more emphasis on preventing accidents. The public,

135
whether as motorists, motor cyclists, cyclists or pedestrians, must take more action to guard themselves.
Within this voluntary action, the Highway Code, which basically lays down guidance rather than law, as the hon. Gentleman said, has an important part to play. But if I am right in saying that the emphasis today should be on prevention, upon guidance, upon persuasion, it is a process that this House should lead rather than debate it irregularly and at lengthy intervals. I suggest that our aim should be an annual debate on road safety. Sometimes the time may be required for considering further amendments to the code, but when it is not required in that way we should debate the issues of road safety generally.
That would meet both points which are causing concern—first, the necessary consultation with Parliament before changes are made in the code, and, secondly, the assurance of time being regularly made available to debate what is surely in terms of loss of life and injury one of the most important issues that we face in this country.
Clearly, there are criticisms and omissions from the code to which we shall come, but I think that the starting point is that, for all its omissions, even now it it is a code which, if followed, would dramatically reduce the number of accidents. The most important question is how many people actually read and take note of the code, how many know well the advice that it contains—and the research which has been conducted into that aspect is not, to put it at its mildest, reassuring.
The code appears to be one of the great unread classics. Almost everyone knows of it, but few dip into it, at least once their driving test is successfully out of the way. It is a work of high repute but, regrettable, not much heeded.
I give an example. The AA magazine Drive carried out a survey of 100 motorists. It asked them to answer 10 questions set by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The results showed that 78 out of the 100 scored less than 50 per cent. and 18 scored less than 25 per cent. The motorist with the lowest score, who had been driving three years, got only 6 per cent. correct answers.
136
Another survey, carried out among primary school children between the ages of eight and 11, set a much simpler test. The results were a little better, but even so 70 children out of 180 returned a score of less than 50 per cent. We shall discuss the detail of the code tonight, but let us also remember that the major problem remains of getting the message over from the code, a message on which there is little disagreement.
That message has to be given more impact. Clearly, different parts of the code will require emphasis at different times. For example, it may be necessary to hammer home the message in the code about driving in fog. The Department, through its vehicle licensing office at Swansea, now sends out by post reminders to motorists that their road fund tax is about to expire. There seems to be no reason why this opportunity should not be taken for campaigns based on the code itself. As these notices have to go out anyway, it will surely require little extra effort by the Department to include a message from the code which it wants to put over in campaigning terms.
I want to deal with four points about the code itself. The first criticism is that the opportunity should be taken to advise drivers on passenger safety. This point was also made by the Association of County Councils. It pointed out that this is of particular relevance to the safety of children in the need, for example, to use child safety locks when they are fitted.
Another point, raised in Committee on the Seat Belts Bill, is that children should travel in the back seat. Indeed, in Austria, West Germany and Luxembourg, I understand, it is the law that children under the age of 12 shall not travel in the front of a car. When this point was raised in Committee on the Seat Belts Bill the Government replied that it could not be included in that legislation, but I think that there is no reason why guidance to that effect should not be included in the code.
Secondly, there is the subject of seat belts and the need to wear them. The point is made in the code, but should be underlined, that wearing seat belts makes sense and saves lives. It is important that that point should be made because, whatever differences there may be about compulsion, there has never been any conflict

137
about the advice that the motorist and the passenger should wear seat belts. It is important to emphasise this, because the Seat Belts Bill appears to have run out of parliamentary time. But that does not diminish in any way the message itself. Indeed, it probably makes it more important that a new effort should be made to promote the voluntary use of seat belts.
Thirdly, I welcome the attention given in the code to two groups often ignored the motorcyclist and the cyclist. The latter requires special consideration. Having borrowed a bike for National Bike Week and in a moment of supreme folly cycled round Parliament Square, I speak with some feeling on that subject, and I welcome the special section devoted to cycling in the code.
The motor cycle is becoming increasingly popular in this country, yet there is no compulsory training for the motor cyclist. Doubtless the argument will be that compulsory training at present would cost too much to introduce and would be a matter of great complexity. I accept that argument at this stage, but at some stage we should contemplate embarking on compulsory training. In the meantime, there is no reason why brief details of the training courses available should not be published—courses like the old-established RAC-ACU scheme and the excellent training programme which I recently visited at Birmingham.
As there is no compulsory training, many new owners may not know where to look for guidance. A reference in the Highway Code to the courses which are available would be of considerable public benefit. Equally, perhaps there should be reference to clothing. Crash helmets are not the only protection for motor cyclists, and perhaps the code could include guidance about wearing strong clothing and clothing which shows up in the dark.
The fourth point I wish to make is about disabled drivers and their passengers. This is a category which gets insufficient attention in this House. Mr. Peter Large, the much respected chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, has approached the Department with the suggestion that the new edition of the Highway Code should contain an illustration of the orange badge
138
and the optional rear badge, as well as a brief description for the non-disabled driver of the orange badge scheme itself.
He also suggested that there should be a reference in the code telling non-disabled drivers not to use parking bays labelled "Disabled drivers only". Perhaps these should be labelled not "Disabled drivers only", but "Disabled persons only". This would be much better, as it would avoid arguments which might arise at present if a wheelbound person is not the driver of the car. I believe that the interests of disabled drivers and passengers should be looked after very carefully by this House.
Mr. Clement Freud: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it is also very important that parking bays for disabled drivers should be more accessible than they are? For example, it is incredibly difficult to park in Star Chamber Court and in the few bays reserved for disabled drivers in the Palace of Westminster.
Mr. Fowler: That is a good point, but it goes a little wider than the scope of the Highway Code. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member.
It does seem right to emphasise that the issues paramount in this debate are that there should be regular debates on road safety in the House as a contribution to reducing the toll of accidents, particularly among children, so that changes in the code can be made more readily and more speedily than they are, and that we should get over the message of the Highway Code itself. Unless we can do that, argument about the details is of very little avail.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall not keep the House more than a few minutes as I wish to raise only two points with the Minister. I understand that the Automobile Association has made few comments about the Highway Code and, therefore, it is obviously satisfied with it, and the RAC has told me that the amendments which it submitted have been taken into account in the code. I congratulate the Government on that, and I am sure that the document is a first-class one which should be brought in as quickly as possible.

139
The first point I wish to make concerns hard shoulders on motorways. The white document tells us at Rule 169 that we must not park on the hard shoulders of motorways except in emergencies. But I know one or two fairly classic cases of people driving down motorways in the early hours of the morning and being extremely tired. This happened to me during the referendum campaign, when I realised that it was very stupid to try to travel 150 miles after midnight, when I was already tired.
There was a case in my constituency when a man who had not been drinking felt extremely tired, so he pulled on to the hard shoulder of the motorway and drank some black coffee. The police came along and prosecuted him. They were within their rights to do so, and I am not complaining about that. The magistrates proved the case. However, I think that this is a matter in which common sense should prevail. I do not want everything written into the Highway Code, as we cannot provide for every eventuality, but I believe that there should be some guidance about situations like that.
Another point I wish to raise concerns giving way to the right. Of course, we know that a motorist must give way to the right at roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. But at certain road junctions—there are two in my constituency—there is doubt about which is the principal road. Sometimes the main road comes in on the left and then goes off sharp left, and there is dispute about who should give way to whom. Both roads may be marked with dotted lines. Often drivers start to cross the lines and then stop because they are not sure whether they should give way. This is a matter which should be considered—whether it should be a requirement to give way to the right at crossroads when no particular road is the principal road.
I realise that although the Highway Code mentions seat belts it cannot say anything about compulsion. However, I hope that the guidance on seat belts will take account of roads which run alongside rivers and canals such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). If there are accidents on such roads, drivers quite
140
often finish up in the canals or the rivers. One of my constituents was driving along Ryde Pier, which is the longest pier in Britain now that Southend Pier has been badly burned, and he did not know that a cross-Solent steamer had hit the pier in the middle. Consequently he went straight into the "drink", and he was wearing a seat belt. He was very lucky to get out alive. Therefore, perhaps some advice could be given about the times when it is better not to wear seat belts. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to these points.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minister was right to use the phrase "a long gestation period". The proposed Highway Code has been waiting for a long time for this debate. Those of us who in the previous Government were responsible for road safety much regretted the fact that we could not bring it forward then. I am glad that the Minister has been able to do so tonight.
I have three especial interests in this matter. As the House knows, I am connected with the police, and I shall to some extent reflect their views. I was previously involved in road safety at the Department. I have also one or two small constituency points to put to the Minister.
Most of us are rather schizophrenic about the motor vehicle, which is the cause of much of the problem. To me it has always been half mistress and half monster: half mistress in the sense that I doubt whether there are many possessions on which the average citizen lavishes so much loving care—or, indeed, so much money—as the motor car; half monster in the sense that in our modern society the motor car kills, maims, pollutes, deafens, and takes up far too much valuable space whether parked or moving, in the centre of our great cities. We all recognise the motor car as a creature which extends our freedom. It is indispensable to our society. But none the less it wreaks much mischief—not least in that it kills, maims and pollutes.
We are also schizophrenic in our attitude to the use of the motor vehicle. When people are driving through my village, I like them to drive at 30 mph, taking care of my children and looking after my environment. But, of course,

141
when I am driving through other people's villages and I see 30 mph signs used in what appear to me to be quite unnecessarily restrictive ways, I wonder why on earth the authorities have put up such useless signs. So we all have a different attitude towards the use of the motor car in the area in which we live as opposed to its use in areas in which we drive.
There are three respects in which Government and Parliament can operate to prevent accidents and to assist road safety. These relate to the vehicle, the road and the driver.
With regard to the vehicle, the first approach must be at the construction end. We must make sure that the manufacturer engineers as much safety as he can into the vehicle itself. This is something which all Governments require by British Standards and through the Construction and Use Regulations.
Having manufactured the car, we have then to make certain that it stays safe. This is where inspection arises. It is an important duty that the Department's examiners carry out.
But I am quite sure from my own experience that the ways in which we can achieve most improvement in respect of vehicles are through the use of seat belts, improving the standard of tyres, endeavouring to make much more progress with anti-jack-knifing devices for heavy vehicles and by making greater progress with international agreements concerned with the safety of vehicles in Europe.
I need not elaborate on these points, but I urge on the Minister that if he wishes to be taken seriously—as I know he does and deserves to be—in this matter of road safety to find parliamentary time to get the seat belt legislation on the statute book. I was never in favour of compulsion but I became persuaded after having seen a very large number of cranial injuries which would not have happened had seat belts been required to be worn. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to get that legislation through quickly.
I should also like to know from the Minister how far the Department has got with the anti-jack-knifing arrangements for heavy vehicles.
142
With regard to roads, there are two primary aspects. The first is to build better and safer roads. The second is to put signs or regulations on those roads to encourage people to use them safely.
I very much regret that, due to our economic circumstances—and also the wrong priorities of the Government—the road programme has been slashed so heavily. I am sorry about this on road safety grounds. Well engineered and well constructed roads make a substantial contribution to road safety. They reduce the number of people killed and injured. This is particularly true of the motorways. I regret that our economic circumstances led the previous Minister to conclude that we could no longer have six-lane motorways, and that the number of lanes must henceforth be reduced to four. I believe that was a mistake which we shall regret.
Bypasses unquestionably cut casualties. They are beneficial to the environment of very many villages. They are also cost-effective in that they speed up the traffic, and therefore the business life and exports of our country.
I urge the Minister, in the course of the transport consultation work now going on—which we failed to debate the other night—to have regard to the enormous sums of money fed into the deficits of British Rail. If only a fraction of that money were to be expended on bypasses, there would be a benefit to the economy and the environment, and a very substantial improvement on the road safety side which would more than justify a switch of expenditure in that direction.
Concerning bypasses, I have one constituency point. I do not expect the Minister to answer this evening, but I hope that he will ask his officials to deal with it. In my constituency, in the small village of Beyton, there have been some quite brutal accidents recently. I should be glad if the Minister, in the context of road safety, will look at what is being done to improve the road in question and at the behaviour of motorists, and let me know whether some improvement can be made very quickly.
With regard to the signs and the regulations that we place upon the roads, the Minister will know very well that all over the country there is immense pressure

143
to have 30 mph limits. Often these are not justified. I hope that he will stick to the policy of successive Governments and apply consistency in speed limit cases. The worst contribution to road safety that we can possibly make is to allow local pressure groups to force through inconsistent speed limits as between one place and the other. As soon as the driver loses confidence that objective criteria have been applied, more harm than good is done to the cause of road safety.
Another point I make is that it is quite abysmal for so many traffic orders made by county councils in the interests of road safety not to have been applied because of disputes at the London Gazette. Owing to these disputes, the orders could not be published and until they are published they cannot legally be enforced. All over the country important traffic orders relevant to road safety—I believe that there are 40 in my own county—have not been put into effect simply because of a printing dispute. This is not satisfactory. It can cause loss of life.
Having dealt with the vehicle and the road, we next have to consider the user of the vehicle and the road. We have the driving test to make sure that the driver of a vehicle is competent. I believe our driving test people do a good job, but I sometimes think that they ought to be able to deal with more applicants in the time available. It is a very expensive apparatus, and if the Minister compares the output with that in the United States, Germany, France and so on, he will find that we are meticulous to a fault in the way in which we perform these tests.
Next I want to touch upon drinking and driving regulations. They are enormously important. I am not in favour of random tests. But there is no getting away from the fact that the effect of the regulations has fallen away quite dramatically over the past five years or so. There are many reasons for this, but there is no doubt that the impact of the initial legislation has worn off to a considerable extent.
Next, I take a point from the proposed new code, namely, the paragraph about overtaking. A great many accidents arise from overtaking. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the possibility
144
that at least on our six-lane motorways there should be a requirement that the really heavy goods vehicle travelling at a slow speed, especially uphill, should be confined to a "crawler" lane. This is generally done in Europe. It is required in Germany and France. It enables faster vehicles to overtake safely at least on three-lane motorways without, as so often happens in the United Kingdom, the heavy goods vehicle pulling out and attempting to overtake on long hills, thereby causing frustration which in turn breeds impetuosity on the part of some drivers. In my view, there would be a great deal of merit in insisting on crawler lanes for heavy vehicles on uphill stretches of motorways.
Finally, I want to discuss briefly the problems arising with horses. I declare an interest in that Newmarket is in my constituency and that I convened the meeting of the various horse associations, the NFU and the rest about the recommendations on which some of the passages in the new code are based. At the time, I disagreed with the conclusion reached at the meeting, and I still disagree with that which is embodied in the code.
A horse, like a woman, can be a volatile creature. If a vehicle approaches from behind, the horse does not see it coming and can be very frightened when it starts to overtake and suddenly produces noise and a sense of movement. But if the horse can see the vehicle coming towards it, its rider can rein it in. It is thus much less likely to kick and become excited.
This is why for centuries in New-market, which probably knows more about horses than any other town in the country, it has invariably been the case that we have made our horses face the traffic. Rider and horse alike then know what the problem is. The arguments on this matter are complex. They are finely balanced. But I put it to the Minister that, if I were in his shoes, I would look at that part of the code again.
I conclude by wishing the code well and by making a plea for what at the end of the day is most important of all in road safety, namely, good standards of driving. Far too often we are all careless and inconsiderate. We drive too fast and without due care. I believe

145
that it is a combination of this lack of consideration, carelessness and thoughtlessness which leads to the appalling carnage which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) illustrated by the catalogue of death and maiming with which he introduced his speech.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. James Dempsey: I wish to refer briefly to one aspect of the proposed new Highway Code which very much affects disabled persons. It concerns the use of zebra and pelican crossings. A number of us have been decrying zebra crossings, but we have many of them and they will be with us for a very long time.
I paid very close attention to the reference made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the drill to be employed on approaching such a crossing. However, if I can convey anything to him I hope it is that these crossings present some of the most dangerous aspects in the country in terms of road safety.
I have a zebra crossing close to where I live. When I was a county councillor, I was instrumental in having it installed at that point. We have had some of the most tragic accidents imaginable, especially to young schoolchildren, on that zebra crossing simply because due care has not been taken by all road users. We require to take some very special steps to make them a little more safe.
I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the use made of these crossings by disabled persons. I ask him to consider the case of a blind person with a stick who approaches a crossing. If he misses the kerb, he may well find himself lying like a bundle on the roadway. I have never been able to understand why we do not ramp the approaches to zebra crossings for disabled persons, such as a blind person who uses a white stick.
But this affects not only blind persons. Physically disabled individuals are also sorely troubled when they try to negotiate a crossing from the kerb on to the highway. Again, one small mistake could result in an accident to a disabled person who is using some form of walking aid and attempting to cross the highway. By ramping and thereby removing the kerb at the approach to a crossing, we could
146
greatly assist disabled persons. I can even recall the lady with a baby in a pram who tried to negotiate a crossing. When the pram went over the kerb, it tilted and her child, who was not strapped in, landed on the highway and suffered minor injuries. This would have been avoided if the mother with her baby in the pram could have approached the crossing down a ramp instead of having to drop the pram down over the kerb.
The same could be argued for the shopper. Today our housewives like to visit the big stores, and they take trolleys with them. When they approach pedestrian crossings, they find it difficult to negotiate the kerb. I remember an incident where sugar, jam and other precious goods were scattered over the highway because a housewife had difficulty in negotiating the kerb.
I cannot understand why we have not taken action long ago to remove kerbs at pedestrian crossings. Indeed, if in the first place kerbstones were dispensed with at crossings, this would represent a saving because the cost of them would not have to be met. It is as easy to ramp the approach from a pavement to a crossing as it is to install a kerb and expect people to negotiate it.
I appeal to the Minister to consider this problem. I am not suggesting that we should start to remove all kerbs on crossings throughout the United Kingdom from Monday next week. I recognise that it would be a costly experiment, but we could at least make a start in phasing out kerbs and phasing in ramps at zebra, pelican and other crossings. When road improvement schemes are approved, an integral part of the work should be the ramping of all approaches to all crossings. This would be of manifest advantage and benefit, especially to disabled people.
8.30 p.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: The Minister said that this publication had had a long gestation period. In my criticisms of it, I recall the observation which Sir Winston Churchill is supposed to have made about a camel—that it looked like a horse designed by a committee. I have many criticisms of the document, but I shall not take the time of the House in outlining them all.

147
When I first read the Highway Code, it was free. Later, one had to pay a penny for a document of three or four pages and after that sixpence for a book of eight or nine pages. We now have 60 pages and a document which costs 50p. It would be irresponsible to say that the only deduction from those facts is that the more pages in the Highway Code, the higher the accident rate.
My instinct is to disagree with the document. It goes into enormous depth and there are 7½ pages setting out the regulations and laws we have to obey. There is even a statement at one point about how to ride a bicycle. Most people can do that without advice from the Minister.
If the document is to go into all this detail, there should at least be an index. I should like to look at the Minister's instructions on riding a bicycle, but I can do so only by thumbing through the whole book. An hon. Member spoke earlier about service areas. Unless one knows the code intimately or is lucky in thumbing through the pages, one cannot find the section dealing with service areas. The document has a list of contents, but that is not an index.
The section on silencers says that they should be efficient, but the mind boggles to contemplate what the word "efficient" means, especially when one considers that all over the country silencers are modified to make more noise rather than less.
For a 60-page, 50p document this has several matters omitted. There is, as far as I can see, no reference to tanker safety markings. I know that discussion of this subject has been going on between the Department and interested authorities for some years, but in a document such as this, the public should be let into the secret.
If something can be said briefly, it is certain that the Department will find a way to say it at length. I used to ask the Ministry of Transport to introduce pictorial road signs and was always given the reply that they were not a clear statement of the legal position. I tried to get the Home Office to approve the use of the word "taxi", but they insisted that "for hire" was the clear statement of the legal position. I have news for the Gov-
148
ernment—many more people understand "taxi" than" for hire".
There is no advice in the document on standardisation. I have urged the standardisation of bumper heights. Quite serious accidents can be caused when cars' overriders get hooked together. I should have thought that some space could have been found to include advice on this subject to someone, even if only to British Leyland. I wrote to Lord Stokes on this subject suggesting that if all cars had the same bumper heights, a great deal of trouble and misery would be avoided.
I have been told that European countries would not agree to this standardisation and that we must await international agreement. I cannot see that international agreement is made easier if we are at sixes and sevens. It would be much easier if we at least had started the process. I understand that there is an EEC directive on the subject which we have accepted and since ignored. I believe that the Swedish Government have introduced standardisation.
I shall not go too far into the advice that is given, but this is an extensive document. The stealing of motor cars is a great evil. The Minister should know that one can get into practically any British made car with two bent spoons. I will show him how to do it if he is interested: I did it recently. A friend of mine—not me; I could not afford it—has a Rolls-Royce. He had left the key inside. We tried to break the window with a jack. Unfortunately, it was made of bullet-proof glass. So we had to get in by using two bent spoons.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Silver spoons!
Sir J. Langford Holt: We used two bent spoons to get into the Rolls-Royce. That is the kind of standardisation that I should like to see, but I understand that it does not come into this document.
Not enough is said on the subject of motorways. We are told about braking distances, but there is nothing about the rows of heavy goods vehicles which thrash up and down motorways at enormous speed. I see them every weekend nose to tail—just like a lot of randy dogs—going all the way up the motorway. Those chaps cause the accidents.

149
When a crash occurs, one knows that it is a multiple crash because a whole lot of vehicles bump into each other.
Nothing is said about GB-plates. These plates are presumably to guide the police in identification—not the GB-plates, because they are put on British cars when they go abroad. But in this country if a car has an I-plate, it is supposed to mean that it is an Italian car; if it has a "P", it is from Portugal; and if it has an "A" it conies from Austria.
I have taken up this matter with the Department. I have suggested that we should have some clarity. Recently I passed a car—I reported it to the Department; the Minister can look it up in the files—which had a GB-plate, an I-plate for Italy, "P" for Portugal, "F" for France and "D" for Germany. Heaven knows where that car came from: I did not know. I am sure the police did not know, and nobody else would know. I was told that it was not possible for this kind of thing to be included in this document.
I have read through this document as far as I can. I was told in correspondence with the Department that it would endeavour to include a passage about L-plates. Time and again one sees cars with L-plates being driven along motorways. One knows that learner-drivers are not allowed on motorways. If a driver is not a learner, he is misleading other drivers on the road if he displays L-plates on his car. It should be made clear that it is not correct—I shall not use the word "illegal'—for people who are not learner-drivers to drive on motorways with L-plates on their cars, because they mislead other drivers.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to drivers getting tired on motorways. I must tell the Minister that one need not be careless, drunk, or, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said, have spent over many hours in this House to become drowsy on a motorway. Motorways have a mesmeric effect on drivers. It cannot be helped. I have driven on motorways and known that I have been an absolute menace because I could so easily have gone to sleep between one branch-off and the next. Yet I had to go on because, had I pulled in, I should have been prosecuted for doing
150
so. However, I must have been much more dangerous on the road than if I had been able to pull off on to the hard shoulder.
My last point concerns the changing of road signs. I get the impression that local authorities are involved in a lot of unnecessary expense in making road signs bigger when the smaller one have been understood for many years. I believe that we are now changing the 30-milesper-hour sign because the figure"3" can be confused with the figure "5". That does not say much for the people who originally designed those road signs.
I end as I began. This document puts in far too much, and I should like to see it reduced to three-quarters of its present size. If that is done, let us have an index, and let us have some of the matters to which I have drawn attention included in the document.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. John H. Osborn: This debate on the proposed Highway Code is important. Those taking driving tests the year after next will have to know what is in this document, and those who are enthusiastic motorists and the motoring organisations will study it so that they know the right thing to do on the highway.
In his opening speech the Minister referred to Rule 68—the new Rule 75—dealing with bus lanes. He knows that I have asked a number of Questions about this, and he then referred me to the Government booklet on traffic signs. When is a bus lane a bus lane, and when is it not? The rule does not tell us very much. I do not think that the Highway Code is nearly explicit enough on this issue, though I received an assurance in correspondence that the matter would be made more explicit.
Let us consider first the situation in London. On some roads one sees a heavy white line, and between, say, 8.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. the bus lane operates as such, but for the rest of the day the lane is open to other traffic. Other bus lanes operate in the evening from, say, 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Yet other roads have bus lanes which operate as such morning and evening. In Sheffield there are bus lanes which, though badly sign-posted, are for buses only for the whole 24 hours. Different signs in different

151
parts of the country have different implications, and I think that the new rule has little regard for that.
Even more complicated, however, is the operation of bus gates through which private vehicles cannot go. Some lanes and gates are open to buses and taxis, and some are not, yet there are no illustrations in the Highway Code indicating signs to the appropriate effect. I do not see any reference to this at the back of the publication. There are disparities throughout the country, and if we are to improve road safety we must explain the situation to drivers.
Some hon. Members know that some months ago I had an unfortunate incident when returning home to Holland Park from the House of Commons with a taxi driver. Going past the Albert Hall at Kensington, a taxi driver became irritated that I was travelling at only slightly over 30 m.p.h. I was doing that because I thought a bus was clinging to the bus lane. There is no doubt that the taxi driver wanted to pass me, and he was irritated because I stayed in the middle of the road. I knew that he was irritated, but I did not bargain for what happened later. About a mile beyond that point he crowded me and nearly put me on the pavement. If that could happen to a Member of Parliament going home at night, it can happen to any citizen, but that is another story. By not understanding, and I have since investigated the full implications of the appropriate bus lane signs, I had obviously irritated another road user. On another occasion shortly after that, just before midnight I gained the impression that the driver of a bus going down this same bus lane thought that it was a bus lane for 24 hours a day and objected to my being in that lane.
Bus lanes are a good and a worthwhile new experiment, but every bus driver on his route must know what is involved. Every taxi driver and every car owner, too, must know what is involved, yet there are only two lines on the subject in Rule 68 in the proposed Highway Code. It may be right that we should deal with it in only two or three lines in the Highway Code, but there should be other documents to inform drivers. Does the Highway Code even now do this sufficiently elaborately?
152
I turn to Rule 149, dealing with driving on motorways in fog. The South Yorkshire police categorically recommend that at night, and particularly in fog and bad weather, drivers should use headlights on full beam as against dipped on motorways. Again, I raised this with the Minister's Department and was told that it had been properly researched by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and would be dealt with in the Highway Code. There is little guidance in the documents before us in that respect about what is likely to be in the new Highway Code.
In a steel-making area such as South Yorkshire, I think I am right in saying that anything up to 10 tons of scrap is taken off the motorway each week in that area by one police authority alone. I had an unfortunate experience driving up the motorway at night when my car hit a billet which tore out the tube between my petrol tank and the carburettor within a matter of at most a minute but nearer 30 seconds. Obviously, I was unable to progress any further. When I had stopped I found that petrol was pouring out of the rubber tube near the engine on to the road.
There is obviously an advantage in using full-beam headlights in certain conditions. The Highway Code states that a car driving at 70 mph needs a 315-ft stopping distance. The disadvantage is that the driver of a car may be embarrassed both by the full headlights of a car behind him and by the full headlights of an oncoming car, even though he may have an anti-dazzle mirror, if these recommendations are followed. This is not referred to in the Highway Code, and perhaps it ought not to be. I understand that the Minister may be thinking about this.
The third point I wish to raise concerns the use of hazard warning lights and the red triangle. To what extent is a motor manufacturer expected to provide hazard lights? To what extent should the motorist be made at all times to carry the triangle? There was one occasion this year when I was stuck descending an icy mountain pass, when I welcomed the fact that on a slippery hill vehicles had a 100-yard warning of trouble ahead. Should not drivers be obliged to carry such a triangle?

153
I ask for guidance about situations concerning animals. I looked for this in the Highway Code. I do not know where one gets such guidance. Perhaps it is in some law referred to at the end of the code. If a dog crosses in front of a car, I have always understood that, even at the risk of the life of the animal, one should not risk oneself, one's vehicle or other road users. This matter is not touched upon in the code. Is it intended that this should be avoided in the Highway Code?
On page 61, under the heading "Prevention of theft", it is stated that a driver should never leave a driving licence and insurance certificate in his vehicle. That is sensible, but on the other hand it probably means that the driver must carry both documents on his person. That is particularly important outside this country.
Finally, I refer to the European driving licence and international standards. I wish to concentrate on international standards in so far as they involve drivers throughout the European Economic Community and elsewhere. To what extent is this code similar to that applied in the United States, Canada and the Community countries? To what extent have we idiosyncrasies of our own? To what extent are these discussed with the international organisations to try to achieve conformity to make it easier for drivers who choose to drive in other countries?
I cite the problems which I feel must be looked at, although I am not certain whether they should be looked at in the Highway Code. The purpose of these questions is not to seek an immediate answer this evening. Rather we should consider whether they should be tackled in the Highway Code or in other documents so that the driver knows what he is about once he has passed his driving test.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I declare an interest as honorary president of the National Association of Approved Driving Instructors—I would stress at this time, the honorary! I wear a slightly different hat from the last time I spoke on a transport measure since there has now been an amalgamation between the National Association of Driving Instructors and the Society of Approved Driving Instructors in order to make a larger,
154
more powerful and, it is hoped, more effective unit representing the interests of thousands of approved driving instructors in Britain. With that additional authority, I welcome the new Highway Code and wish it well in its aim to reduce the appalling carnage on our roads.
I need not take time repeating the many points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) with regard to improving the code now before the House, or the further remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, either on behalf of my Association or personally, with regard to the need to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. However, much of what else he had to say was important and useful and I commend my hon. Friend's remarks to the Minister.
I am not quite sure what status pages 53 to 60 of the proposed new Highway Code, dated 1974, now enjoy in relation to the document we are debating tonight. Speaking as a lawyer, I think people would find it extremely valuable—perhaps a means whereby they might avoid getting themselves into the hands of lawyers—if the new Highway Code contained "The Law's Demands" section. I do not think that it is proposed to add them to the document before us or it would have been included, but it would be useful for citizens to be able to cast their eyes down such an exhaustive list, even though that might not meet with the approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) who was asking for a slimming down of the document. It would be useful for citizens to cast their eyes down and literally see what the do's and don't's rendering them liable to criminal prosecution were.
One part which might be improved is the section on page 58 headed
"If you are involved in an accident".
There is always a lot of confusion about whether one has to report an accident to the police. As I understand it, the position is that if it is a damage-only accident, and if one exchanges the name and address of the owner and the registration number of the vehicle, one does not have to report the matter to the police. However, if one is in an injury accident it is

155
not enough to exchange the name and address and the details of the car—one has to produce a certificate of insurance to the other party or to the police officer on the scene and, failing that, one must report to the police.
Those facts are repeated in this document, it is true, but by putting together the words damage and injury in the phrase:
"If you are involved in an accident—which causes damage or injury"
the document makes it difficult for the ordinary person to see what he must do if he is engaged in an injury accident as opposed to an ordinary damage-only accident. If it is the law that a damage-only accident does not have to be reported to the police if names and addresses have been exchanged, that should be more clearly stated so that anyone who is in a bit of a panic, as is common at many accidents, can understand that. He should also be able to understand, if that is the law, that an accident involving injury need not be reported provided that insurance certificates have been exchanged. Common sense dictates that if that is the law, it should be clearly set out.
The most important point which I make on behalf of driving instructors is that this revised code has existed unimplemented for nearly three years. Let us get it into action quickly, with no more time wasted. If its proposals are sound, and if they are likely to save life or injury, every week's delay might mean death or injury which could have been avoided. If properly presented to the public the introduction of the new code will cause many more people than perhaps read the old code to do so. This is a golden opportunity, which the Minister must not let slip, to secure a substantial improvement in driving standards from the moment of presentation of this new document.
Because of the delay in introducing the document, two problems have faced many learner drivers in some parts of the country. First, the existing Highway Code has gone out of print and has become difficult or impossible to obtain, particularly, I understand, in the London area. That certainly causes unnecessary irritation and may in some cases delay the qualification of drivers. That is wholly undesirable.
156
Second, some examiners are asking questions about pelican crossings, uncontrolled crossings and zig-zag markings, although those matters do not figure in the existing code. That is unfair. Both those problems would disappear with the speedy implementation of this code.
No group of people are more dedicated to the cause of road safety than the approved driving instructors whom I represent. It follows that no group of citizens are more anxious to see the speedy introduction of the code. We hope that the new and necessary legislation will not be long in coming.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, not least because I spoke the last time that we debated the Highway Code, in November 1968, although at a rather later hour. Then, the House rose at 11.31 p.m. and the debate was curtailed, so I congratulate the Government on at least having put down the subject for debate at this time.
But the Government have been slow in bringing this matter forward. Last time, they went to the opposite extreme: they bounced it on us and produced the Highway Code before Parliament could discuss it. Mr. Marsh then rightly said that in future he would ensure that we had a chance to consider it in advance. The Government have kept that pledge, but they have been slow in bringing the code forward. However, we are discussing it now and I hope that it will be published before long.
I do not often quote my own speeches—they are not very exciting even at the time that I make them—but I did make a couple of points in my speech on the last occasion which have not been fully taken into account this time. Nor did I have an answer last time.
The 1960 code advised pedestrians in shopping centres always to use zebra crossings. The 1968 code left out the word "always", an omission which is perpetuated in the code today. I feel that the advice would be strengthened if "always" could be reinstated.
In the same debate I referred to parking. The code provided that cars should not be parked opposite each other if that would result in narrowing the road to less than the width of two vehicles. In the

157
1960 code "nearby" was also included. The code provided that cars should not park opposite or nearly opposite each other. The provision is not included in the proposed Highway Code and the code would be strengthened if it were. We all know from our own driving experience that on narrow roads it is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, for cars to be parked on either side of the road near each other as it is for them to be parked directly opposite each other.
In the previous debate my great friend David Webster, speaking from the Front Bench, asked whether free copies of the code would be available for use in schools. It is essential that the code should be widely available, but now that the price has increased considerably, that may not be possible, and I urge the Minister to make available free copies of the code for use in schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to Europeanisation. I am glad that we have not included in the code the phrase "Every motor vehicle must have a driver".
In my previous speech I said:
"I hesitate to suggest that the code should be longer than it is, but the former code contained a section … concerning first aid."—[Official Report, 18th November 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1063.]
I am glad to see that the Minister has reinstated the first aid section.
I am sure that drivers of vehicles bearing L-plates on motorways are not learners, but I agree with hon. Members who referred to such drivers in our previous debate and said that something should be done to prevent cars with L-plates from being on motorways.
It is right that there should be warning signs on motorways advising drivers to slow down, but the warnings appear far in advance of minor obstructions, such as when painting is being done. That is crying "Wolf". A person who has had to slow down to 40 m.p.h. when he could safely have continued at 60 m.p.h. or 70 m.p.h. for a couple of miles may later take no notice of the warning signs when there has been a serious accident. I am all for being on the safe side, but that is to overdo it.
There is only one short reference in the code to disc zones. I imagine that in future there will be more disc park-
158
ing and I hope that the Minister will extend the reference to disc zones.
Details of the sizes of lorries that are permitted to park at night without lights are given in the code, but trailers are being left without lights and without identification. There is a suspicion—and I have discussed this matter with the borough engineer in my constituency—that trailers are brought by lorry and parked in residential streets and then, in the morning, are taken away by a different lorry with a different number plate. I understand that there is a loophole in the law in this connection. Obviously, the police have more important things to do than to spend their nights observing trailers, but I hope that the Minister will examine the law in this respect and will see whether the advice in the Highway Code could be improved.
Much has been said about pelican crossings, which I welcome because they have been a tremendous help. However, I am doubtful about the new criteria which the Government have recently adopted. Instead of going on the old criteria involving the number of people crossing a certain road and the vehicle traffic flow, the situation now appears to be governed by the number of accidents on a road. It would be unfortunate if a certain number of accidents had to occur before the need for a pelican crossing could be established.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties about pelican crossings is that they are far more expensive than they need to be? If the Japanese or the Americans had to produce 10,000 rubber sheets for such a purpose and the electronic equipment to go with it, they would get on with the job. Unfortunately, we do not handle things in that way and, because they are relatively expensive, we have few of them. That factor often inhibits an authority from agreeing to provide a pelican crossing.
Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is right. Similar arguments are used in my constituency because the surface of the road must be adapted and all the rest of it. The Minister is present and he will have noted my hon. Friend's comments.
There has been a change in the wording from that which appeared in the

159
original on the question of advice to young children. Originally the wording said
"Do not allow very young children out alone on the road."
Now the wording has been modified to include children
"up to age five at least".
Personally, I would raise that age, but if the Department has had advice on the matter and can impart it to the House, perhaps we may be told.
I wish to refer to the subject of bus lanes. I feel that in that regard the comments in the code could be extended a little. I have some doubts about the anti-flow bus lanes because I feel that there is a danger in that respect. The fact that headlights must be turned on even in the brightest days might be regarded by some people as a warning. Again, perhaps we may be given further information on that score.
I wish to deal with a few smaller points. On page 13 we see the phrase "then signal as necessary". That phrase can be interpreted in any way one likes. Perhaps that is too vague an expression to use in such a document.
There is a reference to mobile shops, and to the fact that care must be taken when one is near them. I thought that that provision could also include reference to milk floats and similar types of vehicles.
A further point can be made about hazard warning lights. If a lorry or van pulls into a side road in which several cars are parked and hazard lights are lit, anybody who drives along that road from behind may only see showing from behind the offside hazard light. The driver may well stop, thinking that the lorry or van is about to pull out because he may not see the other hazard light also flashing. I do not know the answer to that problem, but I put it forward for the Minister's consideration. That situation could sometimes be dangerous.
Mini-roundabouts have been a tremendous success. Such roundabouts have been extremely successful and in many cases bring about a reduction in vehicle speeds on many roads—roads on which, in other circumstances, cars may travel at too great a speed.
160
A roundabout can be a valuable safety factor, but, in the context of mini-roundabouts, I ask the Minister to look again at the instructions about going round and signalling one's intention to leave the roundabout. One is supposed to signal having passed the exit which one is not using and then signal to turn left just before coming to the exit at which one will leave the roundabout. Mini-roundabouts, however, are so small that it is not possible to do that because, by the time one has signalled, one is virtually on the way out of it, whereas if one starts signalling too soon the indication is that one is pulling out at an earlier exit. I ask the Minister to think about that.
Box junctions are very useful, but, like so many safety and traffic devices, they are useful only in so far as they are observed. We all know that at major junctions in London, for example—no doubt, it happens elsewhere, too—the box junction restriction is not observed, with the result that traffic blocks another main road. However, if the box junction rules can be observed, I believe that they can improve the traffic flow at many of our main road junctions, especially at peak hours.
Those are just a few general thoughts which I put to the Minister. I realise that he could not possibly answer them all, or all the other points which have been raised in the debate, but if he will write to us, having noted them, we shall be grateful. It is vital to keep the Highway Code up to date, and I trust that it will not be too long—certainly, nothing like as long as the period since our last debate—before we have another.
I hope that the Minister will tell us when the new code will appear. I think that the previous debate took place in November and the code came out the following February. There were printing troubles at that time, I believe, and the Minister did not have all the comments to hand. Now, however, he has all the final round of comments, and, after all the delay, it is essential that the new code should be brought out as soon as possible. I give it a warm welcome in advance.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Peter Fry: On the last occasion when I had the responsibility of winding up a debate, I was left

161
with about two minutes. Tonight, however, I could take considerably longer, though I hasten to assure the House that I shall not take all the time available to me.
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to have the Under-Secretary of State with us on the Front Bench. He is a constituent of mine, and I see it as an honour to speak opposite him. Although I have some doubt about his allegiance at the next General Election, I welcome him none the less and am very pleased at his appointment.
I congratulate all those of my hon. Friends who have spoken, because there has been a series of valuable contributions from our side. In fact, with one notable exception all the comments, save from the Minister himself, have come from the Opposition, and I think that we should be commended for our interest in road safety.
There have been many and various suggestions, some of them, perhaps, a little outside the scope of the Highway Code. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—he is not here at the moment—will not mind if I pick on one phrase which he used which, I feel, he would not wish to be taken unfairly. My hon. Friend referred to the motor car which kills, maims and pollutes. In fact, it is not the motor car itself which does those things. It is the driver who kills and maims and who usually has a lot to do with the amount of pollution. That is why we need a Highway Code, since it is far more important to try to advise and control the motorist than to consider only the motor vehicle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) made some pointed comments about the size and cost of the new code. With respect, I remind him that the suggestion regarding L-plates are already contained in the draft document, Rule 26.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) and for Southgate (Mr. Berry) spoke of the vagueness of the draft code regarding bus lanes. I am sure that if he looks again at the new Rule 75 the Minister will agree that there is a certain element of confusion. In one place we are told
162
that no other vehicles must use the bus lanes and in another we are told that pedal cycles and taxis can use them if the signs so allow. Perhaps some rewording could remove certain confusion there.
We give these proposals a general welcome and we appreciate the Government's desire to have the fullest consultation. Yet the procedure that has been adopted has been rather prolonged. This has meant considerable delay between publication of the original proposals and the amended proposals, and we still have to wait for the final draft to be laid before Parliament. That is why some of the outside organisations, such as the Association of County Councils, which place great importance on early publication want the new edition to be published at the earliest possible date. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, we could speed up the process by having an annual debate on the whole question of road safety, which would mean that any necessary amendments could be made much more rapidly than hitherto.
It is worth underlining that the whole framework of road safety changes constantly. For example, there are the varying speed limits, wished upon us by the energy crisis and by considerations of road safety. But the code as drafted takes no account of the various speed limits, which are highly confusing to the average motorist. There are experiments with "sleeping policemen", which many people believe to be a useful road safety device, particularly in highly residential areas, to prevent fast through traffic. There is need for constant amendment of the code, and it would be a pity to wait another eight years before some of the good ideas which are being suggested at the moment can be put into the code.
Therefore, we believe that there should be a very close look at the question of how the present procedure works, although, of course, without at any time removing the right of interested bodies to be consulted or taking away the Parliamentary control that exists over the publication of this document.
What is clear is that new drivers are. expected to be conversant with the code, but it is a code which is now very much out of date. When someone is taking a

163
driving test, he is fully aware—particularly if he has an excellent instructor who is a member of the organisation of which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is president—of the latest developments, but he still has to go back to a document which he knows is faulty in some respects. Therefore, there is strong need for a slightly different method of attending to this matter.
Various organisations have put up proposals on the details in the code. The RAC put up many not all of which have been incorporated. The Association of County Councils also put up ideas. Like the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) it raised the question of disabled people, particularly the deaf. It is perhaps assumed that everyone driving a car can hear, but unfortunately increasing numbers of our fellow citizens cannot hear too well, and the ACC believes that advice should be given about looking out for people who might be deaf.
The association feels rather strongly that the advice given in paragraph 129 on the overtaking of cyclists needs greater emphasis. At a time when the popularity of cycling probably will increase again because of the soaring costs of motoring and other forms of transport, it is important to stress that, although a cyclist apparently occupies only a small part of the road, he or she needs considerable clearance to avoid the danger of accidents. The wording in paragraph 129 should be tightened up. I would prefer the wording "ride in a single file on all main roads and busy narrow roads" and "never ride more than two abreast at any one time". There is a tendency at present for cyclists to take up almost the whole carriageway. Perhaps they do not realise the danger to themselves.
A useful amendment could be made to Rule 29 which deals with driving and taking drugs. It says that if drugs are taken in the course of medical treatment the motorist should consult a doctor. I think that we should insert "or chemist" here. Our GPs are very hard pressed at the moment, and if a chemist is not sure of the effect of any drug he would naturally refer it to a GP.
Rule 54 is concerned with the approach to zebra crossings. The RAC claimed
164
that when this paragraph was read in conjunction with page 41, particularly with the illustration on page 41, there appeared to be a new obligation imposed on drivers to use an arm signal when approaching a zebra crossing. I am not sure whether this was the intention of the Department, but reading paragraph 54 and looking at page 41 could cause confusion among motorists. However desirable it may be for a motorist to give an arm signal, the fact is that if he is driving in wet or cold weather, he has to go through the process of winding down the window and putting his arm out, and it would surely be better for him to keep both hands on the wheel. I hope that the Minister will look at this again.
In Rule 73 we have advice which is fairly restrictive about driving on three-lane dual carriageways. The advice ignores the fact, largely due to current restrictive speed limits, that there is a very real danger of vehicles driving in two or all three lanes at roughly the same speed. This is highly dangerous and could lead to a multiple pile-up right across the road. If, as is generally indicated, the driver in the middle lane drives at the speed limit, this excludes anyone from using the outside lane unless he exceeds the speed limit. This point is worth looking into again.
Paragraph 122 contains advice about the placing of warning triangles. It would be worth while pointing out that on motorways this kind of triangle should be placed not on the carriageway itself but on the hard shoulder, so that it does not form an obstruction on the motorway. That is not made clear in the code as proposed.
The Minister should be aware of the growing practice of many heavy goods vehicle drivers to overtake on two-lane roads, even though their speed is very little in excess of that of the vehicle which they are overtaking. This point was made graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. It should be looked into and advice should be given to lorry drivers about this.
A considerable number of detailed points require consideration, but I do not want the Minister to get the impression that we are merely carping and criticising. We give a very general welcome to the new code, and we hope that it will be put into force as soon as possible.

165
One feature which has emerged from the debate and which needs underlining in the general point that the code is not obligatory. It is, after all, only a code giving advice. It sets out what a sensible man should do. This is where the difficulties start to arise. Various suggestions have been made as to certain instructions that ought to be made obligatory. One of the problems in producing the code and in giving advice to the motorist is the very real one that, whereas we are telling the motorist what he ought to do, we must at the same time be clear that he is not legally required to do a great many of the things suggested.
For example, although—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has said—it is highly desirable to wear a seat belt, at the moment there is no legal obligation to do so. The Highway Code says that one should never drink and drive. Although one would hope that most people would not do so, at present quite clearly people can do so, because there is a statutory limit to the amount of alcohol in the blood which is permitted before prosecution arises.
I believe that the Government have a difficult task in putting forward a set of sensible proposals and in deciding which parts of those proposals should become obligatory and part of the law of the land. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that aspect. At the same time, I hope he will appreciate the tremendous fund of goodwill shown on this side of the House. He will receive many suggestions and much co-operation over future legislation, even if we do not necessarily agree on everything.
All in all, therefore, we welcome the opportunity to debate the code. We hope that the Government will not take too long in considering the points that have been made tonight and in publishing the Highway Code in its final form. After all, road safety is the main pre-occupation of us all, and the longer we delay the implementation of the new code the more lives are put at risk.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Horam: I first thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his kind remarks about me. It is, indeed, a pleasant coincidence that I happen to live in his constituency, and that we are both very interested in trans-
166
port. I know of his genuine and longstanding interest in this subject, which I willingly acknowledge. Despite these rather flowery comments, I point out that I am registered to vote in another constituency, so that mine is not a vote against the hon. Gentleman in Welling-borough.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, by virtue of the fact that I live in a small village in the northern part of the constituency, I have a particular interest in rural transport, which is also one of my responsibilities. This gives me some experience of the sort of problem with which he will be familiar from his constituency experience, and to which I attach a great deal of importance. I hope that we shall see real progress made in this respect.
Obviously, I cannot deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points, nor shall I be able to deal with the many points raised by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in the course of his very interesting speech. Points of this sort, made at some length, need to be considered carefully after reading the Official Report.
I shall not be able to give more than a cursory reply this evening to many of the points made in the debate. It has been a very interesting one, ranging from jack-knifing goods vehicles to randy dogs, and in the course of it some very sensible things have been said.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made one point with which I wholeheartedly agree, when he said that the procedure for making changes in the Highway Code should be streamlined. I hope that we can make progress in that direction, though obviously not in this code. We have gone through these procedures and it is necessary to seek parliamentary approval, but certainly we can consider that for the future.
I agree with the second general point made by the hon. Gentleman, which was his idea of having an annual debate. Unfortunately, however, I am not my own master in that respect, as recent events show all too clearly. But I shall be lobbying for more time for dealing with transport matters in general, and the hon. Gentleman may care to sign the motion on the Order Paper about the transport debate not taking place last Thursday.

167
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's third general point that we should have a limit to the amount of legislation and regulations governing the life of the motorist. The hon. Gentleman made the point that it is difficult to enforce such legislation and regulation if it becomes excessive. I agree. Indeed, I take it further, because I feel that regulation should be limited for its own sake. It should not become too complex. It is right to keep matters as simple as possible. The life of the motorist is complicated enough as it is, and too much regulation simply overburdens him.
The Highway Code has been described as one of the great unread classics to be put alongside the Bible and Shakespeare. I read a remark recently about the National Theatre's production, which was described as "the justly neglected classic". I think that the Highway Code is an unjustly neglected one. We issue 1,250,000 of them each year to applicants for provisional licences. There is some hope that some of them read something about it. Certainly they have to answer questions about it during the driving test. We are also spending about £1 million a year on pedestrian publicity, which is the context in which the point was raised, mainly on the Green Cross Code. The hon. Gentleman made the point about the use of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea to send out reminders. Certainly I undertake to consider that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's detailed points on the code, as opposed to those general issues, he raised the familiar topic about children on the back seats of cars and not the front seats. It is very difficult to legislate on this subject, but it is covered in Rule 27 of the proposed Highway Code. I hesitate to suggest that it is unread by the hon. Gentleman, but it is covered to some extent there. Seat belts are also referred to in Rule 27.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that motor cycle training should be made compulsory, Training of this kind is expensive to make compulsory, and we think that it would be of doubtful value. We prefer to think in terms of giving more information about voluntary training schemes such as those run by the RAC
168
and the schools traffic education programme. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, making training of this kind compulsory on a wider scale runs up against public expenditure problems. I think that we must do all that we can to extend voluntary systems and give them greater emphasis.
As for the disabled, Rule 113 mentions orange badges. I take the point which the hon. Gentleman made generally about the problems of the disabled. I am well aware of them.
The speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was extremely interesting and he made a number of useful suggestions. He asked a specific question about anti-jack-knifing devices for heavy goods vehicles. About 95 per cent. of all articulated vehicles sold in the country have load-sensing devices which reduce the likely chance of jackknifing. Anti-lock brake devices are being developed, and we look forward to their being in more widespread use. These devices are being considered in possible regulations internationally, and presumably they will eventually have some application in this country. They need a little more testing before we decide to go further.
The MOT test is to be extended from 1st January to cover seat belts, windscreen wipers and washers and indicators. There will be almost immediate progress in this area.
Crawler lanes on motorways are provided when the gradient makes them appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to horses. Although I live in a rural constituency, my lack of knowledge of these animals is considerable. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a balance of opinion and I believe that the horse world is divided on the issue. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He obviously cares a great deal about this matter.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the printing of the London Gazette. However, I recognise the important point he was making and I shall refer it to one of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made useful points about parking on hard shoulders and giving way at

169
roundabouts. I cannot give him a clear answer now, but I have noted what he said.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: A number of people seem to be too idle to take their cars off the streets. They seem to believe that the streets were made for them alone. Will my hon. Friend consider legislation to prohibit people from using the street as a park for private cars or lorries, particularly when there are drives alongside houses and the people concerned are simply too idle to take their vehicles off the road? May we have something done to stop these people from hogging the roads?
Mr. Horam: It is the general impression that everyone may park outside his own house and has a perfect right to do so. That is not the case. There is some very bad behaviour and I shall look into my hon. Friend's suggestion. We do not want to go too far because of the massive number of regulations which would be needed to follow through his comments, and I do not want to make too many regulations. We already have a considerable number in relation to parking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a number of points, with which we were all sympathetic, about disabled pedestrians, particularly at crossings. I take his point and remind him that we now have bleepers to help blind people on some pelican crossings. We are making some progress in that direction at least. I note my hon. Friend's suggestion that it would help disabled people if there were no kerbs at crossings.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) apologised to me for having to leave the debate. He made a valuable point about the length of the Highway Code, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) suggested various additional matters which it could include—and which would have lengthened it. This is the eternal dilemma with the Highway Code.
The hon. Member for Hallam suggested as a way out of this problem that some of the information about which he was understandably concerned should be made available to the public in another form. I draw his attention to the "Driving"
170
manual, a thicker document which includes some of the information to which he referred. There is a continual problem in trying to make the code short and simple while including all those items which we think appropriate.
Mr. John H. Osborn: I was referred to the manual when I first raised this matter 10 years ago, but I wonder how many drivers even know of its existence. I have an old copy in my library. I must now bring it up to date.
Mr. Horam: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made the case for part of the money to be spent on general road safety being expended on advertising the driving manual, which is an excellent document and well worth reading, although it is rather large.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the point made by my hon. Friend about bus lanes is valid. This is a new important matter which should be explained. I never understood why a couple of inches of type and a picture needed to be given to parked ice cream vans. I should have thought the bus lanes were far more important.
Mr. Horam: I am not sure whether the amount of space we could save by missing out the item on parked ice cream vans would enable us to get in all that the hon. Gentleman wants about bus lanes, roundabouts, and so on. Nevertheless, I take the point.
The hon. Member for Hallam referred to international comparisons and asked what amount of consultation went on and whether international standards were broadly in line. There is considerable international consultation on road safety matters and the specific contents of highway codes. We are now broadly in line with other countries in this respect. Indeed, the tendency is for highway codes to become more similar as general knowledge increases, although there are idiosyncrasies from country to country.
Mr. John H. Osborn: I referred to the use of headlights. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would prefer to answer that question on another occasion. Does he think that that matter should be dealt with in the code? It may be that he would prefer to answer that question later.
Mr. Horam: I should prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. It raises a number of complex issues which I should not like to attempt to encapsulate in my remarks now. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall write to him.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an interesting speech in which he indicated his special knowledge of driving instructors and made a number of useful suggestions, most of which I take on board. The legal position of and the demands made on the motorist which are now in the Highway Code will be continued. A section at the back will explain, in as simple terms as possible, the general legal position facing the motorist.
The hon. Member for Southgate made an extremely well-informed speech, taking in matters going back a number of years. I felt a positive tiro compared with the depth of knowledge he revealed and the number of points that he made. I counted no fewer than 25. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman counted them. They were extremely numerous. I know that, as he said, he will not expect me to speak to them all this evening. I shall write to him and cover as many as I can. It will be a long letter and it may be some time before it comes, but I shall endeavour to meet his points. I appreciate the serious interest shown by the hon. Gentleman.
The timing of the publication of the new code depends on it receiving approval in both Houses. We have to go to another place for consideration of these revised proposals. We shall then need approval of the ultimately revised text by both Houses. All I can say is that it will be at some stage in 1977. I cannot say more than that now.
Finally, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their comments on the document. We have had a good example of the House of Commons, in a remarkably sane way after the earlier debates in this Chamber today, exercising its collective wisdom.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper on A Proposed New Highway Code.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
9.45 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of the House of 17th November 1955, 7th March 1957, 17th May 1961, 9th March 1965, 4th May 1971, 1st August 1972, 29th November 1974 and 27th November 1975 be varied as from 1st December 1976 as follows:—
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £970 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,765 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,880 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £2,675 per annum, whichever is the less';
(b) for paragraph 2 of the said Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £485 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £1,280 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £940 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £1,735 per annum, whichever is the less';
(c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:—
'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £485 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,280 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £940 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees,

173
will bring his income up to £1,735 per annum, whichever is the less.'
I move this motion on behalf of the Trustees of the Members' Fund. It sets out clearly what the trustees propose, and I do not think there is any point in my taking up the time of the House in describing it in detail. I shall, of course answer any questions that are put to me.
At present, 58 ex-Members and widows are benefiting as a result of the fund. The total present income of the fund is £15,000 from Members' contributions, £15,000 from grant-in-aid, and interest of about £15,000, amounting altogether to £45,000. Under the proposals now before the House, whereby it is suggested that we increase the maximum amount that may be payable to any beneficiaries in the coming year, an additional £6,500 will be paid. That is roughly in conformity with the increase in the cost of living and the increase in payments that are made out of the contributory pension fund. As the House realises, every applicant for a grant from the Members' Fund has to state what his or her income is. Every case is considered on its merits, and the trustees of the fund do this carefully before making any grant.
It may interest the House to know what long lives ex-Members of the House and widows usually have. I was looking at recent figures, from which it appears that in the year ended 31st December 1975 there were six ex-Members aged between 85 and 90 and one between 90 and 95 and four widows between the ages of 90 and 95 who were getting some grant from the Members' Fund.
I do not think there is anything I need add to that. If any hon. Member wishes to ask questions about how we administer the fund or to ask relevant questions about where the money comes from, I shall be happy to provide answers. Other than that, I ask the House to accept the recommendaion of the trustees, who believe that the amounts now proposed are necessary to enable ex-Members and widows to live a reasonably comfortable life without suffering serious hardship. The amounts suggested are related to but do not conform exactly with the increase in pensions out of the contributory pensions fund, but we think that these are fair proposals and I invite the House to accept them.
Question put and agreed to.

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, AVON
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
9.48 p.m.
Mr. Terry Walker: The subject that I raise tonight is one that is of great concern to many councillors, teachers and parents living in the county of Avon, for when the chief education officer of a large county like Avon resigns it is a serious matter indeed, and it has aroused great public concern throughout the county.
Derrick Williams was a very conscientious and accessible chief education officer and was highly regarded by the teaching profession throughout the county. His resignation has brought to a head a serious crisis of corporate management throughout the county. Mr. Williams, explaining to the education committee why he was leaving to take up a lower-paid job, said he was not against corporate management but was against Avon's version of it. He said in his resignation speech:
"I find too little corporate management and too many un-co-ordinated managers. I do not and cannot exercise the responsibilities the education committee and your schools and colleges expect of me and my departmental staff. The management of the education service is fragmented between so many committees and administrative departments of the council that there is no united or effective direction of it. The education committee cannot exercise that direction and nor can I…My work is concerned with practicalities and it disturbs me deeply that the consequences of your management system are being felt directly in your schools and colleges, which matter most; governors, managers, heads and principals are confused because they are serving so many masters."
Avon's version of the management structure is in our view wasteful and insensitive. The chief education officer is not free to get the confidence of heads or staff in the running of the schools system.
The teacher's representative on the education committee raised the matter of the functioning of the education committee and the education department at Avon House 18 months ago. He was ruled out of order by the chairman of the education committee who said that that was a matter for the full council. That was a way of sweeping things under the

175
carpet—until now, when the chief education officer has decided that he has no option other than to resign. He has done this not because he wanted to do so, but because he was not allowed to do his job. The row in Avon is all about who runs education within the county.
What is being complained about is the system in which it seems that every officer, department and committee in the hierachy is able to issue instructions direct to schools and to education staff dealing with details and basic principles without any reference to the chief education officer or the education committee. It is the chief education officer who should issue such instructions because of his special knowledge. He has the ability to interpret these matters.
There is nothing left in Avon for the chief education officer to do except deploy teachers. Whereas before headmasters dealt with the education committee and the chief education officer and his department, they must now deal with estate services, with the land and buildings committee, the county architect's department and the personnel department. They are inundated by letters and directives from these departments, and they have to cope with actions taken by people who have no knowledge of education and the way in which schools work. Many of these decisions take away the powers given to heads, governors and managers in the 1944 Education Act to deal with buildings and staff. There are so many masters that no one knows who is responsible for what.
There have been instances of builders arriving at schools that were in the middle of holding examinations. There have been instances of holes being dug in playgrounds or trees being chopped down without the school knowing anything about it. The head's management function makes him responsible for all staff within the school, yet the personnel department has taken away responsibility for all non-teaching staff. It has taken away control over the duties of caretakers and school meals staff.
The chief architects of Avon's corporate management system, the Conservative-controlled council, have so far maintained a stiff upper lip in this dispute. They have shown outward indifference
176
to the turmoil created by the resignation of the chief education officer. They are trying to pretend that there is nothing wrong. The chairman and the chief executive of Avon have behaved in a dictatorial manner over too many matters.
One such instance was the case of the careers advisory officer. In spite of recent legislation intended to reaffirm the close links between careers advice and education, because it is essential that this starts in schools, the chairman and the chief executive of Avon decided that the careers service should report to the community and leisure committee, which controls youth services. This decision was final, the chief education officer's hands were tied and he had to accept that ruling.
It is no wonder that the Society of Education Officers has issued a statement urging applicants who want to apply for the Avon job to get in touch with it before they do, because it is a serious situation. The chief education officer of Somerset, who is a member of the society's national executive, said:
"We want discussions to establish that whoever succeeds Mr. Williams will be able to take full control of the education service."
The Bristol head teachers have also asked for an inquiry, and the Bristol Polytechnic Branch of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has also called for a public inquiry into the system of corporate management in the county of Avon.
I have also had a letter from the western region of the association which says that it regrets,
"the resignation of Mr. Derrick Williams, the Chief Education Officer for Avon, and is deeply concerned about the circumstances which have necessitated this important decision. The Branch places on record its appreciation of the work done by Mr. Williams over a period of years and wishes him well for the future. The Branch deplores the frustration, disillusionment and lowering of morale which increasingly pervades many sectors of public administration within the County, not least in the area of Education. In consequence, the Branch appeals to all local MPs to approach the appropriate Minister to institute an enquiry into the administration of the Avon Authority in general, and of the Education Department in particular."
It is no wonder that this kind of thing has happened because we have some excellent people in the education departments at Avon House, but they must have job descriptions. That has been

177
refused by the county council for a long time. If they are to stay with us, they must have these job descriptions.
As well as being a Member of Parliament, I am a parent in the county of Avon. It is important to me that the best man succeeds Derrick Williams as chief education officer. Therefore, the air must be cleared of all this suspicion of what has gone wrong. In my view an inquiry is the only way in which we can clear the air and put the matter straight.
As well as the matters that I have raised there have been some political overtones about what has happened in the county. The allocation of school places is made by the chief education officer of the education department. It has come to my notice, and has been brought to my notice, that the chairman of the education committee has seen fit to overrule the chief education officer with regard to the allocation of some places.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
Mr. Walker: One such case was that in which the chief education officer had ruled that a child must go to school in his catchment area. But the chairman of the education committee, on appeal and having pressure put on him by the local county councillor, who happens to be the prospective Conservative candidate for my constituency, upheld that resolution and overruled the chief education officer himself.
If that kind of thing is happening, if that kind of cheating is going on, with political overtones, it is little wonder that someone like Derrick Williams, who is completely divorced from these things, should choose to resign. It comes back in the end to the crucial rôle of the chief education officer. Mr. Williams asked the chief executive of the county of Avon a year ago for a definition of his rôle. Up to this time, there has been no response to that request.
In asking the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry into the reasons for the resignation of the chief education officer, I am deeply concerned that we get the right calibre of man to follow Mr. Williams.
178
We shall not get him unless the air is cleared by a public inquiry.
The ruling party in Avon, the Conservatives as they are now, have tended to run the whole county and the education department in particular as despots. They must be put in their place when they interfere in education.
The responsible people of Avon, the governors, headmasters, teachers and parents—I believe that pupils must be protected—are all concerned about the allegations which have been made and need to be assured that the new chief education officer will be allowed to take full control of the education services without interference. That is vital for all of us and we look to the Secretary of State to take action on our behalf.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Paul Dean: I am grateful in the few moments available to me for the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is as well to remember in the first instance that we are talking about a comparatively new county council which has had the mammoth task of welding together four constituent parts which previously had four different administrations.
That would have been a difficult task in the most favourable possible circumstances, but in the inevitable stresses and strains which result from cuts in public expenditure imposed by the Government those strains are bound to be greater. They are bound to be especially great when one is dealing with a service like education, which is both a big spender and a big employer and, therefore, vulnerable to rising costs and inflation and the other economic problems that the country faces. It is as well to remember that that is the background to this problem.
There is no doubt—on this point I agree with the hon. Member for Kings-wood (Mr. Walker)—that there is concern about the problems which have arisen with regard to the way in which corporate management has been operating in Avon. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to criticise the chairman of the county council and the chief executive and to talk about a stiff upper lip attitude. That sort of approach, with the political overtones that the hon. Gentleman introduced, is

179
not likely to contribute to the satisfactory solution of the problem which we all wish to see. The county council understands this concern and shares it. It is anxious to deal with the problems which have arisen and to find the right solutions to them.
I cannot in the brief time available to me follow the hon. Gentleman in his detailed arguments, but I wish to comment briefly on the appeal he made to the Under-Secretary of State for an inquiry by the Department of Education and Science into the reasons for the resignation of the chief education officer. I feel sure that any advice or help that the Department can give will be welcomed, but I suggest that the problems which have arisen are primarily a matter for the county council.
The county council is responsible for administering the service in the county against the background of Government policy, and it is appropriate that the county council should resolve these problems in the light of the knowledge it has. I am sure, too, that before coming to a clear view on the right way forward the county council will wish to discuss the matter with the new chief education officer when he is appointed by the education committee and to get his views as to what changes are appropriate. I hope that, in considering the appeal that has been put to her. the Under-Secretary of State will remember these points, in particular that the primary responsibility here lies with the county council.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) and I are much interested, because of our constituency responsibilities, in the affairs of the county council. Is not much of the difficulty that Councillor Gervas Walker combines the functions of chairman and leader of the majority party? No man should take so much power to himself.
Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view on that. I do not intend to comment on the detailed way in which the duly elected county council carries out its responsibilities; it would be inappropriate for me to do so. It is a matter for the county council to
180
decide, and we shall not assist in the proper resolution of the problem by making detailed criticism or trying to persuade the Department to exercise responsibilities that properly lie with the county council.
I hope that any advice and assistance that the Under-Secretary of State can offer to the county council will be made available. I hope that she will also recognise—and will say so in response to this debate—that this is primarily a matter for the county council to resolve and that she believes that it firmly intends to do just that.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I wish to make a brief intervention in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) in his appeal to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to conduct an inquiry into the situation in the county of Avon.
It has been suggested that my hon. Friend was asking for an inquiry simply and solely into the resignation of the chief education officer of the county of Avon. I think that his brief went further than that. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) will also agree—that what is needed is an inquiry into the whole educational set-up in the county of Avon and also into the question of corporate management. I have never been a great supporter of the concept of corporate management. Since the presentation of the Bains Report a good deal of discussions has taken place about this matter, but it appears that the subject of corporate management has thrown up far greater problems in Avon than it has ever solved. Therefore, what is required is a more comprehensive inquiry than simply an inquiry into the reasons why the chief education officer resigned.
Representations have also been made to me from teachers in higher and further education and from teachers in other education sectors, as well as from parents and those who are directly responsible for the schools at the grass roots. I believe that in the past the record of Bristol City Council in educational terms was second to none. However, since the reorganisation of local government and

181
since the advent of corporate management, with all that that implies, I am afraid that the education service has deteriorated and morale is being undermined. Larger problems lie ahead. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will initiate a comprehensive and detailed inquiry into the situation.
10.12 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): The concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) about the effectiveness of education in his constituency and in the county of Avon in general is well known, as indeed is the concern of other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. Therefore, it is very much a matter of regret for us all that the occasion for this debate is the resignation of the chief education officer for Avon.
As I understand the situation, my hon. Friend initiated this debate largely to examine the reasons behind this resignation. As has become clear, the chief education officer set out his reasons in his resignation statement. He said that the management pattern adopted by the county council hindered the efficient organisation of the education service. While not dissenting from the principle of corporate management, he believed that in Avon neither the education committee nor he could exercise effective direction of the educational service because of fragmentation of its management. He recognised, however, the responsibility of the county council—a responsibility which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) sought to highlight—to decide the management system and how it operated, and he recognised that, since he felt unable to operate effectively within that system, it was best for him to resign.
As my hon. Friend has explained, the new county of Avon covers an area previously served by four separate local authorities—Bristol, Bath, and parts of Somerset and Gloucestershire. The task of the local education authority and its officers in creating a single education service for a population of 1 million would have been considerable even if finance had not been a problem. To have had to do so against a background of increas-
182
ing financial stringency has inevitably imposed great strains on the officers and members of the authority. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that in the authority, among education officers and in the schools themselves considerable bewilderment and frustration have been engendered by what has taken place there.
However, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, there is no question but that management within local government is a local responsibility and is a matter for local decision, a decision which the chief education officer recognised when he chose to resign rather than work within it. But it is legitimate for the House to consider whether provision of an effective education system is helped or hindered by the system of management adopted by local government.
The Bains Report was surely correct in concluding that
"there is no one perfect system of management in local government, any more than in any other sphere of activity. The needs and priorities of individual areas differ widely; they will change from time to time and local government administration must be sufficiently flexible and adaptive to meet those changing needs."
The criticism of corporate management in itself seems mainly to be of its application. It is true that throughout the country chief education officers have had a particularly difficult time with, as I have said, the introduction of corporate management into new local areas at a time of severe financial stringency. Since education accounts for the largest part of a local authority's budget, it is inevitable that it will come in for close scrutiny, and officers will have to spend a substantial part of their time seeking to justify this expenditure to bodies other than the education committee.
This could well be so whatever form of management is adopted. I am aware that several chief education officers have expressed their strong concern about possible damage to the education service which the application of corporate management might be causing.
In Avon itself, Mr. Williams's resignation statement has led to several groups expressing their concern to the county council about the way in which corporate management is being applied within the authority. Under the system of devolved responsibility which we have, it must be

183
for the council and its chief executive to consider, in the light of that expressed concern and the examples of problems referred to by my hon. Friend, whether there is a need, perhaps an urgent need, to review the system's operation in Avon.
I much regret, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and, I believe, all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, that the chief education officer of Avon has felt unable to continue in his post. The appointment of a new chief education officer and any reassessment of the application of corporate management in Avon which the county council may make will give an opportunity for a fresh start in Avon on the task of running an education service in a manner which will effectively promote the best interests of all its citizens.
Two of my hon. Friends have asked for a public inquiry to be conducted by the Department of Education and Science. There are two aspects of this matter which concern me. One is that it is not altogether clear what power the Department has to conduct a public inquiry. I shall look into this question and, with his permission, write to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
Secondly, it occurs to me that, in so far as the whole question of the resignation of the chief education officer is involved with the question of corporate management, this may be regarded as a matter not merely for the Department of Education and Science. On both those points I shall make further inquiry and write to my hon. Friend. Like him, I express my regret and concern that we have had to have this debate tonight in such unhappy circumstances.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. John Cope: I had not intended to intervene, but as a few minutes remain I wish to say a few words since my constituents also are affected. The Minister was right to point out in the earlier part of her speech that the real reason for the debate was not to press for an inquiry itself but to open up a discussion on the reasons for the resignation of the chief education officer. It is true also that if the hon. Member for Bristol. North-West (Mr. Thomas) wanted
184
a wider inquiry, as he appeared to do, this debate should have been addressed not to the Department of Education and Science but to the Minister responsible for local government, as the Minister herself pointed out.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I accept that if I were asking for an inquiry into the whole matter of corporate management, that would not be for the Department of Education and Science; but as I asked for an inquiry in terms of education and its provision in Avon, I think that it is a matter for my hon. Friend's Department.
Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the chairman of the council, who is also leader of the majority group. That may or may not be a valid criticism; it is a matter for the council to decide. This House would be offended, rightly, if other bodies attempted to interfere in the way we chose the Chairmen of our Committees, but the Chairman of one of our Committees is in much the same position in carrying out his duties as is the chairman of a council committee.
The hon. Member made clear that he does not support corporate management. But Mr. Williams made clear that he supported the system, although not the version being applied in Avon in the education service. It is a matter for the council to decide the system of management it is to operate, not only in education but in other matters.
We are discussing devolution a great deal nowadays. It would be intolerable for this House, having devolved powers to other bodies—in this case, a county council—to attempt to interfere with them in carrying out the tasks that the House had set them. We do not lay down in advance the way in which such bodies should carry out their tasks, and we should not attempt to interfere afterwards. But it is not uncharacteristic of the Labour Party that it should wish Whitehall to interfere in the way in which the education service is run in Avon. Today we have been discussing other methods of interference from Whitehall in the ways in which education is run.
There is a case for centralised management by the authority as a whole of the three principal areas in education—personnel, plans, building and maintenance, and financial control, particularly the

185
latter. It is true that the education committee has overspent considerably on the budget allocated by the county council, and that is a serious matter which the council itself needs to take into account, particularly at this time. I am sure that the Government would not dissent from that view. Public money is not easily come by at this time, and it is difficult for county councils and the Government to decide the priorities within the funds available.
The Avon County Council must be able to make this decision, and it is then up to its various committees to see that their services are carried out to the best advantage with the money available. It is important that the personnel services should be handled centrally. There is at least a strong case for that. We should rightly criticise if we discovered that clerks in the education department, for example, were being paid or treated differently from those in other branches of the council who were doing similar jobs. The same applies to the maintenance of land and buildings.
There is a very good example in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) of the way in which corporate management works together to solve problems. In the summer holidays this year Kingsfield School was burned down. All the stops were pulled out by the county council, not least of all by the chairman, who was criticised earlier tonight, in order to get
186
the school reopened by the beginning of the autumn term. In just four weeks temporary buildings were provided and the whole thing got under way again, so that by the start of the autumn term the school was able to function.
Mr. Terry Walker: What has that to do with corporate management? This sort of thing has been done before. It happened long before the hon. Member ever came to the South-West.
Mr. Cope: The hon. Member says that it had happened before. The example I gave was much more recent, and it reflects creditably on the areas in which the county council worked together. The council got the school reopened. The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, but in my view that reflects well on corporate management.
There is a case at least to be made for central management of these three functions from the education service. It is for the county council to decide the way in which it will organise its affairs and organise the system which it has a duty to run. It would be a mistake for the Department to set up an inquiry of this kind and attempt to interfere with the way in which this is done, and I am glad that the Minister replied as she did.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION
  STATUTE LAW REVISION
  PRIVY COUNCIL
  PRIVY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Authorities (Financial Control)
  Water Authorities (Financial Control)
  Location of Offices Bureau
  Location of Offices Bureau
  Thames Water Authority
  Thames Water Authority
  Northumbrian Water Authority
  Northumbrian Water Authority
  Departmental Press Officers
  Departmental Press Officers
  Sports Teams (South African Tours)
  Sports Teams (South African Tours)
  Slotted Concrete Blocks
  Slotted Concrete Blocks
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Waste Disposal and Fluoridation (St. Helens)
  Waste Disposal and Fluoridation (St. Helens)
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  The Arts
  The Arts
TRANSPORT
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  Departmental Press Officers
  Departmental Press Officers
  Roads
  Roads
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Driving Licences (Kidney Donors)
  Driving Licences (Kidney Donors)
  A30 (Launceston Bypass)
  A30 (Launceston Bypass)
  A39 (St. Columb Bypass)
  A39 (St. Columb Bypass)
  A50, Groby (Speed Limit)
  A50, Groby (Speed Limit)
  Road Schemes (West Yorkshire)
  Road Schemes (West Yorkshire)
  Motor Vehicles (Pollution)
  Motor Vehicles (Pollution)
  Railway (Bedford-St. Pancras)
  Railway (Bedford-St. Pancras)
  RHODESIA (SANCTIONS)
  RHODESIA (SANCTIONS)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Extradition Applications (Ireland)
  Extradition Applications (Ireland)
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Charitable Status
  Charitable Status
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. Donald Sylvester Benjamin
  Mr. Donald Sylvester Benjamin
  Fire Risk Areas
  Fire Risk Areas
  Firearms Offences
  Firearms Offences
  Fines
  Fines
  Immigration (Self-Employment)
  Immigration (Self-Employment)
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Television (Licence Records Office)
  Television (Licence Records Office)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Migraine
  Migraine
  Schoolchildren (Northumberland)
  Schoolchildren (Northumberland)
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Advisory Councils (England and Wales)
  Advisory Councils (England and Wales)
  European Community (Ministerial Meeting)
  European Community (Ministerial Meeting)
  Tuition Fees
  Tuition Fees
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Victoria and Albert Museum
INDUSTRY
  Vehicles (Planning Agreements)
  Vehicles (Planning Agreements)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Chemical Exports
  Chemical Exports
  Production
  Production
  Giro
  Giro
  Shotton Steelworks
  Shotton Steelworks
  Meriden Workers Co-operative
  Meriden Workers Co-operative
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Share Ownership
  Share Ownership
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  National Committee on Computer Networks
  National Committee on Computer Networks
  Spillers Foods Limited (North Shields)
  Spillers Foods Limited (North Shields)
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
TRADE
  Japan
  Japan
  Liquidations
  Liquidations
  British Tourist Authority
  British Tourist Authority
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Pilotage
  Pilotage
  Airline Tickets
  Airline Tickets
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  USSR
  USSR
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Prices Policy
  Prices Policy
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Beer
  Beer
ENERGY
  Paraffin (Retail Price)
  Paraffin (Retail Price)
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
  Gas Pipelines
  Gas Pipelines
  Fossil Fuel Resources
  Fossil Fuel Resources
  Conservation
  Conservation
  "Save It" Appeal
  "Save It" Appeal
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Plutonium (Carriage)
  Plutonium (Carriage)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministers (Emoluments)
  Ministers (Emoluments)
  House of Lords
  House of Lords
  Engineers
  Engineers
  Scientists
  Scientists
DEFENCE
  Air Pilots
  Air Pilots
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Tornado Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Tornado Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Parachute Regiment
  Parachute Regiment
  Recruitment (Advertising)
  Recruitment (Advertising)
  Britten Norman Defender Aircraft
  Britten Norman Defender Aircraft
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Norwegian Exercises (Transport of Troops)
  Norwegian Exercises (Transport of Troops)
  BUTEC Range (Damage)
  BUTEC Range (Damage)
  HMS "Hermes" (Refit)
  HMS "Hermes" (Refit)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Africa (Former High Commission Countries)
  Africa (Former High Commission Countries)
  Zimbabwean Students
  Zimbabwean Students
SCOTLAND
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Computers
  Computers
  Farm Amalgamations
  Farm Amalgamations
  A9
  A9
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Prison Staff—Prisoners (Ratios)
  Prison Staff—Prisoners (Ratios)
  Local Government Staff
  Local Government Staff
  Scottish Education Department
  Scottish Education Department
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  BUTEC Range
  BUTEC Range
  Emigration
  Emigration
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Asthma
  Asthma
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Unemployed Persons (Fraud Allegations)
  Unemployed Persons (Fraud Allegations)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Prison Visits (Travel Expenses)
  Prison Visits (Travel Expenses)
  Prisoners (Dependants)
  Prisoners (Dependants)
  Benefit Payments
  Benefit Payments
  Migraine
  Migraine
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Kidney Disease
  Kidney Disease
  Maternity Beds (Nucleus Hospitals)
  Maternity Beds (Nucleus Hospitals)
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Canada (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Canada (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Construction Industry (Sub-contractors)
  Construction Industry (Sub-contractors)
  VAT Inspectors (Investigations)
  VAT Inspectors (Investigations)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Employment
  Employment
  Foreign Currency Borrowing
  Foreign Currency Borrowing
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Family Allowance
  Family Allowance
  Members of Parliament (Pay)
  Members of Parliament (Pay)
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Budgetary Effects
  Budgetary Effects
  Offices of Profit under the Crown
  Offices of Profit under the Crown
  IMF Delegation
  IMF Delegation
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Capital Transfer Tax (Timber and Trees)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Timber and Trees)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Housing Council
  Housing Council
  Fair Employment Agency
  Fair Employment Agency
  Housing (Londonderry)
  Housing (Londonderry)
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Substandard Houses
  Substandard Houses
  Terrorists (Londonderry)
  Terrorists (Londonderry)
  House Building (Londonderry)
  House Building (Londonderry)
EMPLOYMENT
  Small Firms and the Self-employed
  Small Firms and the Self-employed
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Trained Persons
  Trained Persons
  Merseyside, Kirkby and Ormskirk
  Merseyside, Kirkby and Ormskirk
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Training
  Training
  Hopkinsons Limited, Huddersfield (Dispute)
  Hopkinsons Limited, Huddersfield (Dispute)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Additives and Contaminants Committee
  Food Additives and Contaminants Committee
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Pig Production
  Pig Production
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
  Raspberries
  Raspberries
  Vitricin and Dutch Elm Disease
  Vitricin and Dutch Elm Disease
  Milk Delivery Charges
  Milk Delivery Charges
  Thames Barrage
  Thames Barrage
  Beef (Intervention Stocks)
  Beef (Intervention Stocks)
  Wool Marketing Board
  Wool Marketing Board
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
WALES
  Welsh Craft Fair
  Welsh Craft Fair
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  USSR
  USSR
  Sports Teams (South African Tours)
  Sports Teams (South African Tours)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Lord Kilmarnock—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRESIDENT CEAUCESCU OFFICIAL VISIT
2. 36 p. m.
Lord AUCKLAND: 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 have any plans to invite President Ceaucescu of Romania on an official visit to the United Kingdom.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, an invitation to President Ceaucescu to visit Britain was extended by the previous Government
2
and confirmed when the present Government took office. There has so far been no discussion of precise dates.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Is she aware that the President has visited all the other EEC countries? Bearing in mind the exchange of visits of Ministers which, under both Governments, has already taken place between Romania and ourselves, would it be feasible for another invitation to be sent to the President at a time when some very useful discussions could take place, particularly in view of the recent visit by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to that country?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords, we are aware of the interchange of Ministers and we are indeed very glad about it, because it is very much Her Majesty's Government's policy to open up relations with Eastern European countries. I do not think that there will be any need to send another invitation, I think the position is understood by the President. And we very much look forward to a useful visit.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, at this stage is this not a matter which can best be settled through diplomatic channels?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.

MEDICAL CERTIFICATES AND DOCTORS' STATEMENTS
2. 38 p. m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I be leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the replacement of medical certificates by "doctors' statements" which may now be issued "until further notice" is likely to lead to abuses and claims covering a longer than necessary period for sickness benefit claims.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the revised arrangements for the provision of medical evidence for the purposes of claims to incapacity benefit, which came into operation on 4th October, are unlikely to result in abuses and longer claims. It will be exceptional for doctors' statements to be issued "until further notice"; and the Department of Health and Social Security's system of supervising claims to benefit will continue to apply.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him what advantages there are and to whom in this change from medical certificates to doctors' statements? Secondly, who will vet the unscrupulous applicants for benefit who could apply, obtain a certificate "until further notice", work and still draw benefit?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first question put to me by my noble friend, the doctors themselves felt that the previous form of certificate was not adequate from their point of view, and this change has come about as a result of discussions with the medical profession. It is mainly designed to stop people—I was about to say a vast army of people—who are unfit for work continually going to their doctors to renew their certificates and taking up a tremendous amount of time, and very often to stop doctors having to visit them for the purpose of giving them a certificate. Now the doctor will be able to set out in the certificate what his views are and the minimum period, in his view, that a patient will need to remain off from work.
4
In reply to the second question put to me by my noble friend, for a very long time the Department at regional level has had an office that continually looks at claims from people sending in certificates which seem to be renewed over an unduly long period. If a person is suffering from a certain type of complaint, the Department has some idea how long it will last; and, if the certificates tend to go on being renewed, the regional office has the right to ask the claimant to come for an independent medical examination, and the person's own doctor is informed.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the primary purpose of this change is to effect some saving in doctors' time, and in consequence there is the likelihood that there will be a reduced check upon those who would seek to take advantage of the system?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's question, the answer is, Yes. I do not think that there will be a reduced check—unless I have misunderstood his question—because the checking will still go on.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the estimated annual saving from this change?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry; I just do not know.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the system of issuing medical certificates has been in being ever since many of us can remember since we first started work? On the part of the medical profession of this country, it is absolutely scandalous to put forward this proposal to counteract this system, by a form of examination. Is my noble friend further aware that in certain industries firms have their own doctors? If a workman has an accident at work and is off work for any period of time, he is brought in front of that medical officer of the firm for a medical check, and that is supplemented by the examination of his own doctor.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the only thing I can say in reply to my

5
noble friend is that this matter was discussed in some depth with the medical profession and furthermore it was recommended—and I would emphasise this—by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if the doctor puts on the statement the minimum time for which he thinks the patient might be ill, is there not a danger that conscientious workers, men or women, may feel that they must return to work after that time has elapsed although in fact they are not fit to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I suppose that that is a possibility. I understand that the doctor will certify that the patient should refrain from work for a particular period. If at the end of that period the patient feels that he, or she, is not fit for work, then there is nothing to stop the patient from going down to see the doctor and getting it extended if the doctor agrees.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in the household where a man has been at work for some years and the wife perhaps is out at work also, and the man is not fit to return in this minimum time, undoubtedly pressures are brought to bear on these people. It seems to me rather unfair, rather unjust, that the time that the man (I am putting the case of the man because he is more likely to be sensitive in this respect) has to stay at home will be necessarily limited in the eyes of a family. Is there not an element of cruelty in this?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the doctor is of the opinion that the patient really is not fit for work for a prolonged period, then he would give him in the first instance a certificate which would last six months and thereafter could give him a certificate until further notice. This, we imagine, will not be done in very many cases, but I think it would mean that if a patient felt that he was under pressure from his family and he was not really fit, and the doctor felt he was not fit, the matter could be dealt with by one of these "until further notice" certificates.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend make clear to me who should be the final arbiter in regard to the
6
medical examination of an employee who has been certified by his own medical doctor, after a valid means of diagnosis, to be suffering from a certain form of complaint and the employer's doctor disagrees with the findings of the employee's doctor? Who is the final arbiter in that situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, so far as I understand the situation, the employer's doctor does not come into this at all. If a patient is unwell he goes to his doctor. The doctor gives a certificate for one, two, three, or four weeks, one month, or so on. If the nature of the complaint is such that the Department feels there ought to be another medical opinion, it is the Department which informs the patient's general practitioner that it is going to call the man up for an independent medical examination by a medically qualified person connected with the regional authority.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will not this new system enable doctors to devote more time and attention to people suffering from acute and sometimes serious illnesses?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is what we hope, and what the doctors hope.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the obvious misgivings from all parts of the House on this scheme, are the Government willing to reconsider the matter after it has run for a reasonable period of time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I can say in all sincerity that matters of this kind are automatically reviewed. I would take issue with the noble Lord when he says that there are widespread reservations so far as people in your Lordships' House are concerned. I do not think there are. I think there has merely been a searching questioning of the matter.

ARMAMENTS: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
2. 47 p. m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress was made at their recent meeting with officials of the United States Defence Department concerning progress in implementing the memorandum of Understanding on mutual interchange of armament sales.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the discussions which took place last week with the visiting team of high level United States Department of Defense officials were very satisfactory. A full and frank exchange of views too place and we believe that as a result there is a better appreciation on both sides of how the Memorandum of Understanding can be most effectively implemented.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that helpful reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that 13 months have elapsed since the original Memorandum of Understanding was signed and there may be suspicions that, for good commercial reasons, the United States is dragging its feet until this directive is not only signed but reaches the working level where action should be taken? When can we expect the directive now to be signed and circulated?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that the delay is not surprising because of the switch in United States' policy which it entails. The United States' team has informed us that it was expected that this directive would be signed within the next few weeks. It would then be widely distributed throughout the Department of Defense and United States' companies. This assimilation of the objectives and terms of the Memorandum of Understanding sould greatly facilitate the efforts of United Kingdom companies.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say whether these recent high level discussions in any way covered the transfer of know-how to the United States Government relating to the material used for armour plating of tanks?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put down a Question I will answer it. This is rather beyond the present Question.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is this matter really beyond the Question, which refers to the "mutual interchange of armament sales"? Is the noble Lord aware that we gave to the Americans the know-how on how to make what is now known as Chobham armour plating? Presumably we should have got something in return for this very valuable know-how. Would the noble Lord care to make a comment on it or inform the House on this subject?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, speaking from personal knowledge and not from a brief, I can tell the noble Earl that there is an agreement for the exchange of military information between the United States and ourselves. Information about Chobham armour was given on the basis of the agreement and that is not a one-way process; there is always an interchange of information. If I am wrong about that I will let the noble Earl know.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not a fact that, despite the good will on both sides, there remains still a substantial imbalance between what we purchase, which is much greater, and what the United States purchases from us? Would it not be a good idea to have regular reports so that we may see what progress has been made under this Memorandum of Understanding?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the starting point of the noble Lord's earlier supplementary question was the imbalance. I agree that it would be of interest to all of us if progress under the new Memorandum of Understanding could be monitored by this House and another place. It is contrary to the policy of successive Governments to publish the details of arms sales, but there would be no objection to a general indication being given from time to time on progress under the Memorandum of Understanding.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say whather the next stage in implementation on the other side of the Atlantic to which he referred will come before the definitive trials of main tank armament which take place next month?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would put down a Question on that matter.

UN RESOLUTION: ARMS SALES TO SOUTH AFRICA
2. 52 p. m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action their representative took at the United Nations Security Council meeting on 19th October 1976, when a resolution was submitted calling for a mandatory embargo on all arms sales to South Africa, and how the delegates on the Council voted.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the UnitedKingdom Acting Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in company with his French and American colleagues, voted against a resolution which would have paved the way for a whole range of mandatory sanctions. Italy and Japan abstained. For the convenience of the House, and my noble friend, I have had the British Explanation of Vote placed in the Library.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that the British action on this vote has shocked many of us in this country? Is it not contrary both to Labour Party policy and TUC policy? Is it not the case that this counrty is now being regarded in a large part of the world as collaborating with South Africa? Was not this indicated by the vote of the General Assembly on 5th November when, by 93 votes to nine, a resolution was carried condemning this country and the West? Is this not a deplorable situation?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am indeed aware that my noble friend does not always share the views of Her Majesty's Government on these questions. Nevertheless, the Government believe that their way of doing things is the best way. I deeply deplore my noble friend's reference to
10
the word, "collaboration" on the part of this country with South Africa. Many many times we have deplored the racial attitudes of the South Africans, very many times we have sent démarches and messages to them; we have combined with other United Nations countries and with the European Community in urging the quick peaceful independence of Namibia. I very much hope that my noble friend will reconsider what he said about collaboration with South Africa.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, whatever may be the policy of any particular party, group of the General Assembly, would not the noble Baroness agree that the real test of these matters is the Charter of the United Nations? Before we make allegations against Her Majesty's Government, would it not be wise to see how far their policy is in conformity with that Charter rather than with any particular policy?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I have a new and doughty champion, my Lords.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: Not new, my Lords; really very old.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I maintain that Her Majesty's Government are acting in conformity with United Nations policy. We take our arms embargo on South Africa very seriously indeed and we always act on these questions in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the form of the Question is quite out of order? Standing Orders lay down that Questions should be asked for information. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said he knew the answer.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am quite prepared to take the advice of the Clerks at the Table and enjoy answering any Question my noble friend puts to me.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when this matter came before the Security Council, was any reference made to the provision of arms by the Russians, Chinese and other members associated

11
with the United Nations to countries other than South Africa? Was there any condemnation of the Russians, Chinese and the others?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have not read the reports of the full debate in the Security Council, but to the best of my knowledge that was not in the resulotion. The sad thing about this is that there was a unanimous resolution, No. 385, in January which I think put pressure on the South Africans. We agreed with the main parts of most of the resolution which in the end we had to veto. We want a free Namibia soon. We want a single electoral process; we want it under United Nations supervision and we want the political prisoners freed in Namibia. All these things were there. We could have agreed with nearly all of it, but we could not agree with mandatory sanctions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I did not suggest that this country was collaborating with South Africa? I said that that was now becoming a view over a large part of the world. May I ask my noble friend to agree that the Security Council asked that South Africa should withdraw from Namibia by the end of August? As that has not happened, is not some action necessary?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am very glad that it was not my noble friend who thought so and I hope he will support his Government in helping to deny any such rumour. To answer the second part of his supplementary question, time and again we have urged on the South African Government that time is running out. We do not think that the Windhoek Conference—the two and a half years transition period proposed there—is nearly soon enough. We have urged it on them and we cannot do it single-handed, but we are in spirit with my noble friend in trying to get a free and independent Namibia.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, what is the purpose of prohibiting the sale of strategic weapons systems to South Africa while we rely on the security of the maritime routes around the Cape of Good Hope?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I really think that, when it comes to answering one's own question, the noble Lord can answer that best himself.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
2. 58 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Jacques.)
Viscount ST. DAVIDS Viscount ST. DAVIDS rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, I am an Independent and in this matter I speak for myself. There may be many other noble Lords who perhaps envy me that freedom. When, as I have every intention of doing, I later divide the House on this matter there will be a number of noble Lords who will not accompany me into the Lobby, not because they are friends of the Bill but because they feel it inopportune to vote at this moment, because they are afraid of some constitutional consequences, or because they wish to take part in what I think will be a particularly useless battle between the two Houses on the Amendments.
In my view, if the Bill is read a third time today we shall waste a great deal of time, and I am no time-waster. I should like to see the Government's time put to better purpose and saved for other matters which I know they wish to use time for. I moved gradually to the point where I acted to table this Motion. I addressed to myself a set of propositions; when I came to the answers I decided to table the Motion. I think the best thing I can do for your Lordships is to explain the set of propositions which I addressed to myself and see how far you might agree with them. Some few noble Lords may agree with all. I expect many noble Lords to agree with most. I expect even the noble Lords who support Her Majesty's Government to agree with some.
When the Bill came to this House it was a bad one. There, I am sure, I have wide agreement. That is not of course a reason for throwing it out. We have passed many bad Bills through this House, many of them when asked to do so by the Commons; some, I am afraid, of our own proper motion. But it is something to remember. That is one point. It is not such a bad Bill now, but looking at the Bill as it was when it first entered this House, we know what the Government would like to replace in it. This must give us pause. How is the Bill now? I know that I shall have the agreement of just about the entire House, including the Government Benches, on the proposition that the Bill as it is now is a load of rubbish. It has been amended until it has practically no use. If that is so, and if the major part of the House agrees, I wish to ask: "Do we want to put rubbish on the Statute Book"? I admit that we have done so in the past, but is it a process which we should do happily? I believe the answer is, No. This again was a point which weighed strongly with me.
Have we the right to do what I intend this afternoon? The answer is legally, Yes. It has not been done very often, but then, on the other hand, we have seldon found ourselves in the kind of position we are now in. It is not something that ought to be done often. But it is something that ought to be done sometimes, particularly when the position demands that it should be done. There is another reason why we should just do it sometimes, say once in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, and that is a legal device called desuetude. Many rights have been lost simply by not being exercised. For example, Her Majesty is now legally believed not to have the right to say, "No" to a Bill. There are many things which on paper we can do, but which in practice have not been done for so long that everybody says, "This has not been done for so long, you should never do it again." I believe this is a bad habit. Occasionally we need to use our old rights, simply so that we retain them, because some day we may need them very badly. That is our legal right.
The question is: Have we the democratic right to do this? Well, my Lords, we are not a democratically appointed House.
14
Throughout my time here for a number of years I have always resisted the proposition that this House should be some kind of mock Opinion Poll, and that when opinion polls go up or down it should in some way affect what we do with Government Bills. That, I think, is a good and sound proposition. We are not in a good position to judge public opinion here. You may look into the eye of the public and think you know what the public means, when in fact what you are seeing in the eye of the public is only a reflection of your own face. This happens too easily.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? He is making an assumption based possibly on his own experience. Many of us work very actively with all kinds of people and are as much in touch with the public as any Member of the other place.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am delighted for the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. To some extent she is making the case which I am now proceeding with. In the course of making my speech, with a little careful dragging of cloaks, I thought that I might get some assent from the Government Benches, so let me continue. Last week something happened which was so different that it is out of scale with a mere public opinion poll. Last week the Government suffered three smashing defeats. This was not a mere murmur of disapproval; it was a shout from the people of Britain, from three widely spaced places, bitterly disapproving of what the Government are doing. I believe it to be right that this House should be a little deaf as to the movement of public opinion polls and, there, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would agree. She would not like to see the House doing whatever it saw fit with Bills just because it thought opinion polls had gone slightly up or down. But, in a matter as grave as this, where movement as strong as this has been made, where people have so stoutly voted, I think we have not only a right but a duty to act. I believe that in this House we are all democrats and lovers of democracy. I do not believe we have a right to deafen our ears to shouts of that character. This matter has strongly moved me to table my Motion.

15
Now I want to come to another subject. There have been what I call so-called threats against this House if we take strong action. I do not believe there is any such threat. If by threats is meant some bipartisan change to this House, then I think almost the totality of noble Lords in this House would agree with me. But that is not what they mean when they threaten us; they mean a single Party change to this House. I believe this to be physically impossible. It would be impossible for this reason. Any Party which tried it would be opposed by the other side who would quite rightly say that it gave them the right on some future occasion to do the same. What is more, the Conservatives here have an enormous power which will never fall to the Labour Party. It is this: if the Labour Party carried out a unilateral change in this House and the Conservatives then proceeded to carry out another one at a later date, the Conservatives have the power to give this House the power to delay on any further constitutional change which would prevent this action from ever being taken again. The Labour Party must know this, as must the Conservative Party, so obviously there is no threat.
Now let us move to a more pleasant subject. What I suggest will actually help the Government. They will say that it will not. Of course, they must say that. They will say all sorts of things against what I am doing, but behind their hands they will say that it is a help. Many noble Lords on the Government Benches, and other Labour Party supporters else-where, are not happy about the existence of this Bill. The time that remains for us to deal with these five major Bills is devilishly short. Is it so terribly short that all kinds of extraordinary things have to be done if we are to get this business through at all? It would help the Government greatly if we could save them the time that is to be spent shuffling this Bill back and forth. And at the end of that time, are we going to give them their Bill? We do not know yet. We may even then throw it out, and if we throw it out then we will have wasted all this time. If that is to happen, it would be much kinder for the Government to chuck it out now.
There is a further point which certainly will help the Government. The Government would be very glad to see some part
16
of their programme go, but if they threw it overboard there would be loud complaints from some of the Benches behind them, whereas if we, the wicked Lords, do it they will be able to say, "We didn't do it. We would have been happy to put it all through. It is those horrible Lords; they have chucked it out." That would strengthen the Government's hand considerably with their own supporters. obviously the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench must not say whether they agree with this. They must shake their heads off. It is their duty to do so; it is the only way that they can help themselves. Nevertheless it is a serious argument which, undoubtedly, they will have taken on board.
My Lords, what is the best that we can do with the Bill? Have we really to go through all the slow process of still more Amendments today, followed by all the remaining processes of shuffling it back from one House to another? What is to happen to the Bill when this occurs? Are our Amendments to receive careful, slow and serious consideration? No, they are not. We know already that the guillotine will come down, and that much stuff that has never been debated will be thrust back at us. Will the Bill come back any better than it is today? No, it is rubbish now; it will come back as harmful rubbish, if we let it. It would be very much kinder, it would be very much better for the country and it would be more in line with what we should do as a House and what we should do as democrats if we said this afternoon, "No further with this one. You have enough on your plate. Put this one to one side. Forget this one for the moment. Spend your remaining time on the rest of your legislation." Those of us like myself, who feel that this Bill is a horror, say that it is really time that something as bad as this, thrust through this House at a time like this, dividing the country, as this Bill does, should be thrown out of the window. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). —(Viscount St. Davids.)
3. 14 p. m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think it is right that I should intervene at the beginning of this

17
debate because I take very seriously the action proposed by the noble viscount. I did not take his speech too seriously, but I take seriously what he may intend to do later. I expect that the House also senses the importance of this. After all, the noble Viscount's argument touches the whole constitutional standing of this House, our relations with another place, and our duty in a Parliamentary democracy. His is an argument to which noble Lords on every side of the House ought to give really critical examination and which I would urge you, without hestiation, to reject.
I shall leave detailed points about the Dock Work Regulation Bill to my noble friend Lord Jacques, and I am sure that he will answer them to the House's satisfaction. What I challenge is the noble Viscount's proposal that this House, unelected and not representative, should reject the Third Reading of a Bill passed by another place and put forward by the elected Government.
May I remind your Lordships that there is on the Order Paper for tomorrow a second Motion standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and that he will then seek to reject the Third Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill? His action, in other words, has little to do with the merits of the Bill we are debating. It is a direct challenge to the elected Government and to the view expressed by a majority in another place. It ignores the constitutional traditions which have been built up to ensure the efficient working of a two Chamber Parliament. For we must be clear about this. If the Amendment is carried today the Bill is dead. There is no chance for second thoughts. It is just as if we had rejected the Bill on Second Reading. We should be saying that another place was wrong to pass it and that the Bill cannot be improved, even with the combined wisdom of both Houses.
Those are serious allegations indeed. If the noble Viscount feels so strongly, why did he not speak on Second Reading? What, after all, have we been doing since Second Reading on 30th September? The House has spent 21 hours in Committee and 12 hours on Report of the Bill. We have debated 200 Amendments, many of which have been agreed. I do not think it would be useful to comment in detail
18
on the Amendments, some of which are of such a radical nature that they have mutilated the Bill. We on this side of the House are fundamentally opposed to many of the changes made. But I would ask the House whether noble Lords feel that they have done nothing useful in the seven weeks since Second Reading.
The House has, after all, agreed 60 Amendments to the Bill put forward by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, the Liberal Benches and the Cross-benches. Although my noble friends argued against them, the Amendments were acceptable to the majority of your Lordships. The House in its wisdom must obviously regard these Amendments as improvements. What then is the sense of the House rejecting on Third Reading a Bill which it has passed on Second Reading and since tried to improve?
I do not think that I need labour this point. Those Members of the House who have taken part in debates on this Bill more energetically than the noble Viscount, will know that our debates have not been a waste of time. Your Lordships have very properly given the Bill close examination, and have done so in order that another place can look again at the points we have raised. For I must stress what I believe to be our constitutional role. It is not to reject. It is to revise. Everyone who has supported arguments for a second Chamber—and I am one—has emphasised its value for revision of Bills brought from the Commons. This House, if it acts responsibly, can complement the work of another place and share the burdens of Parliamentary democracy. But a two Chamber system will not work without certain conventions to cope with disagreements between the Houses. In the last resort confrontation leads to breakdown. So we have evolved these conventions.
We accept that in the event of disagreement it is the will of the elected Chamber which must prevail, subject only to narrowly drawn exceptions. Of course, we believe in the right of the people to choose their own Government. Whatever the arguments about that Government, that Government is there. Whatever the results of by-elections, that Government are still there. I am sure that the noble Lords opposite will be wise enough not to support the noble Viscount, however

19
little they like this Bill. But the Motion would be seen as the weapon of the built-in Conservative majority if it were to succeed.
Briefly, the position is this. The Bill has now been passed by a majority in another place. The Bill has been heavily amended here, and yet the Commons have not even had a chance to consider the Amendments. It would be wholly wrong for your Lordships to throw this Bill out today. It would not be revision; it would be destruction.
Noble Lords may of course recall that the Opposition have already seen fit to throw out one Bill on Third Reading; that is, the Felixstowe Bill. That was an action with which I disagreed, but my one reason for referring to it today is to say this to noble Lords opposite. They justified themselves in throwing the Bill out on the grounds that it was not a Public Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that it was nationalisation by the back door and that the Government should have proceeded by Public Bill.
While not in any way accepting his allegations about nationalisation or about the propriety of the British Transport Docks Board's actions, I am glad to know that things would have been different on a Public Bill. For this today is a Public Bill, and I should be driven to question the sincerity of any Member of the House who voted against the Third Reading of the Felixstowe Bill with the excuse that it was private and who now votes against the Third Reading of this Bill.
So, in conclusion, I urge your Lordships to see the Motion before the House for what it is: a naked attempt to override the elected House and to do away with the acknowledged role of the second Chamber. I say to the Cross-Benchers, who pride themselves on their enlightened independence, that they should beware of supporting the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. A vital role was foreseen for them in recent proposals for Lords reform, but I think they will betray the confidence placed in them if they carry this Motion. To all noble Lords opposite who have complained of guillotines and another place, I say that this Motion would cut off every chance for further debate there, and would be the cruellest guillotine of all. In the light of these arguments,
20
I hope the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw his Amendment; but if not, I must ask all your Lordships to vote against the Amendment and for the Third Reading.
3. 22 p. m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a terrible Bill. It is wrong, and it is unpopular. Most noble Lords opposite do not like it, either, as we know from what has happened during the Committee stage and the Report stage. So most of us in this House are agreed about that. I am not so sure, though, about what the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is doing. I have some doubt about the wisdom of his tactics, not about what he seeks to do. I think that if we follow his advice we would be adopting rather a curious Parliamentary procedure: not, of course, that what he is suggesting is not proper. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not use all his ammunition about the naked attempt to frustrate the will of the people, the inbuilt hereditary Conservative majority and how wrong everything is, because he has a long way to go before the end of the Session, and before long we may find these phrases becoming distressingly familiar unless, of course, he can find some new ones which express the same thoughts. I would not agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House that it is improper to throw out a Bill on Third Reading. There is nothing improper about this House using the constitutional powers it has been given. Otherwise, why was it given them? Whether it is wise is another matter; but there is nothing improper about it.
My Lords, why I do not agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is this. We accepted this Bill on Second Reading, not because we liked the Bill but because usually we accept Bills on Second Reading, whether or not we dislike them, in order that we may examine them at our leisure, if the Government allow us to have leisure to examine them. We amend them and we alter them, and we think we improve them; and this is done at Committee stage and at Report stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House has reminded us, we have had some long debates and some good debates, and I think some useful debates, at the Committee stage and the Report stage of this Bill; and, as he has said, the House has passed 60 Amendments.

21
Now we get to the Third Reading. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible, and possibly quite right on occasions such as the Felixstowe Bill, to say that, despite all that, your Lordships do not like the Bill and are going to reject it on Third Reading. But what does not seem to me very sensible, if I may say so, is to spend a very long time and a great deal of energy—we on this side, at any rate—in trying to improve and alter the Bill, and then to say that, in spite of all that, we are going to reject it; because if we do that I really do not know what on earth we have been doing all this time. If we do not send this Bill to the other place so that they may have a look at what we have done, then I really do not know the purpose of it all.
Of course, it is quite true that the Government intend, Whips willing, to pass a guillotine Motion in the House of Commons today limiting the discussion on Lords Amendments to six hours, I think, on each of the five Bills that we have been discussing over these last six weeks. I for one think that is disgraceful. We in this House have spent a very great deal of time discussing these Bills; and, indeed, in the case of one Bill—I think it is the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—the Government themselves have made 40 Amendments of their own in this House. I think it disgraceful that they should limit discussion of Lords Amendments to six hours on each of the Bills. I think that that makes a farce of Parliamentary Government. Nevertheless, they will discuss some of our Amendments if we send the Bill back, and that will be better than nothing.
It would seem to me that what we ought to do is to send this Bill back to the House of Commons with the Amendments which we have made and to make up our minds what we are going to do when we discover what they are going to do with the Amendments, and whether they are going to discuss them. Of course, we shall have the interesting prospect of finding out how the House of Commons are going to give Reasons against accepting the Lords Amendments when they have not even discussed them. This will be an interesting political exercise which we shall watch with great care. But when that has been done and the farce has been gone through, then it seems to me that your Lordships will have to make up your minds what to
22
do on the Amendments which we have sent to the other place. But, my Lords, to reject the Bill at this stage seems to me to be a waste of your Lordships' time, and I advise your Lordships not to support this Amendment.
3. 27 p. m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I agree very much with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that this is a wretched Bill. There is, indeed, a very serious problem which the Government sought to face, but in my opinion—and I think I have said this before—they tackled it in the wrong way. I would be tempted to advise the House to support the noble Viscount's Amendment if I thought that the six months would be used by the Government to get down with all the people really concerned and produce a better Bill; but I am afraid I do not think that is a very hopeful thing, and in those circumstances I find myself very largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
We have spent a lot of time in your Lordships' House trying to improve this difficult Bill, and I think we have made some substantial improvement to it. I have recognised—I think that we on this side of the House have all recognised—that the Ministers in charge of the Bill here were really under compulsion to resist everything that was proposed, but I do hope that when the Amendments go back to another place, even though so little time is being provided, some guardian angel will select the Amendments which are really important, which really affect the working of this Bill, and will find time, not only to discuss them but to agree them. Otherwise, my Lords, we must await what comes back here and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, see what we can do about it.
I am not in any way an authority on the constitutional position, but I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the House went rather far in his constitutional arguments. After all, the last Parliament Act was passed by a Parliament in which, in the House of Commons, the Labour Party had a majority, and when there was a Labour Government in power. What were they doing in giving power to this House to send whole Bills back to another place, to invoke the Parliament Act, if they

23
did not mean it ever to be used? I quite agree with the noble Lord: the convention is a wide convention and is used very sparingly, but I find it hard to accept that there is a convention that in no circumstances is a Bill rejected on Third Reading or, for that matter, even on Second Reading, if it became necessary.
This question does not arise at this moment because I have a feeling that the House will not accept the noble Viscount's Amendment and that we shall proceed to discuss all the Amendments, send the Bill to another place, and await the decision as to what they propose to do about the Amendments. In conclusion, I should like to say once again that I hope that the Ministers here who have heard the debate, who know the strength of feeling and, If I may say so, the strength of argument against many of the provisions in this Bill, will urge on their right honourable and honourable friends in another place that they should look at this issue seriously and see whether some of these Amendments should not he accepted.
3. 31 p. m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, in so far as I have heard the debate, we seem to be arguing classics, as the great Mr. Bailey once called it—tactics. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whom we were told on Sunday was holding his frisky Peers on a tight rein, Conservative Peers seem to think we are dealing with it as a matter of tactics. I do not understand the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. There are issues of great principle here which I will state shortly without arguing at great length, although I would be very willing to do so at any Labour Party or trade union conference called in the country. I think this is more than a matter of tactics between the two Houses. En the first place—as I think every one of us who has been in the Labour movement for a long time well understands—this is an arrangement between the Government and one trade union leader who is powerful enough to be able to dominate. This has been called, and is, the Jack Jones special responsibility Bill. Yet as an official and a member of the union of which Mr. Jack Jones is the general secretary I know that most of his members are against it. It means transferring jobs from others of his
24
members to the small group from which he himself came and to whom, I suppose quite properly, he feels a special responsibility.
But why should we enact a Bill because it makes Mr. Jack Jones—coming from the dockers, leading the dockers—a very special case in return for his having helped the Government to get their Social Contract through the union? It means that those sections of the same union whom I have the honour to represent are going to lose their jobs so that Mr. Jack Jones's special section can pinch them. I see no reason for this. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I have voted for those Amendments that I thought right on their merit, but I have always been against the Bill on what I saw to be its demerits. I am therefore free to go on saying that I think it is a demeritorious Bill which no free Legislature should ever pass.
This would not be the first Government to give special favours to their supporters and friends. That has happened through many of the years in which I have been in politics, and I have no doubt through very many of the years before I came into them. So I start with that as the least meritorious but still a very strong argument against it. I move up in order of ascendancy. Other trade unions are going to lose their rights; other workers, equally good trade unionists, are going to lose their rights. Members of the National Union of Railwaymen, members of the General and Municipal Workers' Union are going to lose their rights because of the fact that at the end of the day their jobs are also going to be taken by this small group of men for whom Mr. Jones speaks. Although we have reduced the five miles to half a mile we know very well—and I look straight at the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who will find equally good tactical arguments for not fighting when this Bill comes back—that the five miles will be put back. The five miles will apply to Bletchley just as much as to Southampton; it will apply wherever any inland waterway runs and leads from a port. It will apply not to the docks nor to the installations of the docks alone but to anywhere where containers are unloaded and re-loaded, and millions—well, hundreds of thousands—of my fellow workers, my fellow trade unionists,

25
are because of the passage of this Bill, going to be denied their just rights in jobs they have been doing under trade union agreements.
In the trade union movement we have something called the Bridlington Agreement which I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, know very much about but which I would expect many of my friends on the Labour Benches to know a lot about. This was introduced almost 50 years ago to stop one union poaching on other people's members. This Bill breaks the Bridlington Agreement because it poaches one union's members' jobs, not for another union but for another section of that same union. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I regard that as much more than tactics; I regard it as totally intolerable. There are trade union friends of mine in this House who may not think it politic to say so, but who know as well as I do that it is so. We take Transport and General Workers' Union members' jobs for a section of the transport workers. We now take other union members' jobs for a section of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I repeat to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I would happily develop this argument in any forum of the Labour movement that he could organise and I would develop it at much greater length.
I now move up to the last point which, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, cannot possibly be a matter of tactics. If this goes through we are handing over to one very small section the ability to hold this whole nation up to ransom. I happen to think that Mr. Heath was wrong to pick the fight with the colliers at the time he picked it and over the issue on which he picked it. My Lords, Mr. Baldwin knew better than that. I am told that we are shortly to have an interesting new biography of Baldwin by a rather interesting little ex-colleague of mine. It is going to come out, so I am told, to say that Baldwin was rather better than he is normally thought to be. Like everything else that Sir Harold Wilson thinks, I always thought it a little bit sooner. But one thing I am told that he is going
26
to say is that Mr. Baldwin was better than he is alleged to be, and the one thing that Mr. Baldwin knew that Mr. Heath did not know—and neither did Sir Winston Churchill then—is that you do not pick a fight with the colliers in February.
The only reason for my making this point is this. If on the grounds of tactics the Conservatives and Liberals abstain and this Bill comes back to us under the guillotine provisions downstairs, are we then going to throw it out? I suspect that there will be another tactical argument on why we do not do so. I want to make it quite clear that you could never have a Baldwin situation of May, 1926; you could always have a Heath situation in every month of the year—because any moment that the very tightly knit, very tightly organised, very small docks group of the Transport and General Workers' Union decided that nothing was going into or coming out of any depot—not just port—in the country, the country would starve within a week.
My Lords, ultimately I oppose this Bill on those grounds. I oppose it on the other two as well; but I have moved up in order of importance. As it seems to me, this House, exercising its proper and due rights, should really see my noble friend's Amendment as a serious invtation to the other place to re-think what they are doing. I know that a large number of the members of our Party are against it. I say "our Party"—the Party to which I used to belong but of which naturally I still think of myself as a member. We know that large numbers of our trade union members—and I am most certainly still a trade union member—are against it. We know that it cannot but hand over our responsibilities, our future, to a very, very tiny, very tightly knit, rather questionably directed, section of the community. This is the case of the mensheviks handing over to the bolsheviks in 1917.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, my Lords. This is exactly the way it happened. This Bill is coming under the guillotine downstairs this afternoon. Should we postpone a decision or should we actually say: "It is out for six months. You can have your way at the end of the

27
day, but you have to operate the Parliament Act in order to get it. Just guillotining 40 or 60 Amendments (or whatever is the number we are said to have moved) is not the answer."
I feel passionately about this. There are many libertarian, radical Socialists in this House who should feel the same way as I do. We do not hand over this to a Government in the other House which may or may not have a majority there—which has no majority in the country as well—in order to allow it to push it through; and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others will discuss whether tactically it is sensible for us to oppose it the next time round. It is wrong. I believe it as a trade unionist. I believe it—and please will the "holier than me" on the Labour Benches realise this—as a Socialist. It is wrong. It is no part of our business to let one small group have the power to throttle the country. If we say in answer to my noble friend Lord St. Davids today, "Not now, but in six months' time", then we are really making sure that they will take care of it. If everybody on that side of the House retires on tactical grounds, then I hope that some of us will stand up on grounds of principle against something which has no possible defence at all.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I say two things to your Lordships' House. First, I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. Secondly, I dislike this Bill as much as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, or my noble friend Lord Carrington. It is a Bill of privilege, a Bill of special pleading, a Bill to enable the more powerful of the Government's friends to have special and effective power over the rest of the country. I feel strongly that the Amendments must go back to another place. If they then do not agree with them, are stupid and guillotine them, that is a different matter. As we must allow the Constitutional processes to go forward, however much I dislike the Bill—and I dislike it as much as any of my noble friends—I regret to say that I find I must vote with Her Majesty's Government this afternoon.
3. 51 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, very few points have been made criticising the Bill
28
and therefore I have a very light task. First, I should like to deal with two points made by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. He said that other trade unionists were going to lose their jobs to dockers. That is not true. This Bill so protects the workers already doing the job that out of the 200 Amendments moved in this House there has not been a single Amendment trying to improve the protection given to other workers. The Bill gives the workers doing the job complete protection. The noble Lord also said the Bill was going to take away the rights of unions and mentioned in particular the NUR. If he looks at the Bill, he will find that the dock railways are excluded from the Bill because we are satisfied that there are adequate arrangements made between the employer and the trade union concerned. The noble Lord also said that the Trades Union Congress was opposed to this. The Trades Union Congress has expressed its approval of the Bill through its Transport Committee. My Lords, I would ask the House whatever it does to take no damned notice of George Brown.
Several noble Lords: Order! Withdraw!
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may say so, I think it is a pity if, even in the heat of the moment, we do not observe the usual courtesies of the House, and particularly from the Front Bench.
Several noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I withdraw that. In its place I say that I hope this House will take no notice of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I make no objection to either phrase. My Lords, —
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: By leave of the House!
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: By leave of the House, and just raising a point, my Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that Alma Birk, said exactly the same to me about Felixstowe Docks, and look what happened.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I think I should start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who said that I

29
had not spoken on the Second Reading of this Bill. If he wants me to start speaking on the Second Reading of all the Bills of which I disapprove, I shall do so; but I do not think it would be altogether what he would wish, nor what the rest of the House would wish. There is a good reason why noble Lords should limit the number of speeches that we should make in this House. I carry out a self-denying ordinance and I speak with great care only on those Bills where my own personal expertise is known to the House, and the House therefore knows the value of what I am saying. In this matter, I am not speaking on personal expertise, I am speaking on a platform of public revulsion. This is a horrible Bill. There are three things your Lordships can do. You can follow me through the "Contents" Lobby simply because the Bill makes you feel sick. You can, if you disapprove of the Bill as I know many do on all sides of the House, simply abstain, or if you feel you really love the Bill, that you clutch it to your heart or so love the Government, you can vote against the Amendment and
ultimately for the Bill. These three actions are all possible. It is up to your Lordships.
What is going to be interesting on this Division is not so much the numbers as the names on the paper. This is what is going to be very interesting. I am going to take this Amendment through the Division Lobby simply so that we can see where everybody stands. I imagine that there will be very thin Lobbies, except possibly on the Government side. My own Lobby may not contain many, but it will contain those who are willing to stand up and say that they are sick of this Bill, who are willing to stand up publicly and say it and have their names down on the Paper as saying just that. I beg to move.
3. 56 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 87.

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

George-Brown, [L. Teller]

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Monson, L.

Clancarty, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V. [Teller]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Spens, L.

Dudley, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Effingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pargiter, L.

Bernstein, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Platt, L.

Brimelow, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Russell, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kaldor, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Snow, L.

Collison, L

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Soper, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L

Stedman, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darwen, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Summerskill, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Vaizey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Walston, L.

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

Noel-Buxton, L

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Onslow, E.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Reconstitution of Board as body corporate]:
4. 6 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, after ("State") insert ("from among persons not represented on the National Joint Council").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment will be that subsection (4) will read:
"The remaining eight members of the Board, and the chairman and vice-chairman, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons not represented on the National Joint Council…".
The object of this Amendment is to secure a well-balanced and widely representative Board which can reach sound and fair decisions. We have already carried an Amendment during the earlier stages of the Bill to ensure that there will be eight members appointed by the Secretary of State to balance the eight members nominated by the National Council for the Port Transport Industry, those consisting of four representing dock employers and four representing dock workers. There are two lots. Those I have mentioned now are the eight members appointed by the Secretary of State upon the nomination of the National Council for the Port Transport Industry. There will also be eight members who are appointed, as I have read out, which are the remaining eight members.
We have had considerable discussion in Committee as to whether the CBI and the TUC should nominate the eight people between them. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that if that were done there might be no outsiders at all on the Board, because the CBI and the TUC would come under pressure to appoint people from within the industry so that the industry should have a majority on the Board. We are now all agreed that nomination should be restricted to the eight National Joint Council members and that the chairman, vice-chairman and the eight other members should be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the National Joint Council itself, the TUC and the CBI.
It is precisely to avoid the possibility that the Secretary of State, who has to make the appointments, would come under
32
pressure to appoint these ten members from within the industry itself, including the National Joint Council organisations already represented by the eight NJC nominees, that I am moving this Amendment. It will prevent the Secretary of State coming under such pressure. The Amendment makes it clear that the chairman, vice-chairman and the eight other members should not be appointed from among members already represented on the NJC; that is under subsection (3). It therefore relieves the Secretary of State from any pressure such as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, feared and it ensures a well-balanced and widely representative Board. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this Amendment is not entirely clear because it leaves open to doubt whether it means that the remaining eight members of the Board are not themselves also to be members of the NJC or that they are not to be members of particular interests represented on the NJC or that they are not to be members of the unions and employers' associations which together form the NJC.
There are already very great difficulties in requiring the Secretary of State to determine whether particular interests are or are not to be represented on the NJC. To mention one, the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers has members in some ports and is represented on local joint councils for certain ports. But it does not have an actual member at the national level. The wording of the Amendment would leave some doubt as to whether a NASD member could or could not be appointed to the Board. It is not the intention that either the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board, or any of the members not nominated by the NJC would be appointed from among those on the present National Dock Labour Board who are nominated by the NJC—that is, the National Association of Port Employers and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
However, the Bill could give rise to changes in the negotiating arrangements within the industry. One reason for providing (before the Bill was amended) for a period of up to two years on the extension registers for workers whose work is classified under the procedures of the Bill, was to take account of the

33
views of the parties about the need to change their collective bargaining arrangements to take account of the new situation. While the Bill specifically provides in Clause 6(7) that no obligations of any kind can be imposed on employers and workers in the matter of collective bargaining arrangements, they could voluntarily decide that it was sensible to seek to join the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry. Thus, other trade unions, and just possibly employers' associations, would be in a position where they might wish to seek representation on the NJC. However, the main intention of broadening membership of the Board is to ensure representation for the unions and employers' associations with membership among those whose work could be considered for classification as dock work. The Amendment could lead to a situation where a union could have a small group of its members in one part of the country covered by the NJC. It could, therefore, have some form of representation at national level—possibly, in conjunction with other unions—and yet it would automatically be precluded from having a representative among the appointed members on the National Board.
It would be possible to envisage a situation arising in the future where all the trade unions, which had any real interest in work which might be considered for classification, were debarred from having a representative on the Board among those appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation, because they could all be said to be represented on the NJC. That would be most undesirable. So far as the chairman and vice-chairman are concerned, while it is unlikely that it will seem desirable to appoint people closely associated with either side of the NJC, it seems unnecessary to rule out the possibility altogether. These are most important matters, but we believe—as the Opposition do when they are in Government and drafting legislation about appointment to public boards—that they can safety be left to the good sense of the Secretary of State and those whom he consults.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am afraid I did not find that explanation very satisfying, because the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is to see that these other eight are neutrals. I appreciate
34
that there are difficulties and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, unions might wish to join the National Joint Council if they are not on it. We now have the problem that we are on Third Reading and there is very little that we can do. But forgetting for a moment the difficulties in another place, which are their problem and not ours, would it not be a good idea to pass this Amendment and then let honourable Members think of a better definition if they want one? Surely it would be very advisable for these eight additional members to be neutral.
The noble Lord said that it would not be the intention of the Secretary of State to appoint people who were already deeply involved through the National Joint Council. This would apply equally to members of smaller unions which were seeking to join the National Joint Council. I am just wondering whether, if we passed this Amendment—I do not know whether the House will wish to do so—it could be looked at in the very short time that appears to be left before it goes to another place, to see whether a suitable form of words could be thought out which would give effect to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, himself wants to achieve; that is, that these eight members should not simply be replicas of the National Joint Council members.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may point out that I have already said that it is not the intention of the Government that the eight appointments should come from the National Joint Council.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has given us the kind of assurance that this Amendment sought to achieve. I am not certain that his reasons for rejecting the Amendment are very sound, although there may be some possibility of misunderstanding in the Amendment as there is in a good deal of this Bill. For example, one is either represented or not represented, but one cannot be indirectly represented and the object of the Amendment was to ensure that those unions which were not directly represented on the NJC had an opportunity of being represented.
I doubt whether there is any great misunderstanding about this, and in a

35
case like this we are tempted very much to press the Amendment for the very good reason which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, gave, and I am grateful for his support. But, on the whole, at this stage it seems that we have got enough from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He has one or two conciliatory Amendments down, and I think we have enough from him for me to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General duty of the Board]:
4. 18 p. m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("adequately") and insert ("effectively").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and will speak, to some extent, to Amendment No. 3 at the same time. I admit that we have had some assurances, on points such as the one raised by this Amendment, resulting from discussions on earlier Amendments, particularly those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replied at column 721 of the Official Report for the Committee stage and at column 1245 for the Report stage. What we were pressing on the noble Lord at those points, and at many other points, was the fact that the public at large have an interest in the docks, as the noble Lord has recognised by a Government Amendment to Clause 2 to insert the words "having regard to the public interest". We are glad to have that, and I hope that the other place will be glad to see it there.
However, the chief interest of the public is that the docks should be efficient, and that the Board should recognise them not just as an arena in which they umpire a private scrap between the dockers and the employers. We have also sought to persuade Her Majesty's Government that the resources of capital and manpower should be effectively deployed in the interests of efficiency—that is the reason behind my Amendment No. 2—and that unnecessray cost burdens should not be permitted, whether they fall on employers, consumers or public funds. That last thought is the one
36
comprised in my Amendment No. 3, a different version of which I moved at Report. As I say, we have had assurances on some of these points, but we were not satisfied with the assurance that we received on Clause 7 and therefore we had to press our point of view to a Division. Perhaps I should say that the former Clause 7 is now Clause 8. We contented ourselves with a rather weak explanation and assurance that was given at col. 1245 of the Report stage, an assurance which fell at the stroke of midnight last Thursday when we were discussing what was then Clause 7. At that point we did not press the Amendment, but looking back, I think that was more out of compassion for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, than because we were convinced by his argument.
In the course of the present stage we have another opportunity to strengthen the Bill in this respect by Amendment No. 17 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. However, my purpose in moving this Amendment now is to find out whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can add any more to his assurance that the Secretary of State, the Board and the local boards will have regard to the general propositions which are expressed by these two Amendments of mine, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and by the Amendment expressed by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, Amendment No. 17. If the noble Lord were able to give us such an assurance I, for my part, would not feel that it was necessary at this point to press the Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can help me. Would he wish that I should reply to the two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which he has spoken or is he hoping that my noble friend Lord Jacques will say something in connection with Amendment No. 17? It seems to me to be a little difficult to range over the whole question of cost and efficiency in relation to these two Amendments, but I do not know what is the wish of the noble Lord.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I say, with the leave of the House, that I appreciate the noble Lords' difficulties; no doubt they have separate briefs on these Amendments.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, they are quite consistent.
Lord SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that they are. I want an assurance that our anxiety, which is a general and also a consistent one—that the public's interest that the docks should be run efficiently and be cost effective and that productivity should loom large in all that the Board does—is not well-founded for reasons which I do not think have been fully deployed by the Government. We were not satisfied at Committee and we moved an Amendment to Clause 7. We were only partially satisfied on Clause 8 and now I rather regret that we did not press our Amendment. However, it would be valuable if noble Lords could draw on their briefs and do their best to assure us that where efficiency and cost effectiveness are stressed in the Bill this is adequate to ensure that efficiency and cost effectiveness will be given the necessary priority.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his indication. My response must be that I should prefer to reply to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Then the noble Lord must either decide what he wishes to do in respect of those Amendments or wait until he has heard my noble friend on a later Amendment. I do not think that I need to take very long over Amendment No. 2 which has been moved by the noble Lord. To some extent the word "effectively" which the noble Lord seeks to move into the Bill in place of "adequate" is an improvement on the word "efficiency" which he sought to move into the Bill during the Report stage. However, as I listened to the noble Lord I heard him again use the word "efficiency" and I noted that he made very little reference to his Amendment, which is to insert "effectively". I gather that it is still the noble Lord's intention that this Amendment should bear a relationship to his general thesis about costs and efficiency throughout the Bill, but at this stage may I say that although "effectively" is, as I have indicated, a somewhat better word than "efficiency" from the Government's point of view, it is not good enough.
According to my researches into the dictionary the word "adequate" means "sufficient" or "such as meets the case." If one puts those phrases into the clause
38
it conveys the sense that we have in mind, whereas the synonyms for "effective" do not read so smoothly and do not have an adequate or suitable meaning. They are "having power to effect". "causing something" or "successful in producing a result or effect". If the noble Lord cares at some point to weigh up those synonyms, I believe that he will regard the word "adequately" which is contained in the Bill as more suitable for this purpose. I am not pre-empting any discussion that the noble Lord may wish to have later about costs, but in relation to this Amendment I think I must advise the House to reject it and to retain the word "adequately".
Since the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 3 as well, may I say a little more because it might be helpful if I illustrated what the Government have in mind. At the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved an Amendment which would have required that consumers' and public costs should be reviewed and I explained why that was not acceptable to the Government. In moving the insertion of the word "particularly", I suppose that the noble Lord still seeks to meet the same end that he had in mind at the Report stage.
I undertook to look at the position which has been reconsidered and, as I say, perhaps a specific illustration may help to explain the difficulties that we face in accepting the Amendment. If as a result of their review under Clause 2 the Board were to conclude that a new training course should be introduced to provide skills which were in insufficient supply, the Board could properly be expected to cost such a proposal. That is why at the Report stage I said to the noble Lord that we should have been more sympathetic to an Amendment which made Clause 2(4) (c) read something like
"the probable cost of implementing the proposal",
which is a more general phrase. However, the noble Lord has not moved that kind of Amendment.
As the subsection now reads, the Board would have to do more than take into account the probable cost of implementing the proposal. If the Board proposed that employers should pay for the cost of the training course that I have instanced, then the Board would have to set out the effect on the levy or specify the charges

39
which they would propose to make to employers when they sent their dock workers on the course. But if one considers the sort of specific detailed proposals which the Board will be making to the Secretary of State under Clause 2, then it really does seem to the Government that the existing phrase, "the probable cost to employers" is as far as it is reasonable to go. What the Board cannot do, for example, is to form any view on how each individual employer will respond to any increase in the levy or to a charge payable for improving training facilities, because that depends on the individual decision of each employer.
If, on the other hand—and I think this is the case—the implication of the Amendment is that broad costs, such as the cost to the consumer, should be examined, then I recall that I explained the Government's attitude to that proposition during the Report stage. As I said then, overall labour costs are one element in port charges; port charges are but one element in the transport costs; and transport costs are one element, and a small element, in the final cost of goods to a consumer. Therefore, since the effect of the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved would be to widen the requirement beyond what we consider to be practical of implementation, I am afraid I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept either of these two Amendments.
4. 31 p. m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if I might speak briefly to Amendment No. 2 only, I must say to the noble Lord that without poring over a dictionary it seems to me that, "effectively" is a far better word than, "adequately" in this sentence. What is the purpose of deploying skills, aptitudes and experience unless you deploy them effectively? Otherwise, the deployment achieves nothing. "Adequately", on the other hand, is a word which really requires to be qualified by saying adequate for what purpose. I would have thought that if the noble Lord would look at it again he could hardly fail to agree that, "effectively" is a better word here. If we put that word in, I can hardly believe that another place, busy as they will be with the Bill, will even notice that we have made a difference and put in a much better word.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, if I may follow the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I must say that I disagree with him entirely. On a previous occasion I raised the point in regard to the word, "adequately" that you could take different dictionaries and probably get different interpretations for that word. He will probably know more about this than I do because his standard of education is much higher than mine. I followed what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was saying, and I began to wonder what he wanted from people engaged in this type of industry. He did not put forward a case. He is already challenging them, before this Bill is passed, as to whether they are going to be efficient, as to whether they are going to pull out every stop they can to achieve that productivity which we talk about in industry, which employers, whoever they may be, would like to see. To me that is a sort of insult to the people engaged in these forms of industry. It does not do any good to any type of industry if you challenge at the beginning whether people are going to do everything possible to make the industry in which they are engaged efficient, so that it will show positive results on behalf of those responsible for their employment in their particular capacity and for the running of the industry.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I were a member of the Board—which I hope I shall not be—I would be very puzzled to know exactly what was expected of me under subsection (3)(a). The word, "deploy" has different meanings, as the word "disposition" to which I drew attention also has different meanings. What are we to understand by this? Are we to understand that the Board is to keep under review the extent to which dock workers are adequately deployed, or are we to understand that it means the extent to which dock workers adequately deploy their skills, aptitudes and experience? There are two entirely different meanings of "deploy". It may be indeed that there is a sort of combination between these two, and what is really meant is the extent to which dock workers are adequately deployed having regard to their skills, aptitudes and experience. It is very difficult to know exactly what this is intended to mean. I think if you put in the word, "effectively" it makes the interpretation a little easier, because we

41
are then talking about the extent to which the skills, aptitudes and experience are effectively deployed, and this is related to the skills, aptitudes and experience of dock workers as a whole. It is a difficult bit of drafting. All I would say is that I think it is easier to understand if the word, "effectively" goes in rather than if the word, "adequately" goes in.
I should like to comment on the next Amendment, also. The words here are,
"the probable cost to employers of implementing the proposal".
We are talking here mainly about a proposal either for deployment or for adjusting the strength and disposition of the labour force, as I understand it. So I would have thought in this case the noble Lord may be right in his interpretation. We are not talking about the cost of implementing proposals dealing with classification; we are talking about proposals for adjusting the strength and disposition of the labour force and deploying the skills of the existing dock workers. In this case what seems to me to be the important consideration is the probable cost to employers of implementing proposals for those purposes. I think the noble Lord was quite right to suggest that we should leave the other question of the costs of doing the work for later consideration.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if I might have leave to speak again, I do not think the meaning of this clause is nearly as difficult as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, makes out. It seems to me that what the Board are asked to keep under review is that the skills, aptitudes and experience of dock workers are effectively deployed. By that I take it to mean that if you have some dock workers who are particularly skilled in loading containers, using container cranes, which requires a very high degree of skill, you do not put them on to some other job. Equally, if you have men skilled in stowing the old fashioned type of cargo, which is again a very highly-skilled job, you do not put them on taking bundles of timber off ships. That is what I would take it to mean, and it seems to me a very sensible provision.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I had hoped, having listened to the noble Lord's explanations, at this and at other points in the Bill, at the two previous stages, and having adjusted the Amendments we
42
had originally proposed to meet the Government's wishes, that they would find no difficulty in accepting this one, and from what the noble Lord says it sounds as though he nearly did. But I was also hoping for some rather more robust assurances about the general stress on effective deployment and efficiency, and something in response to Amendment No. 3. I do not think that this is the moment to have a lot of Divisions on the matter. I am sorry that the Government have not used this opportunity to respond with a more robust statement of their attitude at this point, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Secretary of State to prepare new Scheme]:
4. 41 p. m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert ("but the whole of any area so designated must be comprised within a definable dock area")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 19 and 20. These last minute Amendments are, I am afraid, the result of having had to handle this Bill at such indecent haste. I think it has been a travesty of proper Parliamentary procedure. In all the 30 or 40 Bills I have handled from this or the other Dispatch Box, I can never remember one where the pressure of time has been worse than on this one. I recall last Session dealing with the Community Land Act, a massive Bill of far greater complexity than this, but that was really quite straightforward compared with dealing with this one and the pace with which we have had to contend. For instance, last Friday the Hansard for the night before was available at about 9. 30 in the morning. That covered our proceedings up to 10 o'clock, but they actually went on until 12 o'clock, so with no record of what had happened for the last two hours we had to consider what Amendments we wanted for this stage and have them tabled by 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to have time to reflect and read through the Bill thoroughly to see the

43
precise effect of what one is trying to do. But I have to go on and say that I am indebted for the help of the noble Lord's Department in putting into workable shape the general proposition which we imported for the first time at Committee stage; namely, of a more limited dock area of half-a-mile extent round an existing harbour as opposed to the enormous five mile wide cargo zone. That was the work we did at Committee stage when we introduced this geographically much more limited idea of the half-mile round the harbour which could then in due course become a Dock Labour Scheme area.
In using those words, we adopted a term that was already in the Bill. But I must confess that we overlooked that the same consideration applies to the definition or designation of these dock areas as applies to the definition and classification of dock work; that is to say, you have to provide in the Bill for two stages in each category. In the way that Schedule 3 lists what may and may not be classified as dock work, other processes in the Bill (culminating in classification orders in Clause 11, as it was, which is now Clause 13) specify in point of policy and in particular cases that what are the things that can be classified, are to be classified.
In exactly the same way, in dealing with the dock areas we need two definitions. One is in this set of Amendments I am now introducing and which we want to see inserted in the Bill, which prescribes the limit of what may be designated a dock labour area and in which various parts of the Bill will apply in Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and Schedule 3. But again as with classification orders, in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area within the definable area that may be defined in due course as a Dock Labour Scheme area.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that if we have this concept in we need to have the same two stages in respect of areas as is already provided in the Bill in respect of work. That is the purpose of these Amendments. They do not add or subtract anything from the general concept we have added. We have checked the
44
general line of our thought with the Department and had some help in working out with them how it should be done in order that the general idea which has been incorporated in the Bill at Committee stage is workable. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure we all appreciate the clear and acceptable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained this Amendment and those which are similar to it and which he listed. He prefaced his remarks by a complaint about the time-table. Without entering into the whys and wherefors of the general Parliamentary situation in which we are, within those limits I accept what he said about it having been a particularly tough job which he and his colleagues and I and my colleagues on this side and others elsewhere have taken on board.
I use the word "acceptable" about the noble Lord's introductory speech. I should not like that to mean that the change upon which these hinge is in any way acceptable. Of course we maintain the position that the basic Amendments which were made during Committee stage are entirely unacceptable to us. But having regard to the fact that those Amendments were made then, as the noble Lord has explained, these Amendments are necessary because, as the Bill now stands without them, it would be impossible to look at work in an area to see whether it should be classified as dock work without having previously applied the Scheme by order to that area. It is a sort of horse and cart situation, and we cannot be sure which is the horse and which is the cart. I would say that the Amendment appears to us to remedy this situation. Beyond that, I do not think that the Government have any further comment to make.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think it behoves the House as a whole to send back to the other place Amendments which, however unpalatable they may be to the Government, in fact actually work.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 5:

45
Page 4, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("comprise") and insert ("A definable dock area shall").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments No. 6:
Page 4, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("within") in line 15 and insert ("A definable dock area shall not include any small harbour or any place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Objects of the Scheme]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments No. 7:
Page 5, line 49, leave out ("dock labour scheme area") and insert ("definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4. 50 p. m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("() The Scheme shall not impose any obligations on dock employers who do not for the time being employ workers on classified work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled to meet concern which has been expressed that, because there is no definition of dock employers as used in Schedule 2, it might be possible for the Scheme to impose obligations on employers in the docks who are not undertaking classifiable work. On Report it was explained that the Government did not believe that there would be any reasonable doubt about the enabling powers in Schedule 2. But the Scheme does impose obligations and requirements which are backed ultimately by criminal sanctions and is concerned with the raising of a levy. Therefore, it seemed right to put the matter beyond doubt, whether reasonable or otherwise, which is what the Amendment does.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he introduces Amendments so kindly and pleasantly. We are grateful for this one, which establishes beyond peradventure that the Bill means what it is intended to mean, and I hope that he will accept our grateful thanks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Review of what is now dock work]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("any dock labour scheme area") and insert ("any definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Loading and unloading operations]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("dock labour scheme area") and insert ("definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 24, after ("(b)") insert ("after considering any representations received from employers and trade unions concerned and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to make it clear that the Board must consider any representations made by employers and unions before reporting to the Secretary of State under this clause. This brings the clause into line with the procedure under Clause 9 and Schedule 4, where the Board are required to consider representations made in response to the first and second notices.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, once again we are grateful for this point of clarification. This is a helpful and important Amendment and we are grateful to the noble Lord for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 34, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 36 and insert ("outside a definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Cargo-handling operations in general.]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 42, leave out ("dock labour scheme area") and insert ("definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4. 54 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendments No. 14:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time as we discuss Amendments No. 14, we discuss Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17. This group of Amendments is simple in purpose but rather difficult to explain. The clause relates to recommendations to the Secretary of State by the Board that work be classified if it comes within Schedule 2(1) as being work which may be classified for the future as dock work and if it is work that is done or is to be done at premises in a Dock Labour Scheme area. The Board may also recommend that not all the work, but some specified part of it, may be so specified. Subsection (5) lays down three grounds in particular which the Board may treat as prima facie grounds, subject to the next subsection, for recommending classification. These grounds are that the work
"… 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 …"
within a Dock Labour Scheme area. Your Lordships will recall that the Bill as originally drafted said "within the cargo-handling zone", which covered all premises within five miles of the sea or within any major inland waterway. As the Bill stands—we must constantly remind ourselves of this—it is a good deal more restricted in scope. The second ground is that the work
"… is such that those employed on it need training, aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers …"
And the third ground is that the work
"…is for the time being done wholly or mainly by workers employed as casual labour. "
The next subsection provides that none of these three grounds and no combination of them is sufficient by itself to justify classification and requires the Board to take account of other considerations "appearing to them to be relevant", in particular the considerations set out in that subsection. The fact remains that as the Bill stands the Board may proceed to consider work for classification if any of the three criteria I have mentioned is satisfied.
Bearing that in mind, I ask: does it make sense to consider work for classification merely because those employed on it need training, aptitudes and experience similar to the training, aptitudes and experience needed by registered dock workers? No wonder, for example, it was necessary to exclude the railways from the Bill, otherwise they would have been caught here. That expression would cover all forms of the handling and movement of goods—loading and un-loading at factories, marshalling yards, warehouses and cold stores—even if the goods were going to another inland destination, and it would even cover the movement of goods within factories, warehouses and so on. Who can tell whether such goods would never be shipped abroad? Is it sensible that all forms of cargo handled wholly or mainly by casual labour should be eligible for consideration by the Board for classification?
We have frequently argued in our debates on the Bill that there are many ports dotted around the coasts, particularly in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where the work always has been done by casual labour; men brought from their other activities—not necessarily unemployed men—when they are needed to load or unload cargo. In these places the work has never been wholly or mainly done by registered dock workers. There are many warehouses within five miles of the sea where nobody has never heard of registered dock workers. It is obvious that both of these criteria should be taken in conjunction with lie first criterion—this is so dear to the hearts of the Party opposite, or at any rate to some of them; I would not say "all" by any means—namely, that the work is done or is to be done by way of substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers.
We do not accept that criterion. We require, however, that it is fundamental to the Bill and that is why we are opposed to the Bill. But given that fundamental criterion, we believe that it should be the basic one for considering whether or not work should be classified. My Amendment would make it so. We understand the Government's wish to decasualise, but only in appropriate circumstances. We have pointed out that there are many circumstances in which it would be wholly inappropriate to do so. I appreciate that

49
the subsection says that the Board "may" treat such cases as prima facie grounds. It is not bound to do so; it does not say "shall". Nevertheless, we believe that it should do so only where there has been, or is to be, what the Bill calls substitution.
Lord JACQUES: I explained at Committee stage the Government's reasons for believing that any one of the grounds should constitute prima facie grounds for making a recommendation. This Amendments would make it obligatory for work in question to be in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers. This would prevent groups of workers who have a very good case for having their work classified from being able to do so. We return to our old friends, the Liverpool tally clerks and their employers, who believe their work should be registered work. They work in close association with registered dock workers. But their work is not in substitution for work which is previously done by registered dock workers. Even though they and their employers think their work should be classified, it could not be classified if this Amendment were carried.
This applies similarly to our friends in fish bobbing at Hull. As I explained at earlier stages in the Bill, the work of fish bobbing is classified or registered work at all the North-East ports except Hull. There, fish bobbers say that they have been left out as an accident of history and feel badly done by. If this Amendment were carried, the fish bobbers at Hull are not doing work in substitution for work done by registered dock workers and, therefore, it would prevent their work from being classified. Also, if any new installations were opened at existing Scheme ports away from existing installations that is not covered by the existing classification, and the trade to be handled by these installations was new, then the work could not be in substitution for work at present done by registered dock workers and could not therefore be classified even though it has to be done by casual labour. For these reasons, we would hope that the noble Lord would not press his Amendments.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before my noble friends reply, may I say that I am not clear about one thing the noble
50
Lord, Lord Jacques, said? It seems to me that subsection (5) says,
"The Board may under that Schedule determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation …"
I cannot see anywhere in the clause that they cannot make a recommendation unless there are prima facie grounds. Am I wrong in that interpretation? If so, where does it say so? It would seem that the exclusion of tally clerks, or these other people the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about, would not be the case if it were possible for the Board to make a recommendation when there are not prima facie grounds. It seems to me that subsection (6) rather encourages that view. It seems to encourage the Board to look more widely than the prima facie grounds in subsection (5). Therefore, if subsection (5) is tightened up, it would seem that no great harm would result and it would not spoil the cause of the tally clerks. Perhaps the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, needs changing.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could enlighten us at this stage. In most debates on this issue, the noble Lord appears to be something of a conjurer. He always mentions the Liverpool tally clerks, but he produces these work people who I understand go by the name of fish bobbers". Can he indicate what they do? Do they load fish, gut it or fillet it? Is this an example of the Monty Python show, or what? Clearly they are an interesting category of workforce, but so far in my researches, or indeed in reading through the Bill, I have not been able to decipher exactly what these people do. I should be more than interested, indeed grateful, if the noble Lord could enlighten the House.
Lord JACQUES: Fish bobbers? They bob! I think it is clear that they do some-to the fish as distinct from merely handling it as cargo. They are responsible for gutting. They load and unload and are then responsible for gutting the fish and seeing it to the market.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation.
Lord JACQUES: The answer required by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is in Schedule 4, paragraph 7:

51
"If after considering such representations the Board determines there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation under section 9 …"
and so on.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I also have some misgivings about the experience and aptitude of the noble Lord in returning always to the tally clerks. The trouble about tally clerks, as an example, is precisely illustrated by what I am trying to do, because the experience, skill and aptitude of tally clerks is not by any means confined to dock work. They may have grown up alongside dock work, but they could be equally useful in a wide range of other activities. This tally work is not particularly the sort of skill that one expects of a docker. They may have very good claims, but this is an a ordinary claim of one body of men who want to be recognised in a particular context. I do not think that the noble Lord's quotation of tally clerks as an example is a good reason why we should not have as a pre-condition the question of sub-situation.
The same really applies to training, aptitudes and experience similar to those of registered dock workers. A very wide range of people in the transport industry have training, aptitude and experience similar to registered dock workers. It follows that if we leave the Bill as it is, the range of people who could be classified is almost infinite; certainly anybody who is involved in loading, where any export consideration arises at all. We think this is far too wide and that is why we propose the Amendment. I suspect that fish bobbers is a red herring and I am sure that tally clerks are red herrings, too. I am inclined to think that the noble Lord should allow this to go forward for consideration by another place.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I regret that we could not possibly do that. Making it obligatory that there has to be a substitution for work done by registered dock workers will have far-reaching effects for the future. There is any amount of work closely associated with dock work that ought to be classified, but this Amendment would prevent its classification, no matter how closely associated it was with dock work. In our opinion this Amendment is an undesirable one which we could never accept.
5. 10 p. m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in answering me referred to Schedule 4, but I have looked at Schedule 4 and it does not really satisfy me at all. I should redirect him to subsection (6). It seems to me that all this play on prima facie is not comprehensive because the Board are encouraged to look much more widely, and I cannot see that the main line of his argument against my noble friend's Amendment is a valid one. I think that this matter needs to be looked at again and that it should perhaps be allowed to go through at the moment so that it can be looked at in another place.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that it places an obligation on the Board because subsections (5) starts with the words, "The Board may …". It includes another phrase which gives them some flexibility:
"if it appears to them that…"
There is no clear, certain obligation at all. There is plenty of discretion.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, with the leave of the House I wish to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. If there are no prima facie grounds, the Board cannot send the second notice and therefore the procedure would come to a halt. There would be no recommendation. A recommendation can be made only when the Board, after they have received the first group of representations, are satisfied that there are prima facie grounds.
I should now like to comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
"The Board may under that Schedule determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work …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 …"
We start with that. The other two points come later. This is obligatory; it is obligatory in the sense that they cannot move unless they are satisfied that it is by way of substitution.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Surely that is one of three alternatives —if there are such things?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I, again with the leave of the House, make a suggestion to the noble Lord? The word, "may" governs the whole subsection and there is no question of there being an obligation from which the Board cannot escape. Furthermore, they have discretion to determine what they have to determine,
"if it appears to them that the work…"
But there is no need to refer to some hard and fast criteria. It is against that background that my noble friend is arguing. All he is arguing is that the Amendment should be put in so that another place can have another look at it. He is not saying, though he might well do, that it would make a clear improvement to the Bill, although I believe it would. His only reason for doing it is so that another place should have another look at it. I think that to have a massive number of Divisions at this stage is not a good way to proceed, but it is very provoking if the noble Lord is not able to answer my noble friend more efficiently than that. I think that the case which has been made out is a very strong one and I urge the noble Lord to accept it. It really cannot do any harm. The noble Lord certainly has not shown that any harm can be done, and this would enable another place to have another look at this point.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I must insist that if we have this Amendment then it is obligatory that the work must be in substitution of work previously done by registered dock workers.
"The Board may under that Schedule determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work is …"
But it must be in substitution, otherwise they cannot do it. Therefore everything I have said is absolutely right.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the question is, on the one hand, to what extent there is work which is dock work that is not at present being done by dock workers, and secondly there is the extent
54
to which there is work which is likely to be classified which has not been treated as dock work in the past. I do not understand what work this second class of work is. The noble Lord has not given any examples to show that there is any such work. I should have thought that the only work that is entitled to be classified is work which is being done in substitution for work which was previously done by registered dock workers. I cannot see any reason why any other work should be classified. We are talking of work which,
"is, or is to be done, by way of substitution …"
We are not talking of work which is to be done in the future and which would be classifiable, because obviously in a case like that the work would be classified—if it is classified and it is to be done in the future and it is certainly classifiable. I do not see how that can be a second class. If it is work that is to be done in substitution, then that is the first class we are talking about, but if it is entirely new work which is not being done in substitution, then I cannot see what kind of work that would be. If it were clearly dock work it would he classified as dock work and this particular question would not arise. I think it is worth having another look at this, where it is very difficult to see what the future would be and the way in which in practice these various provisions would be interpreted in circumstances which cannot be foreseen. It is for that reason that I am suggesting that it would be a wise course to look at this again.
Lord JACQUES: With that I cannot agree.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in that case I feel bound to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
5. 18 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Faithful, B.

Norfolk, D.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing. L.

Belstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Glendevon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Harcourt, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Narmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Just, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Clancarty, E.

Kemsley, V.

Sharples, B.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Colville of Culross. V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Craigton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Cross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L

Daventry, V.

Marley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Davidson, V.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dudley, E.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Northfield, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Oram, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bowden, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brown, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Serota, B.

Chorley, L.

Kagan, L.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Darwen, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Store, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barlock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vaizey, L.

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

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Foot, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

McCluckey, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Garner, L.

Maelor, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

5. 26 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("and (a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 15, is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): My Lords, I now have to call the first unnumbered Amendment in the name of Lord Airedale, and I have to inform your Lordships that, if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved his first unnumbered Amendment:
Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("not") to ("make") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to discuss together the two Amendments which appear in my name on the separate sheet, because undoubtedly they sink or swim together. Subsection (6) seems to be extremely accident prone, but even as amended on Report, and even if it is going to be amended back in a few minutes' time to what it was in Committee, I still suggest to your Lordships that the first line and a half of subsection (6) really does not mean very much or get one very much further. In particular, I should have thought the words "and without more" are superfluous, following, as they do, the words "not on … those grounds alone". My Lords, if I am right about this, I wonder whether it would not be clearer simply to leave out this first line and a half and allow subsection (6) to come straight to the point and say that the Board shall not make a recommendation without considering, in particular, the matters which are then set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, at the Report stage the noble Lord suggested these Amendments. We have given this matter very careful consideration, and I could go into technical reasons why we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment; but suffice it to say that we believe the present wording helps to emphasise that the prima facie grounds are not
58
sufficient and that the Board must carry out a two-stage consultation procedure. As things happen, there is another case against the noble Lord which I had not expected to have, and that is that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has carried against the Government Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, insists on his drafting Amendment, he will frustrate Lord Drumalbyn, who has to move Amendment No. 16 as a consequential Amendment. I think that so far as the opinion of the House is concerned it is more important that Lord Drumalbyn should be able to move his Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the last thing I would wish to do would be to frustrate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the second last thing I would wish to do would be to divide the House on what is only a drafting Amendment. I do not think subsection (6) is quite as clear as it might be. I have done my best to improve it, but I have not succeeded and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("more") and insert ("both").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for his kind remarks. That makes Amendment No. 6 consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5. 31 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendments No. 17:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("() productivity in the performance of the work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the earlier stages of the Bill we have been trying to impress on the Government that not only in present circumstances but at all times in a competitive world economic factors have to be considered. They cannot and must not be ignored. In considering whether work should be classified or declassified, as we are doing in this clause, we believe it is essential that the Board should be obliged to take into account

59
whether classification would adversely affect the cost of doing the work. The Government seem to regard "cost" as a rather dirty word not be to mentioned in public. One would have thought that, in their view, it runs counter to the concept of the Bill. Moreover they have argued that it will be beyond the capacity of the Board to consider cost in its wider aspect. But, however productivity is calculated, surely the Board must at least consider whether classification is likely to increase the value added per worker per year, per week, per day or per hour, however it is calculated, or whether it is likely to reduce it. This is not a difficult calculation to make and it would be well within the capacity of the Board, but even if it were difficult we would still regard it as essential that it should be made in each case. In this case we are not considering matters, recommendations and proposals which are initiated by the Board but matters which are referred to them, and one would have thought that the recommendation contained in the report that they are going to send to the Secretary of State should be complete and that they should have considered everything. If they have not considered everything they can hardly make a recommendation. Therefore I should have thought that they must consider the question of productivity. The thought that changes could even be considered and recommendations made without counting the cost seems to me to be economic lunacy. I urge the Government and I urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment which merely requires that in considering what recommendations to make to the Secretaty of State they should look into the question of whether classification of the work would adversely affect productivity. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we would suggest that there is no way in which classification of the work could affect productivity in the performance of the work. During the course of the Bill it has been made clear many times that there is no intention that either the Board or the Scheme should interfere in any way with collective agreements. The Opposition Amendment to Schedule 2 made in Committee would preclude the Scheme from saying anything about terms and conditions of employment. There
60
is no way in which classification of work could alter any productivity arrangements under collective agreements. On the other hand, other productivity measures, for example, the purchase of new equipment or the introduction of new procedures, are in our view entirely matters for management.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must say it is curious how the Front Bench opposite changes its ground in considering matters of this kind. It is now telling us that the relative cost could not be changed, at least so far as productivity was concerned, by classification where at the present time the work is not regarded as dock work. I cannot follow this. Clause 12 indicates what is going to happen if the work is classified. Of course you are not going to have a great change in the cost overnight; we accept that. The work force in a ware-house will no doubt remain the same, but the work will be classified. But because the work is classified the cost per head of work done is bound to vary because the totality of the cost per head in respect of wages and conditions will have to be taken into consideration. Am I not right in thinking that as soon as the work is classified the levy will he payable in respect of the workers there, or is it the case that that will not happen until all the workers move from the extension register to the register of dock workers? In either case, it is plain that in the long run the cost of the work is bound to be affected. Am I wrong about that? Will the levy not by payable; will the terms and conditions upon which men are employed not vary?
We all know that once a man is on the dock work register he is on for life. If the employer is going to have to employ the same number of men who are on his books at the time of classification, whether or not they are all needed, it will be difficult to reduce the staff. That is going to change the productivity per head. At the present time he can say, "I am sorry you are not needed" and make a redundancy payment. That is a different calculation altogether. There must be some changes involved here. We have never got to the bottom of what is intended. We have heard from industry what they think is intended and what they think the effects will be and there is

61
no doubt that in many cases the cost of the work force to the employer will increase.
Of course, there is the additional factor whether so much work will be done with the same force or not. It seems to me an extraordinary statement to make that it is not going to make any difference whether or not classification takes place. Surely we are right in thinking that the purpose of bringing the establishments which ask to be classified under the Dock Labour Board is to ensure similarity of conditions and terms of employment and to assimilate them to those being applied in the docks at the present time. Is that not so? This is the explanation we have had in the past. If that is so it cannot possibly be said that classification will not affect productivity.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies for the Government, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the financial cost is very much a part of modern cargo handling? Surely, to reduce cost as far as possible without affecting other labour practices and also to improve measurable productivity, must be a matter for pride and something which the Board should aim to achieve when they wish to advise on classification. The Government, in both Report and Committee stages, have spoken of the non-relevance of cost and about new procedures and other labour procedures. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn mentioned "lunacy". Why do the Government always take the dark side of the moon and totally ignore the brighter side of the question?
I read of one example in the earlier proceedings in another place. At Alexandra Docks in Liverpool, where I understand work is carried out by registered dock workers, cargo can be landed at …6.30 a ton as opposed to London loading and unloading with the same equipment dealing with the same type of cargo where the cost is …11.30. I believe that is a matter for pride. I understand that Alexandra Docks, Liverpool, is carrying out work which under the new Scheme would be classified. The Government have run away from any thought of cost. They look at the dark side. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has twice produced the argument that
62
in seeking to produce cost effectiveness we are somehow seeking to encourage more casual labour. We are not. I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has presented a reasonable case, and the Government having produced the same argument twice are now producing another argument which is still shaky and doubtful.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to Clause 6(2)(a). It sets out the objective of the Scheme. It reads:
"to securing stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work;"
That is the object laid down in the Statute that the Secretary of State must aim at in preparing the Scheme. The levy has nothing to do with the rates of pay or manpower usage. They are matters for collective bargaining and are outside the Bill.
So far as the levy is concerned, I am prepared to defend that, as I did on Second Reading. The levy for the administration of the Scheme, for training and welfare, for pensions and for severance pay or redundancy, whatever you wish to call it, is 11 per cent. in total. That is not high. I was able to show that it compared favourably, for example, with the chemical industry. I would not regard that as a heavy charge on the employer. The employer is already doing some of these things obligatorily under the State Schemes. For example, he is making redundancy contributions. He will be relieved of those if instead he is paying towards the Dock Labour Scheme. I do not think that the levy is a matter which is going to make any real difference.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is consistently missing the point. The question is not whether the terms and conditions are more favourable or not; the question is simply whether in considering whether the work should he classified the Board should take into account productivity and the difference that is likely to be made in that respect by classification. That is all that this Amendment provides for. It seems to me absurd to say that they should not take it into consideration. However great

63 the advantage may be in one way or another, the possible disadvantages (or it might be advantages) from the point of view of productivity ought to be taken into consideration. I cannot see how the Government can resist this. It seems to me so obvious and so fundamental in making changes of this kind. For Heaven's sake! let us know what we are doing when we are making changes of this kind. That is all I ask, and I think the noble Lord should concede this.
We have done our best to find a formula which will get away from the difficulties that were made in the past about the problems for the Board of calculating the costs. Productivity is not a difficult thing to calculate. It is already in the Bill that they have to consider whether the efficiency of doing other work is likely to be adversely affected. We are asking here about the efficiency of the work in question. Surely that too should be considered. I cannot see any argument against it whatsoever.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I venture to disagree a little with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? He says that productivity is an easy thing to calculate. In fact, in this industry it is extremely difficult to calculate because there are so many different things involved. Apart from that, what he is asking should be calculated is the productivity of some future arrangement which has not yet started to operate. I do not see how you can calculate that when all that you will have are assurances from trade unions that this or that will be done and from employers that this or that will be done. You will never be able to measure the productivity until you see what actually happens.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 [Registration after work is classified]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 39, leave out ("(which shall be a minimum of 2 years)") and insert ("(not to be more than 2 years)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. I have to say that when we last discussed this on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, put forward one view and I another. He asked me to reflect on it. I have done so and I have to say that he was right and I was wrong. This Amendment restores the Bill to what it was before the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Descriptions of work which may, and those which may not, be classified as dock work]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("dock labour scheme") and insert ("definable dock").
Page 28, line 28, leave out ("dock labour scheme") and insert ("definable dock").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are consequential Amendments. With the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
5. 48 p. m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 46, at end insert—
("18. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs under controlled temperature conditions, except—

(a) where such goods are discharged directly from a ship into a cold store or onto the quayside adjacent to a cold store, and where by custom and practice the handling of such goods has been dock work; or

(b) where a cold store or other premises for the storage of foodstuffs under temperature controlled conditions is or is to be established within a dock labour scheme area as an integral part of the cargo handling operation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because at Report stage on a similar Amendment I undertook to look at his remarks and if necessary modify my Amendment in tabling it; but for the reasons explained by my noble friend Lord Sandford earlier, the particular section of the Official Report which

65
included the debate on this issue was not available at the latest date by which we have to table our Amendments. After seeking advice outside the House, I decided that the best course of action was to table the Amendment at the Report stage.
I have now had the opportunity of reading the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, at that stage which appear in col. 1607 of the Official Report. Regarding Lord Jacques's comments on exception (a), as I see it the answer is in the quay and the Amendment seems to make this clear. Regarding the noble Lord's comments in col. 1608 of the Official Report on exception (b) he misses out the significance of "integral". In his reference to the cargo handling zone, he gives point to the paramount need—I stress this— not to revert to that mistaken concept. If one forgets the cargo handling zone and one takes due account of the phrase, "as an integral part of the cargo handling operation", exception (b) seems clear.
Having dealt with the points that I said at Report stage I would bring forward, I should like briefly to make only two points to emphasise the need for this Amendment. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments made by myself and my noble friends in earlier stages of this Bill, but to limit myself to making two specific points. First, it seems to me that cold stores have unfortunately become a particular target for the dock workers. Perhaps this is because of their association with containers and because of the particular events in 1972 touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on the fourth day of the Committee stage, at col. 382 and again on the second day of the Report stage at col. 1608 of the Official Report. It seems that, because the cold stores have become a particular target and entered what I called in an earlier speech the mythological area of this discussion, their position is treated in almost paranoic terms, and not always entirely rationally.
We on these Benches accept that, in relation to the exceptions (a) and (b) in the Amendment, it is reasonable for dock workers to extend their work into cold stores at the dockside, but we suggest most strongly that it is not reasonable for them to do this as a generality. This
66
view has been endorsed by many trade union members who have telephoned from outside, and this day a workers' convenor from Leeds telephoned in to say how important he thinks it is that there should be no arrangement by which dock work jobs can be extended to his part of the world.
At this moment in time, registered dock workers are working in only six cold stores out of the 184 operating in this country and there is no good practical reason why this should be extended beyond the terms of the Amendment. Work in cold stores away from the docks, which is being done by other types of worker, has no connection with the main historical task of dock workers, the loading and unloading of ships. If there had been such a connection, there would be an argument for dock workers to claim a right to pack all the packaging cases and fill all the sacks throughout the land, which they will eventually handle. That is plainly nonsense.
We all have to accept that as conditions change, jobs do as well. Why should a particular group of workers get guarantees in a totally different environment? It was, for example, never suggested, at the time of the Beeching cuts in branch railway lines, that railwaymen should have an automatic right to drive the buses that replaced the trains in country districts.
My second point relates to the question of a split labour force. Because of their history and the nature of their main work, dock workers treat jobs differently from all other groups of workers. It is indeed often the case that groups of persons with a specialised task have their own particular attitude to their work and, in general, we all accept and indeed usually respect this. A seaman, for example, will see life differently from, say, a Bishop—except possibly in the case of my noble friend Lord Sandford. What is undesirable, both in the interest of cohesive management and of the contentment of the work force generally, is to import tightly organised persons with strongly held ideas, which may be alien, into a hitherto smooth running organisation. Dock workers unfortunately have acquired a reputation for neither integrating with the existing work force nor adapting themselves to the existing situation. This often leads to excess manning to do work

67
which dock workers reasonably could, to the detriment of efficiency and costs, and to demarcation disputes to the detriment of the interests of other workers. This, from what I have discovered from talking to people, is what other workers fear more than anything else. They fear the introduction of this alien attitude into an otherwise reasonably contented work force.
We are all agreed that the overriding need of the country is for conditions to be established for harmonious labour relations. There is no difference of opinion anywhere in this House on that. It seems that the Government say that good labour relations can only be established if we give the dock workers all the opportunities they wish to press as a group for the maximum extension of a right to take on work of the types listed in Part I of Schedule 3 in cold stores wherever they are. We say this is not reasonable and indeed it is unfair to other workers, unless the cold stores are at the dockside or are an integral part of the cargo handling operation, and hence that the Government solution will lead to worse labour relations, not better. Continuing harmony is rarely established by giving into sectional pressure groups. Thus, my Lords, I ask you most emphatically to support me and my noble colleagues in this Amendment. I beg to move.
5. 58 p. m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Mottistone. In the debates on the issue of cold stores, we have never had an answer from the Government in relation to the division between home produced goods that may equally be held under controlled conditions, and goods which are imported. With the enormous development of the use of frozen foods, cold storage and fresh foods, we find ourselves in the position that there must be many of these units where a substantial proportion of their goods are produced in this country which never, under any classification, would be cargo. Are we to have two sets of employers with the rigidity that some will deal with the imported goods and others will deal with the home produced goods with undoubtedly increases in costs? Then of course if there have to be redundancies
68
those will not fall on those under the registered scheme, but on those belonging to other unions.
We are entitled to know what proportion of these new, very large and very vital centres throughout the country are handling exclusively imported goods. Will the Government not look again at the very realistic Amendment put forward by my noble friend which seeks to give genuine cargo handling to those who traditionally have done it in the immediate vicinity of the docks, and take a realistic view of this tremendously expanded new and different industry where it is inland? In our view it should not be treated to be taken over by registered dock labour as of right.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I think he has done everything possible to meet the objections raised by the Government at all stages. I find more and more confusing the arguments raised by the Government in reply to what I regard as a very reasonable and, above all, very practical proposal put forward by my noble friend. During the course of our concluding debate on Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made allusions to how the Government hoped to achieve some peaceful means of settling disputes with dockers in the warehouses and cold stores that we are discussing. One thing that he, and indeed, no other member of the Government, has been able to explain is why the Government are dealing with dock workers alone and thus causing unnecessary grievances on the part of other workers at the cold stores. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that cold stores are miles and miles inland and have nothing to do with cargo, and they do have these worries and grievances.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will appreciate that we are concerned about dock workers only in those cases where the operation has been moved from the dock side but is still within the cargo-handling zone. It is work which was dockers' work, and until someone deals with that problem there will continue to be bad industrial relations.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I had not finished: I was coming to that point. Just a little patience might have covered

69
this point. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates, along with other people, that cold stores are different from port-side warehouses, cargo sheds and the like because cold stores have mostly grown up since 1957 and there is increasing flexibility of labour and especially of the equipment which is needed to use that labour most economically and to achieve the greatest productivity. During the Report stage the noble Lord replied to a question regarding vacancies arising at a cold store which was operating a closed shop agreement. The noble Lord went so far as to say that this closed shop agreement could be modified between trade unions.
I am sure the noble Lord meant well; and he went on to say that there was a Committee, operating under the aegis of the TUC, which had been so far very successful in settling inter-union disputes. I believe we shall have to give them prayers and wish them good luck and benevolence all the way if what the noble Lord has said should come to pass, because if he really believes that a closed shop can be "modified" at the behest of one union, what can he say to the existing workers in cold stores inland? Let us not forget—this, I think, will go some way towards replying to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—that under the Bill as it was originally worded these cold stores were classifiable at the wish of the Secretary of State. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend Lord Mottistone most strongly.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, in order to strengthen what I said about industrial relations. I have here a report from a panel of investigation into
"The current difficulties affecting the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Dagenham Cold Storage and associated companies"
That investigation arose entirely out of the kind of problem I mentioned, and it is that which we are trying to avoid. To turn to technicalities, in our opinion, the wording of the exceptions seems technically inadequate to achieve the intentions of the noble Lord. On exception (a), because of the uncertainty as to whether such work was to have been dock work by custom and practice, the noble Lord has satisfied himself. We say it is not clear as to where it was done, whether it was at the quayside or at the port generally. The noble Lord has said that he
70
is satisfied that it means the quayside. As to exception (b), we do not think it is clear, because in Part I of Schedule 3, even though a cold store was away from the dockside it would still have to be regarded as an integral part of the cargo-handling operations. The definition of "cargo" in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 applies to both Part I and Part II of that Schedule.
More importantly, we oppose this Amendment as a matter of policy. The Government consider that it must be possible to consider the classification of work in third party cold stores away from the immediate dock area. It has been the movement of such cold stores away from the docks and the refusal to employ registered dock workers in the new location that has been responsible for many of the industrial relations problems in the docks. It was also very largely responsible for the strikes we had in 1970, 1972 and 1975. I might add that the 1975 strike was referred to ACAS, and their recommendation to the Government was clear: the Government should proceed as soon as practicable. That was the advice given by ACAS to the Government and that is exactly what we are doing by means of this Bill.
The noble Baroness raised the question of having regard to the places where there were home-produced goods. I think I am right in saying that the Bill in its original state said that the Board, in considering any recommendation, must have regard for the proportions. I think I am also right in saying that since then the Opposition have carried an Amendment which says the Board cannot consider classification where the proportion is less than a half. The noble Baroness also raised the question of redundancies. As I pointed out earlier today, the protection of existing workers is so great in this Bill that of the 200 Amendments not one has been made to give further protection to the workers because everybody believes they were adequately protected. If they do not believe that I would say to them: "Move your Amendments: you have had plenty of opportunities." But the Bill goes as far as it is possible to go to protect existing workers, and that is why nothing has been done.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?

71
How can he say that none of our Amendments has been put for the purpose of protecting workers, when Amendment after Amendment has tried to see that work either in small ports or in these cold stores is done by people who currently belong to other unions? The whole purpose of the Amendments has been to protect those very workers. I really cannot see how the noble Lord can allege that we have moved no Amendments to protect any classification of worker.
Lord JACQUES: To protect existing workers, my Lords: you are concerned with protecting existing workers. In the Bill, we protect existing workers, and that protection is so good that not a single one of the Amendments produced by the Opposition has been put forward to improve that protection. Not a single Amendment has been made to improve that, because the protection was adequate when the Bill came to the House and I challenge anybody to deny that. What I am saying is fact. There has not been a single Amendment to improve the protection of existing workers, because that protection was already adequate. Therefore, it seems strange that it should be thought that, if there were redundancies, it would be the existing workers who would be redundant and not the dock workers. The safeguards in the Bill against that are perfectly adequate and they have not been the subject of Amendments to improve them.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the safeguards are perfectly adequate, but they have to be proposed by the Board. We do not know what they are. We cannot very well argue about whether they are adequate, until they have been proposed by the Board.
6. 10 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is not so. The safeguards are not all made by the Board. The safeguards are that they can continue to work, or they can be put on an extension register, and if they do not go on to any register at all they can be left to do their job without any interference. There is adequate protection in the Bill. If the protection was not adequate, noble
72
Lords would have been moving Amendments to give protection. They cannot have it both ways.
May I deal with the trade union points which were raised both tonight and on Report? During the Report stage in discussions on this Amendment, and again tonight, both the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, expressed special concern about the position of existing trade unions and, in particular, about what would happen when a vacancy occurred and the job had to be offered in the first instance to a registered dock worker, when there was a closed shop at the premises for one union and all the registered workers available were members of another union. This is a matter which needs to be considered before any decision is taken as to the classification of the work. There is full opportunity under the procedures for all the parties concerned to express any worries which they have on such matters. Clause 9(6) requires the Board to consider industrial relations questions, while paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 especially provides for a reference to the ACAS by the Secretary of State. The Bill specifically prevents the Scheme from interfering in any way with collective bargaining arrangements, or the membership or non-membership of a union. The TUC supports the Bill, and if there were differences between unions the Bridlington procedures, which have worked well, would in our opinion be relevant.
My case rests mainly on the question of policy, on the need for cold stores which have moved away from the docks, but which are within the cargo handling zone, to be classifiable—not to be classified but to be classifiable—and for the option to be there for it to be considered. It is by this means that we are providing proper, peaceful machinery for settling disputes. That is what we want to do, and that is why I said earlier that if noble Lords will not accept this peaceful method, they will be leaving the dockers to do what they can within the law, including all the picketing.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to paragraph 8 of Schedule 3, which includes the definition of "cargo". Looking at paragraph 8(c), would I be right in thinking that when cold store goods start from a ship and are handed over by the stevedore to an agent of the

73
receiver, who then takes them to a cold store four or five miles away—such as the Dagenham cold store—by the time they arrive at that store they have ceased to be cargo?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I believe that that is in consequence of an Opposition Amendment, so that the question ought to be addressed to them.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the answer is, Yes. But that is not what I rose to say. I merely wanted to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said about the action which we have taken to protect the interests which feel affected by this Bill. If the noble Lord and his friends are saying that there are no work-people or trades unions who do not feel threatened by this Bill, it means that his Party have lost touch with the union movement to an extent which I can hardly believe.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I did not say that,
Lord SANDFORD: But, my Lords, the noble Lord did say that we have done nothing to protect the interests of people affected by this Bill. I just confine myself to what we have done to Schedule 3. We have moved Amendment No. 58C on Report, we have moved Amendment No. 88 on Report, we have moved Amendment No. 92 in Committee, we have moved Amendment No. 62 on Report, we have inserted Amendment No. 63, with the agreement of the Government, which deals with protecting the interests of lorry drivers vis-a-vis dockers within the Transport and General Workers' Union, we have moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 on behalf of the riggers' association of the seamen, and the boiler-makers on behalf of the shipwrights, and we are about, I hope, to move an Amendment on behalf of two other unions whose members work in the cold stores. So that it is quite untrue to say that we have not taken any action to protect the interests of people who feel threatened by this Bill.
In addition to that, we have tried to ensure, by the new clause which we put in concerning appeals, and by the several Amendments which we put in concerning public inquiries, that where people's interests are affected by proposals and
74
processes under this Bill the issues will be handled in public in the from of a public inquiry, and disputes can be referred by the Secretary of State to appeals machinery. I should have thought that that acquitted us of any inaction on behalf of the large number of interests who feel threatened by the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that the noble Lord is talking about an entirely different matter, because that happens to suit his argument. What was under discussion was whether people already doing the work could be ousted by dockers or made redundant, and I said that the protection of existing workers was so good that no Opposition Amendment had been moved to improve that protection. I was absolutely right, because there has been no such Amendment. The noble Lord is dealing with other issues.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that if we had tried to introduce Amendments to ensure and solidify the rights of lorry drivers, we should have been told that they were out of order on the Dock Work Regulation Bill?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot understand why the noble Baroness uses that argument, because the Opposition moved an Amendment not to protect lorry drivers against loss of their jobs, but to protect those who were driving their vehicles into the docks, and we accepted it. So I cannot see how the noble Baroness can say that an Amendment would not have been considered, because one has been moved and accepted.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not think we want to waste too much time on what we have or have not done, but I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, reads the Report of our discussions he will find that he has been batting away on the wrong wicket, and that he has been grossly exaggerating. I hope that he has not misled the House. There are two main issues. One is the question of the wording of the Amendment which might have been better handled if the Government had given us more time between the second day of Report and today.

75
But it seems from what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, and from what I said, that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not the wording is absolutely perfect, and I accept that it might not be. However, I am sure that it conveys the main sense of what we want to convey, which is that dock workers should be entitled to consider jobs in cold stores for classification, if the cold stores are closely associated with where the dockers traditionally work. The main issue between us is whether it is reasonable for the dock workers to say that they should be given the right for their jobs to be classified within cold stores that are remote from the sea front and have only a very tenuous connection—I would say no connection —with the main work that dock workers have always done throughout the centuries.
We cannot pursue the argument because it is a matter of opinion. People will say
one thing on the one side and something else on the other. But above everything this is a matter which, we now find, is so close to the heart of so many trade union members who work in cold stores all over the country, quite apart from the concern of employers in those cold stores who fear greatly the split labour force and the inefficiencies which are invariably introduced by the introduction of dock workers into their stores, that it is our duty as a House to give the other place a chance—whether they ever give themselves time to do so is another matter— to consider it. Therefore, I beg to move.
6. 21 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Ebbisham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Amherst, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Pender, L.

Ampthill, L.

Faithfill, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Reay, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robbins, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Berkeley, B.

Harcourt, V.

St. Just, L.

Boothby, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L. ([Teller]

Broadbridge, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Seear, B.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seebohm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharpies, B.

Byers, L.

Kemsley, V.

Simon, V.

Caccia, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Campbell, of Croy L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Carrington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, F.

Swansea, L.

Chalfont, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Cross, V.

Monck, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Daventry, V.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Derwent, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Dudley, E.

Northchurch, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Ardwick, L.

Grantchester, L.

Oram, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Jacobson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bowden, L.

Jacques, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Brown, L.

Kaldor, L.

Serota, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Castle, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller]

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Longford, E.

Vaizey, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fletcher, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller]

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [Procedure for recommendation unders. 8]:
6. 30 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 30, line 37, leave out ("18th September 1967") and insert ("3rd December 1975").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. Here, at any rate, is an Amendment to protect the workers.
What we are talking about is the classification of work as dock work on the recommendation of the Board under Clause 9 and Schedule 4. It is provided that the Board may consider proposals for a recommendation with regard to work which comes within Clause 9, and in particular subsection (5), which we have just amended. Paragraph 8 of the Schedule provides that the Board shall not proceed further with consideration of these proposals if a qualified independent trade union which has entered into a recognition agreement in respect of the premises concerned before 18th September 1967 objects to the classification. The agreement must have continued in operation from the date of its conclusion to the time when the trade union objects. It should be noted in passing that this power to veto classification is conferred
78
by the Bill only on the trade union and not on the other party to the agreement, the employer, though the employer is allowed, I understand from the Bill, the right to make representations. We do not object to that in this case.
It follows that the right of veto applies only in respect of agreements entered into some nine years or more ago—what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, calls a long-established agreement. The validity of agreements, I should have thought, however, does not normally depend on the length of time they have been in operation. Indeed, the more recently an agreement has been made, the stronger, if anything, is its claim not to be interfered with, since circumstances are less likely to have changed in the meantime.
My Lords, this Amendment which we are now moving replaces the date 18th September 1967 by the date 3rd December 1975, which was—I have looked up and established—the date on which this Bill was introduced into the Commons. An Amendment of this sort was discussed both in Committee and on Report. It was not possible to reach a conclusion, because we received no advice or assistance on the appropriate date, given that, as we had made clear, the date in the Bill was quite unacceptable to my noble friends and myself. We invited the noble Lord to suggest another date if he thought it more appropriate.
The point I made on Report was that recognition agreements freely and lawfully entered into—indeed such agreements have been encouraged by the Government—ought not to be over-ridden by any Minister of the Crown for entirely extraneous reasons. If, however, the agreements were entered into in order to avoid the effects of intended legislation of which the parties to the agreement had had notice, it would not be wholly unprecedented to provide that immunity from interference would only apply to agreements entered into after the date on which the parties would be presumed to have had notice of the intended form of the legislation. It seems to me that perhaps for that reason the 3rd December 1975, the date on which the Bill was introduced into the House, would be a more appropriate date than the 10th February, which was the date when it was first discussed in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has claimed that acceptance of this Amendment would frustrate a principle of the Bill. The implication is that one of the principles of the Bill is precisely to override agreements—not, if I may say so, a very respectable principle. I would not, of course, go so far as to say that agreements should never be overridden—even recognition agreements—by legislation, but they should surely be overridden by legislation only when the agreements are not and never have been in the national interest, even though lawful at the time. I would submit to your Lordships that this could rarely, if ever, be argued in the sort of case likely to arise under this Schedule.
Once the whole or part of the work done on particular premises was classified, then to that extent the employer would be bound by the rules to be made under the new dock labour scheme, with all its provisions, including allocation of dock workers, redundancy, dismissal and so on; the recognition situation would be bound to change in time, probably quite quickly. In particular the implications for good industrial relations would be very serious, especially with only part of the work done on the premises being classified. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has maintained in effect that work which was once done by registered dockers and which has been replaced by work of a different
80
character ought to be returned to registered dock workers; and if the Secretary of State so decides, those who are now doing the work should become registered dock workers, possibly via the extension register, whether or not that is what the workers concerned want. This is what he is arguing for. The noble Lord has said the Bill provides a sensible means of seeking the best solution to difficulties which have arisen through changes in the nature and location of dock work in recent years.
The difficulties that have arisen, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has been pointing out, are difficulties that have always arisen whenever technological change has taken place. Of course, those who suffer from such change are bound to resent and resist it. The Luddites resisted, as my noble friend said; the railwaymen protested as freight went from the railways to the road, the miners protested as coal was replaced by oil, gas and nuclear power. Of course, new processes can replace the old on the same premises, with the same employer and the same workers, in some circumstances, given careful planning and good industrial relations and a favourable competitive situation. But that is not what has happened in the case of the changes we are considering. We have to look at things as they are and not as they might have been. We simply cannot turn the clock back.
I ask this: Are we in this Bill to establish the principle that wherever technological change takes place, the workers in the old processes should always operate the new processes? Is that the principle the Bill is seeking to establish? Or is the so-called principle which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, says this Amendment would frustrate a special case in circumstances where, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has said today, pressure is being brought to bear on the Government by powerful interests which find their privileges and their monopoly threatened?
If it is intended that in all cases the workers who have been doing the whole process should do the new process, it is wholly impracticable as a principle. The world simply cannot stand still until workers in the old processes are trained to do the work in the new processes. This would not be possible even if this country were halted in its tracks. It is quite

81
unfair both to the employers who have had the initiative and enterprise to start up new processes and to the workers whom they have employed and trained to operate them that the industrial structure that they have together created should be replaced, or overlaid, as they are bound to be in the long run —and I have already argued this this afternoon —by terms and conditions of employment prevailing in organisations operating the old processes.
Where recognitions were already in existence before the Bill was printed and introduced in Parliament, the workers should be permitted, through their trade unions, to prevent classification if they do not want it. We have heard much talk about industrial participation and industrial democracy. Are the wishes of the existing workers not to he followed merely because the Government think it right to ignore them? There can be no possible justification for restricting the right of veto to those trade unions which entered into recognition agreements before September 1967, which was before the technological changes of containerisation, roll-on, roll-off, and the rest came to fruition. The operative date should be 3rd December 1975. I beg to move.
6. 42 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the objections to this Amendment have been fully deployed both in Committee and at Report stage. The Government are convinced that its effect would be to frustrate a principal objective of the Bill, which is to make possible consideration of the classification of work which was done under the 1967 Scheme but has subsequently been transferred outside the port area and undertaken by unregistered workers. It would not be consistent with this objective to give the automatic right of veto as the Amendment proposes in respect of such work, and thus preclude thorough examination by the Board to determine whether it would be sensible in all the circumstances to recommend classification. The veto provision was made solely to ensure that long established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage Operations not related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations should not be classified as dock work and therefore not subject to the Scheme.
82
The question was raised in Committee as to the extent to which the new techniques which have been developed in recent years have been in substitution for dock work. Without a detailed examination of the particular work and circumstances no meaningful assessment can be made. It is therefore all the more important that the Board should not be precluded by the veto from making a thorough examination of such work so that they may make an informed assessment under Clause 9(6). The fact that the right of veto is not accorded to a trade union, not recognised continually since 18th September 1976, has and will have, no effect on its recognition agreement or collective agreement in respect of terms and conditions of employment with an employer. It is again emphasised that the principles of the Bill as drafted have the support of the TUC Transport Committee and there has been so suggestion from that source that the Bill should be amended as the Opposition proposes.
Finally, I should point out that this Amendment is, in the present state of the Bill, quite superfluous, because under Schedule 3, paragraph 11, as added at Report stage, the agreement of both employers and unions is required before work can be classified whenever there is a collective agreement, irrespective of its date. I would suggest that you should rest upon the Amendment you have got through at the Report stage and not duplicate it at this stage.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support this Amendment. In attempting to deal with perhaps a few particular cases the Government, in drafting this Bill, have thrown their net very wide indeed. The only unions which are in a position to comment on a proposal for classification, it is said here, must be subject to a recognition agreement since September 1967. That is over nine years ago. Surely in many premises where work of this kind is going on the work was started after that. It might have been started in January 1968. That is again nearly nine years. Are we saying that if an employer and his employees formed a collective agreement in 1968, that it can he overthrown because it was not created in 1967 when perhaps the premises had not even been built?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we have not mentioned anything being overthrown. We have just said they cannot get a right of veto.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, why should the trade union which has been working for all this long time not have the same right as one that has been working a few months longer? I do not understand any magic in the date of September 1967.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that was the date when the 1967 Scheme came into operation.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am obliged. That establishes what the date was, but what its relevance is I cannot see. It is perfectly reasonable for any business which has been created since 1967 up to the time of the Bill being introduced for the employers to be entitled to make a collective agreement, and for that collective agreement to continue. The noble Lord says that this can still continue, but the work can be classified. I think that is the noble Lord's argument. But does he say that the classification of the work makes no difference at all? My noble friend Lord Wigoder, who put his name to the Amendment, asked that question at an early stage at Second Reading, and asked whether it was a fact that people would not be affected at all by classification. I do not recollect that the answer was entirely satisfactory.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I cannot answer that question unless I know what is meant by "people".
Viscount SIMON: The people working. We are in a dilemma here, and I am trying to understand this. Either the effect is that other people are going to be able to get this work or it has no effect at all. If it has no effect at all, what is the purpose of preventing people from keeping outside classification?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have replied to this question certainly twice, and probably three times. The people already doing the work are not affected in the sense that they would lose their job or be made redundant first. They are affected only in the sense that they could go on the extension register, and then on the main register and become registered dockers.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, what would happen if people did not want to become registered dockers? Or is it because of severance pay, and all the other special privileges the dockers have, that it is thought that all the people concerned will want to join them? Is that the case? Is it perhaps the case that this date has been selected because the thinking was, "Well, an awful lot of cold stores have been built in the last 10 years. We have had a lot of roads built. Dockers' jobs have disappeared out of all recognition in that time. We must be rather careful how we handle it. Let us think of a suitable date", and 1967 comes up as being a date for which you can find some justification. It seems to me that it is rather like that, and not a good fundamental reason. I strongly suggest to my noble friends that it is much better to have a date with a good fundamental reason; for example, the date from which the Bill started to be considered seriously I therefore hope that my noble friend will press the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN:My Lords, we have gone over this ground a good deal and a similar Amendment was moved in the other place and carried with a very small majority. In view of the Amendments that have been made to the Bill, it is right that we should send this Amendment on for further consideration. It is especially right when one bears in mind that it is proposed that in some cases only part of the work should be classified, which would mean having in the same factory, warehouse, depot, cold store and so on, part of the workforce under one set of rules and part under another. That is totally unacceptable and is a prescription for industrial trouble.
I hope the House will feel that it is not right to attach too much importance to inter-union disputes or disputes between workforces at different premises. The important thing above all is to get good industrial relations within each set of premises. If good relations persist at present, it would be a great mistake to interfere with them in any way. Workers in premises where good relations exist should have the right to say through their trade unions, "No, we do not want classification". Remember, work may be considered for classification when it is work not only for export but for internal

85
trade. It would be the greatest mistake in cases of that sort to classify either the whole of the work, because that would give rise to trouble, or part of the work, which would give rise to even more trouble, and therefore this veto should be reconsidered in another place.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Onslow, E.

Ampthill, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Harcourt, V.

St. Davids, V.

Blakenham, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Kemsley, V.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Killearn, L.

seear, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Seebohm, L.

Caccia, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Simon, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tenby, V.

Coleraine, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Craigavon, V.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Cross, V.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Daventry, V.

Morris, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nelson of Stafford. L.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Newall, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Ebbisham, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Ellenborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Peddie, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Vaizey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L

Wallace of Coslany L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Pannell, L.

7. 1 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord can find nothing to say in support of the Bill that now leaves us, but perhaps not surprising. I should like to spend a minute or two, first with some courtesies to thank my noble friends behind me for their exceeding hard work through all stages of the Bill, and to the two noble Lords opposite who have done their best to make something useful of the past two or three weeks in the very trying circumstances in which we have found ourselves. But after those courtesies, which are quite sincere, I must also be candid. Here we send on its way a Bill which is totally irrelevant to rectifying the parlous economic condition we are in and, in many respects, more than likely, even though we have improved it, to add to the cost of food coming in through the ports and to the selling prices and delays borne by exports going out through the ports.
We have a divisive and partisan Bill in nature greatly increasing and enlarging the rights and benefits of one powerful and favoured group of work people, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said earlier, against a number of smaller unions, with more skilled men but less important politically to the Party opposite. We have a Bill which together with four or five others has been hustled through this House with a haste which has made it impossible to consider its details thoroughly or to properly consult with the interests outside, people whose numbers and whose concern has grown as they have realised what is about to be perpetrated.
It is true that there are references in the Bill to the Labour Manifesto indicating some support from the Party opposite. But, despite that, though today has been an exception, on average there have been no more than 45 Labour Peers supporting their Government in the Lobbies, out of the 150 who should be available to them. The last noble Lord opposite, with whom I discussed this Bill because I valued his experience and who was at one time distinguished general secretary of one of
88
the largest unions, many of whose members we know—even if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, does not—feel threatened with this Bill, said that he was leaving on a long sea cruise. And by now he has left.
But it is not just a matter of lack of support and disarray in the Party opposite. Their claims to govern were never very strong from the start. Those claims have got weaker and weaker as time went by and now, since last week, the last faltering confidence of the electorate in their present Government is seen to have snapped altogether. But, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal was saying, the Government are still there and we have to be content with our revising role.
In that respect I think we were heartened by the words of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon when he stressed the importance, as he saw it, of this revising work that we have done on this Bill. He enumerated the Amendments which we have made and he went on to attach importance, as a senior member of the Cabinet, to the consideration that our changes will now receive in another place. But this same afternoon that same Government in another place have put the guillotine on all those Amendments. So what do we make of those remarks and assurances? All I can say is that we have done our best in the short time allowed to us to improve the Bill, to limit its worst effects, to give more emphasis to the public interest in the docks and, above all, to protect the interests of the work people who believe their livelihood to be threatened by this Bill and who show no sign whatever of being reassured by any of the reassurances that have been given so far.
Another place may well take a different view from us on some of the content and substance of the Bill. But I am certain it would be the view of all your Lordships, especially those who have taken an active part in discussing this Bill, that these Amendments, especially the last group to Schedule 3, the purpose of which has been to protect the interests of people who feel threatened by the Bill, should at least be carefully considered and discussed in another place if Parliament can ever deserve the confidence of the people it is supposed to protect.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said by expressing our thanks to the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite who have been extremely patient and courteous throughout difficult debates, sometimes putting us right. After all these weeks I still find this an extremely complicated Bill to understand and the noble Lords opposite have been very kind in putting us right when we were obviously wrong, sometimes putting us wrong when we thought we were right.
As regards the substance of the Bill, our views were expressed on Second Reading and are not in the least changed by what has been done. We have made some improvements and, if I thought some of them were going to stick, I would feel happier than I was when the Bill started its career in this House. I repeat what I said earlier to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I hope the more important Amendments, and there are some of obviously great importance, will be given careful consideration in another place. I should like, because it is partly my own child, to recommend particularly that Amendment which removed from the scope of the Dock Labour Board the question of terms and conditions of employment. When I mentioned this aspect originally, I had very welcome support from the noble Lord, Lord Brown, whose judgment on these matters I always regard very highly. I hope that the Government will ask the Members of another place to look very carefully at that, and I hope they will not reinstate the Bill as it was.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I add my brief remarks in sending this Bill happily on its way—if that is a good phrase. I wish to add my thanks to the courtesy and good humour of the noble Lords opposite, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, as we have battered them from time to time through the late hours. If it is in order, I also wish to thank and congratulate the shorthand writers and compilers of the Official Report, whom I feel in the Committee stage, which was more than we normally handle in this House, did a wonderful job, as indeed at all stages, but particularly then.
With regard to the Bill, there is much that I could say. Personally there is one point on which I entirely agree with the
90
noble Lord, Lord Jacques; namely, that the dock work regulations require updating and therefore a Bill is necessary. It seems to me that this Bill meets even now the main points which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, spelled out on Second Reading; to wit, the meeting of the ILO Convention No. 137. He specified that Clauses 2, 5 and 8 were the key ones which did this and we have scarcely amended those at all; indeed such Amendments as we have made to Clause 2 were in agreement with noble Lords opposite. The other point was that there should be some kind of equation between the terms and conditions of dock workers and white-collar workers, in relation to which, for some reason, the noble Lord said that this Bill was necessary, whereas it seems to me that the Employment Protection Act should be perfectly satisfactory. We had an interchange on this at one stage in Committee and I think that the noble Lord agreed that perhaps there are certain facets of the Employment Protection Act which would do but that the dockers wanted their own Bill. It would seem to me to be in character if that were so, but regrettable all the same.
The other point which the noble Lord made was that it was necessary for the Bill to cover an updating in the sense that it took account of all the previous Reports—Bristow, Aldington-Jones and so on. I would suspect that this has over-coloured the issue. Most importantly, I implore the Government—and certainly even recently it does not appear that they have very open minds on this point—not to be too wedded to the cargo-handling zone. It seems to me that the improvements we have made collectively in this House are improvements which make the Bill more palatable and more acceptable to people at this time. What the Government must do is avoid an updating which is more extensive in the direction of meeting the aspirations of the dock workers than the rest of us, expecially other workers, can accept.
All too frequently in recent years—and my own Party has not been blameless in this respect—legislation affecting human relations has gone further and faster than ordinary people can adjust to it. There are facets in the race relations legislation and the equal opportunities legislation—just to pick out a couple of examples—which are really disturbing people, and it

91
does not matter that their disturbance may be unfounded; it does not matter that it may be misplaced. They are disturbed, and more than a certain amount of disturbance is not only bad for the country as a whole but is making life intolerable to live for various groups of people. The Government must not be in such a hurry to push us all in directions which a relatively small number of people think are theoretically good for us. Even if such people are right—and many of us have grave doubts about that—they will not achieve their aims by pressing ahead too fast, but will merely cause disquiet and unrest.
So I believe that the Bill is about as good as it can be. I think perhaps that it goes a little too fast, certainly it does not go too slowly, in the direction of making the adjustments, which the noble Lords opposite quite genuinely and rightly want, to update the dock work regulations. I absolutely implore the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, with whom we have had so many discussions over these weeks and indeed months now, to try to convey to their friends in another place that they really must put out of their minds any sense of false pride. They must forget the politics; my noble friend Lord Sandford made clear what the situation was there—
Lord JACQUES:But he did not forget the politics.
Lord MOTTISTONE: No, that is right; he made clear what the situation was there. I want to put in my point on the grounds of common sense and common humanity. I honestly believe that it would be worth noble Lords opposite making real effort to persuade their friends in another place not to be carried away by their own dogma but to see this as a genuine attempt by people who have been spending a lot of time and hard work to try to get it right, in a situation in which politics has weighed far less than it does in another place. This should be seen as a genuine attempt to improve what is a difficult human relations situation, with as good an understanding as we can make it of the problems of the dockers and of the others. For Heavens' sake! let them pay attention and please make this move as I implore them to do.
7. 16 p. m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to add briefly to the congratulations expressed by my noble friends to the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram. However, I feel that we started off badly by suggesting that dockers were a privileged group, and we end our consideration of the Bill with that position absolutely confirmed. In whatever way the Bill has been amended, there is one thing that it has not done; namely, to bring dockers within the framework of the law. Within the past three days on the South Coast an unofficial committee has dictated for the second time in 12 months what work will come into and what work will not come into a port. When that position pertains other groups of people can hardly be expected to take much heart from a Bill of this kind. The Bill, even as it has been amended, sets one group above another group. It does nothing to encourage greater endeavour, greater productivity in the dock industry, an industry which is so essential to our very survival.
It has been said, somewhat emotively, that the dockers can hold the country to ransom if they have this Bill. I do not believe that the Bill has anything to do with that. Any group can do this if they so have a mind. I believe that it is the Government's job—the Government of the day—to set conditions that are such that that threat should not be necessary. Too often it is the case that the Government have not encouraged the total and full use of our resources to a common end, and that is because of these divisive and restrictive practices which are built into Bills of this kind.
I believe that the Bill fails quite disastrously to reflect the general feeling of the country in so far as this Government's current programme of legislation is concerned. I think that whatever the other place may do to the Bill and whatever we may do when it returns, there will remain a mark against one particular industry, and this cannot be in our general interest.
Lord DRIJMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words as a kind of valedictory message for the Bill, to send it on its way. No doubt we shall see it again, at any rate in part. My

93
noble friend Lord Mottistone said he thought that the Bill was about as good as it could be. I cannot agree with that because I do not think that we have had enough discussion on it. The discussion at any rate has been compressed into too short a time. I believe that we could have done better with the Bill had we had more time to get to know what it really meant.
Let me say this. It is well known, I think, that when we are engaged on a Bill of this kind consultations go on behind the scenes. Such consultations have been utterly impossible in the case of this Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would have been as willing as anybody else to have had such consultations, but they just have not been possible in the time-scale. I must say that, in view of the fact that in many cases during the time we have been considering this Bill the first time the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, saw Amendments was on the very morning of the day on which they had to be discussed, they have done a very good job. Perhaps I may say this, too. We have Lord Jacques here, and I believe that this may well be one of the last Bills that he has to deal with in this House. I could have wished that the had had a Bill that could have produced more unanimity in this House; but, having said that, I must join with my noble friends on this side of the House in congratulating him on the way he has handled this Bill, and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Oram, too. We are accustomed to the cheerfulness of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in dealing with these Bills, and to the kindness he shows. Lord Oram has not been with us quite so long, but he has been meticulous and extremely kind in the way that he has dealt with matters that have come along.
My Lords, there are just three or four points I think I want very quickly to make. Perhaps the major problem in this Bill has been the cargo-handling zone. The Amendments which were made rendered it impossible, because the rest was moved out of the Bill at the same time, to consider the power to extend the zone. I think we ought not to take leave of this Bill without saying that we would oppose very strongly that power to extend the zone, whatever it may be. One must reach finality somewhere, and, for heaven's sake!, once we have decided what the zone should be, let us leave it at that. The second
94
major change we have made is on the definition of "cargo"; and the third is on the whole subject of classification. These are extremely important changes, but there is one point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, and that is the structure of the Bill and the way in which trade union affairs are being dealt with under this Bill.
One has to look back to In Place of Strife to find any kind of parallel to the powers of the Secretary of State to decide trade union affairs. It is true, of course, that the Secretary of State has to make orders, that they have to be laid before the House and that they are subject to the annulment procedure except in the case of the new dock Scheme itself. But if the two Houses of Parliament are to consider each set of premises covered by an order then we shall have a positive torrent of orders and representations made to Members of either House, and it will be impossible for Members of either House to keep up with this torrent of orders. It may be that the Government will decide to combine a lot of work done in different premises in a single order, and will bring it along in that form. In that case the opposite will occur, of course, and it will be impossible on such a composite order to discuss the circumstances of the various premises concerned. We seem to be in a complete dilemma here. Either there will be a torrent of orders, when they will come so thick and fast that it will be impossible for either House to examine them, let alone to discuss them, or else they will be grouped together in such a form that we cannot have a meaningful discussion about them.
There is something structurally wrong with this Bill and the one thing I do not like about it is the tendency towards bureaucracy that it shows. For a long time the trade unions have argued that, subject to the general law, they should be left to run their own affairs. Here is a step in a totally different direction. I do not know whether or not the trade unions have taken this sufficiently on board, but I am sure they soon will do so if and when the Bill comes to be worked. My Lords, I thought it worth while to make these comments because these are things we have not had an opportunity to discuss, particularly the question of the extension of the zone and the general bureaucratic tendency which this Bill shows.
7. 26 p. m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before we come to an end it might be in order for me to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, for the tireless way in which they have answered our questions and kept at it hour after hour, day after day. I think all of us admire them. Ever since I came to these Benches my own work and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, seem to have been inextricably linked. I seem to remember that together we have been over many small orders, measures and other things before. All of us on these Benches, particularly, will hope to see him in the future, but possibly not so late at night, and possibly able to enjoy his work here more than might have been the case. But perhaps I might also intervene at this late stage in the Bill's progress to consider one or two of the major points that we have dealt with during the two periods on Report stage and the four on Committee that we have had in the case of this Bill. They have been extremely long and tiring, but I hope worth while.
The first main factor we considered was the public interest, and in this matter we were particularly pleased that we had powerful support from the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell, Lord George-Brown and Lord Wigg. We were also particularly pleased that the Government were able to agree an Amendment that allowed this particular interest to be incorporated in the Bill. We also felt that we should like to link to the public interest the matter of public inquiries, and we are pleased that this is now in the Bill and will at least be able to be discussed and considered further in the other place. The second major point which has been covered by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, far more eloquently than I can is the matter of the cargo-handling zone. Of course, this has given rise to much uncertainty and confusion, but, nevertheless, we shall look forward to hearing what another place have to say about this concept.
We have also looked at costs and cost efficiency, and I am afraid that swords have been crossed at these Boxes and in the Lobbies. As to appeals against classification, we feel strongly about this matter. I am sure noble Lords opposite do and that the Government do as well.
96
However, this has been one of the major points on which we stuck in the case of this particular Bill, and we shall be very interested to see what has happened to this concept when the Bill returns from another place.
My Lords, we have spent long hours here and elsewhere in dealing with this thorny Bill, which, as so many noble Lords have pointed out this evening, and indeed before, is irrelevant and also, we believe, the cause of much worry and concern. We have had representations from employers' organizations. from whole groups and deputations from the entire workforce at ports and docks. Some answers we have had from the Government but regrettably some we have not. However, in all that we did we from these Benches, at least, sought to improve the Bill. Whether we did or not has to be left to the judgment of the other place and, indeed, of the Government. All the Amendments, we believe, ought to have been discussed, and certainly it is regrettable that already at this stage, before the Bill has left us, the guillotine has been trundled out at the other end of the corridor.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I just say to my noble friend that I hope it was a slipped word. I should not like to leave everything that has happened to the other place. In view of all the reactions we have had, I hope we retain some freedom to do something about it.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I would add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I think this Bill will be on its way back, and that the next round of the contest will be on us sooner rather than later. We have sought to improve this Bill. We are most grateful to the Government and I should add a word of gratitude to my own Front Bench. I have been very much in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, the junior partner. I have had three different partners for the doubles match on the Front Bench and I have been happy to receive instructions from all of them. I shall look forward to having many future contests with the noble Lord, Lord Oram. When this Bill is finally dealt with, we all hope that the noble Lord, Lord

97
Jacques, will be able to continue, possibly in a more restful vein.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 p. m. until 7.45 p. m.]

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
7.45 p. m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Purpose of ss. 3 to 5.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord PLATT: Before we finally leave Clause 2, in the Committee stage at any rate, I would remind your Lordships that this is the important clause which really declares the intentions of the Bill. What I want to question are the really remarkable words—I am sorry to say so— of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, during the first day of the Committee stage; namely, on November 4th last and reported in the Hansard of that date in col. 1496 in which he said inter alia:
"We are not opposed to private medicine. I do not think we shall ever be opposed to private medicine, but what we say is that if people want it they must pay for it. It really is as simple as that."
Is it not a fact that private patients pay enormous sums to the hospitals for private beds and private attention and that, in addition, they pay their physicians' fees or their surgeons' fees? The sum which is charged nowadays can amount, I am told, on some occasions to £200 or £300 a week.
98
This is worked out on a basis which is supposed to be an economic basis of what it costs to keep such a person in hospital. If that basis is not right and they should be paying more, well, that can be put right without an Act of Parliament because it has been increased many times. So I do not understand the meaning of the words; "that if people want it they must pay for it". They are paying for it in full measure and they are paying their Health Service contributions in addition. I should like clarification on that point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Lord had referred to my Second Reading speech he would have seen that I there dealt with the matter rather more fully. There is no question that people who require the services of consultants privately and who wish to have a pay bed do, in fact, pay the consultant. That has never been in dispute. They also pay whatever the National Health Service considers to be appropriate in respect of the bed they are occupying. What I was trying to make clear was in answer (if my memory is correct) to the suggestions which have been made, not explicitly but implicitly, in this House that this is the thin end of the wedge on the part of the Government to get shot of private medicine altogether. I have said on at least two occasions, and this will be the third, that that is not the Government's intention. The Government have no intention of doing away with private medicine. They have no plans—and when I say that they have no plans I do not wish to imply "no plans at the moment"—for getting rid of private medicine.
I think that my words on that occasion—and I am trusting entirely to memory— were that we believe in a mixed economy; we believe that there should be a place in our society for State intervention, State ownership and for private enterprise. All I was trying to say is that on the one side we shall have State enterprise which is the National Health Service and that, as I cited at the time about those people who have feelings about the educational field and who want to send their child or children to independent schools, people should have a right of choice and should have the right to pay. This is our philosophy so far as medicine is concerned.
Lord PLATT: Why should they not have that right in a National Health Service hospital? It seems totally irrelevant to the Bill. If the intentions of the Government are that they should pay for their treatment—and they are paying for it—I do not see that the Bill has any particular purpose.
Baroness YOUNG: I would support the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I think he has made a valuable point. I do not think anybody doubts the word of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he says that he certainly does not believe in the phasing out from the Health Service of private medicine. What I think is disturbing to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to other doctors, to those of us on this side and indeed to a great many people in the country, is that an enormous number of undertakings were given at the inception of the National Health Service that it would be a partnership between the two; that doctors could practise and have their pay beds within the National Health Service. That undertaking is disappearing under the present Bill and people are doubtful of what credence can be put into guarantees that private medicine will be allowed to exist.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that things that were mentioned by her Party 30 years ago would hold good today? She knows very well that circumstances change with each decade. With each generation you have to look afresh at things. Her Party has done this time and time again. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I do not quarrel with it at all. I know that the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the Government is not going to be reconciled. We are wanting to separate private practice from the National Health Service because we believe that by having private practice within the National Health Service certain people get a measure of priority. In the National Health Service hospitals people are not given pay beds because of urgency. They are very often dealt with for social and personal reasons. Because they have the money to go to a consultant for a private bed they are taken over and above a long list of people who have been waiting for treatment for some considerable time.
Lord PLATT: There is a rhetorical device called the ignoratio elenchi, in which one side of the argument takes a long time to prove something which the other person never contested.
Lord SANDYS: We have had a debate on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?, and I believe that this marks a stage in our discussions on the Bill. The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord Lord Platt, for what he has said because it has crystallised the view expressed at Standing Committee. The right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Mr. Ennals, quoted what he said to the COHSE conference in the latter part of the summer. I quote:
"We are in the realm of a political debate. This Government was elected on a Manifesto calling for the phasing out of pay beds. We have introduced a Bill to do just that and the Conservatives are determined to block it if they can. "
That is a statement in the baldest possible terms.
When we look at Clause 2 we have an extraordinary incompatability of the two Parts of the Bill. When we addressed ourselves to our Amendment, we endeavoured to demonstrate to the Government that there was an incompatibility between subsection (1) and subsection (2). Subsection (1) states the Government's present policy and subsection (2) proposes to restate the rights of National Health Service part-time consultants. What the Government are giving with one hand, they are taking away with the other. We feel that Clause 2 is an unsatisfactory clause in that as a declaratory statement it says something which is both incompatible and difficult to appreciate. We have addressed ourselves to these Amendments. We consider that this clause would be very much better left out of the Bill and I think that we can leave it at that.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We shall make a great deal of progress if the Opposition understands clearly that the purpose of this Bill is to separate private practice from the National Health Service based on what has come to be known as the Goodman proposals. It is all very well for the Opposition time and time again to pursue a policy of non-co-operation. We understand this. But they are repeating themselves and nothing can be done about the matter. I would

101
remind your Lordships that when the Goodman proposals were drafted they were sent by the British Medical Association to 12,200 consultants (and I may say the question posed was heavily weighted by the BMA) who asked whether the consultants would be prepared to see these proposals in the legislation or prefer to resign from the National Health Service. As I said on Second Reading, over 5,000 consultants did not bother to reply, so one is entitled to assume that they were not very stirred up about it.
Lord O'HAGAN: No!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Of course noble Lords opposite will not agree. If people are stirred up about something, presumably they will say so. I am not going to give way to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I am sorry about this. If noble Lords want to waste time—I realise that this is part of their policy—we will find other ways of dealing with it.
Lord PLATT: Threat!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, that is not a threat; that is a promise. However, 7, 039 consultants were in favour of embodying these proposals in legislation. Out of 12,200 consultants only 21 per cent. voted against the proposals. Can noble Lords opposite really say that the Government have failed to discharge honourably their undertaking to embody the Goodman proposals in the Bill? They know very well that the Government have acted honourably in this matter. They have included all the Goodman proposals in this Bill. We have done precisely what Goodman was able to arrange between the BMA, who spoke on behalf of the consultants, and the Government. What more can your Lordships want?
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Immediate duty of Secretary of State as regards withdrawal of NHS beds. from resident private patients]:
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): Before I call Amendment No. 10, I should point out that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 11
8 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 10:,
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) Within 12 months after the passing of this Act the Board shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for reducing, in the case of each Area Health Authority, Health Board and group of preserved Boards in Great Britain, the number of beds at NHS hospitals administered by that Authority, or by Boards within that group, authorised under section 1(1) of the 1968 Act to be made available to resident private patients, provided that the total number of beds proposed for such reduction shall not exceed 1,000.
(2)It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to the said proposal.")
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps might preface my remarks by saying that we shall make better progress on this Bill if we assume that both sides are acting in good faith. Some of us were disturbed that the Government did not see fit to put down any Amendments at all. The fact that we have gone through the Bill very thoroughly and put down a number of Amendments that we are concerned about should not be attributed to the desire to spin out proceedings on the Bill. We believe this is a very important matter which concerns a number of highly controversial issues.
If I may give my interpretation of what have come to be called the "Goodman Amendments", it is perfectly true that the Government are bound by those because, as I understand it, they were introduced to stop the doctors striking. But the House of Lords need not necessarily feel themselves bound by the Goodman Amendments. We are, after all, one of the Houses of Parliament and it is our job to look at legislation. This is the point, as I understand it, that came up last time. We were told that we could not move at all because of the Goodman Amendments and I said that the Government treated them rather like a Hebrew scholar looking at a Biblical text. There is a very good purpose for that kind of study and I should be the last to deny it; but legislation should not simply be considered in that way. Of course, the wording must be correct, but so must the principle.
The Amendment I am now moving has a very important principle behind it. Its purpose it to try to ensure that it will be the Board and not the Secretary of State which will be responsible for phasing

103
out the first 1,000 beds. We are by no means clear why it is the Secretary of State who has to do that and perhaps the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will tell us why that is so. We have simply been given Schedule 2—to which we shall be turning later—with a list of those beds that are to be phased out. I. have discovered in conversation and from correspondence that an enormous amount of work is already being done on the 1,000 beds that are being phased out without, once again, waiting until Parliament has decided to pass the Bill before the whole thing is put into effect. Of course, the Government have given themselves an absurdly tight timetable on the phasing out and we shall be looking at that again in later Amendments. The fact is that it is very difficult for the Government to say they can phase out 1,000 beds in six months.
How can they foresee that the beds they have phased out or that they propose to phase out, are the right ones? How do they now that something may not happen? Let us suppose there is a terrible disaster; for example, a fire in some hospital. If the hospital is burned down, does that mean that the whole situation will have to stand or will alternative arrangements have to be made? In the case of a shifting population, will alternative arrangements also have to be made? All sorts of things can happen.
However, the most important reason for this Amendment is that if the Government believe, as I assume they do—and certainly it is my reading of the Goodman Amendments that that is the intention—that the Board should be the key to the success of the working of the private and the National Health Services, then it must be seen to have certain functions. It seems to me that in Clause 3 it would be right for the Board to be given the function of phasing out the first 1,000 beds, as proof on the part of the Government that they believe it should have the power and that if it has the power to phase out the remaining 3,500 beds it could perfectly well phase out the first 1,000. I hope the Government will feel able to accept this Amendment. It does not in any way damage the principle behind the Bill because everyone agrees that the first 1,000 beds shall be phased out, so they have the principle as it stands. But surely it is
104
more sensible for the Board to be responsible, and not the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
8. 5 p. m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I am glad the noble Baroness emphasised the point that what we are considering are the Government's proposals and not the compromise put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am getting a little weary of hearing the name of the noble Lord, for whom I have a great admiration, just as I have for Henry Kissinger—and they have something in common—but we are not here to bow the knee to the Gospel according to Saint Arnold; we are here to consider specific proposals on their merits. And what is the proposal that is contained in this clause? It is that from above, whether it be the Secretary of State or the Board, there is this decision that there has to be at the outset a reduction of a 1,000 beds, without considering whether that is the right figure or whether it will reduce the amount of private bed accommodation, to the worsening of public services.
It is an arbitrary decision from above; and I should like to know how that number was arrived at. Please do not say in reply that it was arrived at by the workings of the intricate mind of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We are considering the public interest, or should be. What are the arguments in terms of the public interest for selecting this figure of 1,000 beds and then in Schedule 2 arbitrarily dividing it up between the various areas? It seems to me that we need to be convinced that that is the right figure. Perhaps it has been chosen for purely political reasons, following pressure by various trade unions. If that is so, then I hope the noble Lord, with his customary candour, will say so. Otherwise I hope he will explain to us why it is 1,000 and not 900, or why it is 1,000 and not 1,100, for we are considering provision for sick people, even though they are people who are willing to pay for privacy and private attention.
I suggest that although in the case of subsequent reductions criteria are to be applied, as laid down in the Bill—criteria of the adequacy of services and so on—in this case there is an arbitrary fixing of the figure of 1,000. I think this Chamber,

105
is entitled to know upon what human medical and social grounds that figure of 1, 000 was determined. Do not, please, tell us that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his omniscience divined that figure. He was fixing things to avoid a strike. He was preparing a compromise, and very skilled he is at that business. But the fact that in his fixing he tries the figure of 1,000 does not prove that it is right, that it is in the public interest or that it is one we should support.
Lord PLATT: I do not want to intervene too often and I shall not repeat the arguments which have already been put so well by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. But is it not very unusual for a Bill of this kind to contain, before we have had any time to discuss it, an actual list of all the hospitals it is proposed to close? Are we supposed to be taking each hospital into account if we pass this Bill? I suggest this is the wrong way to go about it.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment because I have an extreme dislike of direction from the Secretary of State or other officers who are divorced both in position and influence from the grass roots, concerning things such as how many private beds are wanted in any given area or how many of the beds can be phased out in a given area. Such things must depend on the conditions where an arrangement is to be carried out.
I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that whether it is 1,000 beds, 800 beds or 900 beds, we do not know why the figure was chosen. It is just a figure which has been put forward. But what we ought to know about, and ought to be able to have some influence on, is the way in which this phasing out is to be done. It should not just be done by the Secretary of State, when boards are being appointed to supervise and run the scheme, and when it is said that they are the people who will do it. The people who will do it are those in Whitehall. That is all very well, but it is a long way away from the hospitals mentioned in the Bill in these different areas of the North of England, Scotland, West Wales and so on. The conditions are so very varied.
There is aleady a list in Schedule 2, stating the number of pay-beds that will be
106
withdrawn. Who suggested that? Was it the local people, was it the people in Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northum-berland, Gateshead, et cetera, or was it the people in Whitehall? What we want to be certain about is that the operation of the Bill, which none of us likes, shall be as close to the hospitals, to the doctors, to the nurses and to the patients as it can possibly be, because the local conditions can be known only by the Board and its subsidiary companies running the different areas, and not by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I support this Amendment most wholeheartedly.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I, too, should love to support this Amendment, but before I say why I should like to say something about the great play which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made of this ballot that went out to all members of the medical profession, and of the fact that only 21 percent. voted against the Goodman proposals. I am very worried that unless we think about it very carefully, this matter will go by default. If you know that you are faced with a Bill of some kind, you will obviously accept the better part of it that you are offered, and the Goodman proposals enabled an enormous number of the medical profession to accept it as better than they originally hoped they would be offered. On the other hand, I cannot envisage an enormous proportion of the medical profession, with their dedication to looking after their patients, resigning from the National Health Service as an alternative. In my view, it was an unfair question to ask in the ballot and that was the fault of the BMA. So when we are talking about these figures we should keep that in our minds, because they do not create a fair picture of the medical profession.
On Second Reading, I appealed to the Government, now that we have a Royal Commission, to send this problem to them. It is for the same reason that I want to support this Amendment. We seem to be setting up bodies of various kinds, and then taking the decision-making out of their hands. We are setting up the Health Services Board in order for it to make sense out of the proposals, and I believe that in future we should avoid taking decisions for the bodies which we are setting up under the Bill. The

107 same arguments apply for the whole Bill vis-ù-vis the Royal Commission, and the 1, 000 beds vis-ù-vis the Health Services Board.
Baroness VICKERS: I, too, should like to support this very practical Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may be interested to know that I have never been a patient in a pay-beds hospital, and the only time I went to hospital it was to the Middlesex Hospital where I was in a public ward. The noble Lord will re-member that we were talking about various aspects, and I thought I should like to learn for myself, and, therefore, I have some knowledge of the care that can be taken in a public ward. Also, of course, I have visited friends in private wards in order to see how they were treated. I have no complaint to make, but I understand that not everybody wishes to go into a public ward if they want privacy. Though I booked my bed some time ahead, I felt rather guilty that I was perhaps taking a bed that could have been used by somebody who could not afford to pay.
I think that this Amendment is very practical and worthy of consideration, because I should like to know how some of the decisions stated in Schedule 2 have been made. I have to take an area known to me, which is the County of Devon, which is now the biggest administrative area in the Kingdom, and Schedule 2 just states that 25 beds will be taken away from 70. There is no indication of where these will be taken from. This is very interesting, because Plymouth has by far the largest population of over 250,000, and it is also the catchment area for East Cornwall and North Devon. Then there is the Torbay area, where there are a great many elderly people. If there are to be no pay-beds for them, they will therefore fill as long-stay patients other beds which should be given to people who need them. In that area there are only four district hospitals, and we do not know whether the new one at Derriford will come to fruition and have any pay-beds. Furthermore, in the whole area there are only two small BUPA hospitals. It is also suggested that a hospital for women is to be closed, and we wish to know what is to happen in future.
108
In another place, it was said that the district administrators or the hospitals concerned have confirmed that they have resources available to use the beds for NHS patients. I am sure that the Minister does not want to be accused of having empty beds, rather than have them occupied by private patients. Also, many of the hospitals have private wings which are quite separate, and which makes administration very difficult. As the Minister will know, many of these beds are now serviced by agency nurses. Furthermore, I read in the newspapers that the North-West Thames Region will have to find annual savings of £2 million next year, and that is only one region. So I should have thought it was much better not to cut the number of pay-beds too quickly, because they will bring in some income. In the East Bucks district, there are 100 nurses who must be axed if staff levels are to be kept at the numbers which they can easily afford. Here, again, it will help if we have pay-beds. So one fears that because of these cuts the NHS patients will suffer, and already in some areas there are waiting lists of three years for minor operations, while in one area of which I know there is a waiting list of six years.
It is stated by the Royal College of Nursing that 2, 000 newly qualified nurses cannot get jobs, and it has been suggested in another place that they might become mobile. But that is not possible, because most of them are married. Therefore, if the number of pay-beds is cut too quickly those nurses will be out of work and many will not be encouraged to train for the future. We realise, too, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that there may also be overall cuts. With £20 million cut off capital spending on the Health Service next year, it would surely be more helpful to phase out these beds more slowly and continue to get the income. That would also give the Government an opportunity to find out whether there is a real need for pay-beds, and also to consult local people. Many of the hospitals are well-known to foreigners who come here in large numbers, and if they cease to come the Government will lose that income.
I gather that the Department of Health and Social Security discussed in a document the occupancy rates at April, 1976,

109
and that the Royal Marsden had 95·5 per cent. of occupancy and the Maudesley 75 per cent., with only eight pay beds. In another place the Minister stated at col. 1442:
"In none of the areas will there be elimination of all pay beds".
I should like this fact to be confirmed, because once the figure of 1,000 pay beds has been passed they may gradually eliminate the others. None of the cuts needs to result in any private patient or any consultant losing access to pay bed facilities within six months of Royal Assent, but I do not think that this is very helpful because we do not know what will happen after that period of six months.
I should also like to ask what is to happen to the endowed beds; quite a lot of beds are endowed. Are the endowed beds also to be taken off the list of beds available to private patients? I should like to suggest that the Amendment, so very well put forward by my noble friend Lady Young, is practical, not political, and that it would be in the interests of both patients and the National Health Service if it were accepted.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I support what my noble friend Lady Young has said. We have been told over and over again that the country is practically broke. Also we have been told that the Health Service is not paying its way. It is Socialist Party political dogma, which was apparent in the Manifesto, that pay beds must be withdrawn. However, their withdrawal does not make sense. Nobody who can add up two and two can believe that to phase out at great expense beds which represent an enormous amount of money per week to the Service makes sense. These beds are to be withdrawn for purely political purposes. When the National Health Service is not paying its way, surely it does not make sense to withdraw pay beds.
I notice that in the list of hospitals in Schedule 2 there is an Area Health Authority for Calderdale where no pay beds are to be taken away. There are 32 pay beds in that area. I should like to know why this has been prearranged. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that already the Department have tied the hands of the Board, a Board which is not yet in being, by telling it what it
110
shall do. I think that this is very wrong. It will be difficult to get people of great eminence to serve on this Board. They will want to do other jobs, and I doubt very much whether the Ministry will be able to find people of eminence who will be willing to give up their time to do something which the Department has already decided upon in advance. With other noble Lords I believe that this is a bad principle and I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say about it. I will not make any comment on my own area where half of the pay beds are to be done away with. However, Calderdale, where no pay beds out of the 32 are to be withdrawn, sticks out. I suggest that all 32 pay beds should be kept in that area.
Obviously we are going to fight this right the way through. For the reasons I have given, I believe that the concept of phasing out pay beds, when people want to pay money for privacy, is wrong. I support the noble Baroness in her Amendment.
Lord AUCKLAND: I do not wish to become embroiled at this stage in too much argument over Schedule 2 because we shall be coming to it later, but I had occasion at Second Reading to mention one area with which I am acquainted; namely, Cambridgeshire which includes Addenbrooke's Hospital, one of our leading provincial teaching hospitals. It contains a kidney unit, and at Second Reading I mentioned that 20 out of 56 pay beds there were being phased out. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, no doubt on advice from his Department, mentioned that there are a number of private institutions around Cambridge; but surely this argument applies to many other areas, too. I should have thought that, of all areas, Cambridgeshire—which contains one of the leading provincial teaching hospitals and which will have a great need for nurses, doctors and consultants in the future—was an ill-chosen area for the noble Lord to take.
May I return to the "teeth" of the Amendment. According to the Bill, the first 1, 000 beds are to be phased out within six months. This puts a very onerous task on to a Board which is to have only five members. We on this side of the House tried to make it seven members in Clause 1, but five have been

111
accepted for the time being. Those five members will have enormous decisions to take within a very short time. Leaving aside the mathematics, which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, very properly mentioned, this is going to put the Board into an impossible situation. I think that it would be in no way wrecking the Bill, which is in its early stages of discussion, if the time limit proposed in the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young were to be studied again. After all, 12 months would give to the Board a much longer period of time in which to hold consultations up and down the country—in the North of Scotland, in West Wales, in the extreme South-West—where developments are taking place and where there will be a need for more hospital beds. I hope—and I say this in no partisan, political spirit—that the Government will consider this matter very carefully.
8. 28 p. m.
Lord SANDYS: I should also like to support my noble friend's Amendment, although for a reason I did not mention at Second Reading. It is a quite different reason which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will consider. The noble Lord will be aware that every year the principal medical officer lays before the Department and produces for the public service a document, which in 1974 was entitled On the State of Public Health in the Year 1974. No doubt the document had the same title in 1975 and 1976. That document, On the State of Public Health in the Year 1974, which bore the signature of the principal medical officer, as he then was, raised a number of important issues.
It is an interesting document which very properly considers the problems of administration within the National Health Service. A number of issues concerning administration were raised—for instance, the question of blood transfusions and of industrial unrest—but at no point in this report for the year 1974 was the question of pay beds raised. I believe that it is highly significant that the principal medical officer should not make a point of mentioning pay beds as an issue which the Secretary of State and his or her advisers should consider. Further, I believe that in examining a report of
112 considerable length and value in regard to the structure of the Hospital Service as a whole, it will not be found—at least on my reading it will not be found—that this matter was at any time put forward as a paper for discussion within the Ministry. This may have been not raised as a matter of policy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can tell us about this report. It is important.
Secondly, I think it is of great importance to consider the county plans for emergencies. Each county is under an obligation to the Home Secretary to produce a plan, and to up-date it from time to time, on emergencies within their area. They can be emergencies of the magnitude of Flixborough; they can be of the magnitude of that which took place about 18 months ago only a short distance outside London when a very large plane crashed. These issues demand very substantial consideration in the areas of local authorities. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has regarded this matter worthy of consideration in looking at the question of 1,000 beds. The figure does appear to be arbitrary, and I do believe that in the Amendment as set out my noble friend has made a very positive suggestion, that the Board shall undertake it and not the Secretary of State.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I can accept what the noble Baroness says about the fact that she and her friends are not bound by the Goodman proposals. We, the Government, are bound by them, for the simple reason that this was the outcome of discussions which took place between the Government, the consultants and the medical profession, with Lord Goodman being present to give what assistance he could. I should have thought that as this was an agreement between all parties this was a reasonable thing to put in the Bill. If the noble Baroness feels that it is not incumbent upon her to support the medical profession, who apparently are in agreement with the proposals, I am tempted to ask who she is representing in your Lordships' Chamber.
Baroness YOUNG: If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is asking me who I represent. I, and we on this side of the Committee, represent all the people at present in National Health Service hospitals, the patients, and others in private

113 hospitals. We are interested in promoting a good medical service. That is our interest.
Lord PLATT: May I intervene to say that I wish the noble Lord would not refer to the noble Baroness and her friends. We are all her friends. So far there has been a notable speech from the Liberal Benches, several from the Tory Benches, two from the Cross-Benches and none from the other side.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There are none from the other side because the other side happen to agree with the Government's proposal in this matter. I should like do deal, so far as I can, with the questions that have been raised. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. The Government are not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is infallible; nor do we suggest as a Government that what have come to be known as his proposals are holy writ, although from my point of view I might feel inclined to say they are. I think the mistake that a large number of your Lordships make is in overlooking the fact that Lord Goodman did not devise the proposals which bear his name. They were the result of negotiations, as I have said time and time again, between Her Majesty's Government and the medical and dental professions, in which Lord Goodman acted as an intermediary.
Lord HILL of LUTON: If the noble Lord will forgive me, he keeps referring to the agreement. He should, I think, tell the Committee of the last paragraph of the then Prime Minister's letter to the medical profession, in which he referred to this as an agreement, and also made abundantly plain that, even though this agreement had led them not to proceed with industrial action, they were free, as he assured them, to express critical, indeed adverse, views of the Goodman proposals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I accept every word the noble Lord has said, but he admits that there was an agreement; and if there was an agreement, which the vast majority voted should be included in legislation, it seems to me the Government have carried that out. The noble Lord also asked about Schedule 2 which sets out the pay beds which are to be phased out within the six months. I would point out
114
that they are quotas for areas and not individual hospitals, so when the time comes to phase them out that number of beds will be withdrawn from a particular area; the hospitals they are to be withdrawn from will then be decided upon. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, quite rightly, raised the question, "Why 1,000 beds?" "Why not 900?", I think he said. The reason is that it was felt, not by Lord Goodman but during the discussions, that 1,000 beds could be withdrawn within a comparatively short period without in any way damaging the private sector. One has to bear in mind that there are 4,444 pay beds in this country. The average bed occupancy for private beds throughout the country is less than 50 per cent. per annum—49 per cent, in point of fact—which means to say that 1, 000 beds can be withdrawn without having any damaging effect; and on the quota basis per area it can then be decided which of the hospitals can best release one, two or three, as the case may be.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I am not quite sure I understand the formula of the quota, how this was worked out.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: By the bed occupancy of private beds in each area. As I say, taking the country as a whole, the 4,444 beds were used on average for only about 49 per cent. of the year; so less than half that total number were fully occupied. I accept that some are occupied more than 49 per cent. and some less. In the areas that are set out in Schedule 2 careful inquiry and discussion took place to see which areas could release private beds without upsetting the demand for them, and the number arrived at will be withdrawn from the hospitals in that particular area. I do not think I can put it more simply than that.
Lord WINSTANLEY: If the noble Lord would allow me to intervene on the point of private bed occupancy rates, would be acknowledge that many of the private beds which were not occupied by private patients were in fact being occupied, quite properly, by National Health Service patients, and it would be quite impossible to shove in a private patient at the other end.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not going to say that this did not happen from

115
time to time, but when one has a certain number of private beds in a particular hospital for the exclusive use of consultants one has to be very careful about putting a Natonal Health Service patient in them unless there is a very real emergency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the question of the Royal Commission. She will forgive me if I say that I do not intend to deal with that in detail. I thought I dealt with it in detail at Second Reading. We regard this as a political decision. This is not a matter for a group of people to get round a table and discuss. This is a political matter, a political policy. Like all political matters and political policies it must be decided by the Party that wishes to see it in being. Because it is in our view essentially a political matter we took the political decision to say this is what we are going to do, but we have done it, I venture to suggest, with agreement and with understanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, raised a similar question about the wisdom of doing this, but I notice that she did not say that she knew of a single hospital which had in fact informed her that they were opposed to this. The Secretary of State's decision to phase out 1,000 beds within the first six months was taken at the beginning of this year. It has been known since then to the hospitals concerned, to all the Area Health Authorities, that these beds were going to be phased out. They have known for months the number of beds that were going to be phased out in their particular area. Apart from a few rumblings in various places there has been nothing at all. When the Bill is passed, which may be a month or two yet, there will still be six months before those beds will be phased out, so they will have had upwards of one year's notice of the Government's intention.
There is only one other point I want to add, and I am not sure whether the noble Baroness raised this or not. I think perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who spoke about putting a tremendous responsibility on the Board to do this in the first six months. The Board has nothing to do with the phasing out of these 1,000 beds. This is a decision which has been taken by the Secretary of
116
State, subject to the agreement of Parliament. The Bill has not yet passed and is not on the Statute Book, so it must be subject to the decision of Parliament. But it was made perfectly clear at the beginning of the year that 1,000 beds would be phased out.
This is the Secretary of State's decision. It is his responsibility. It has nothing to do with the Board, and the Board will have no responsibility for it at all. The responsibility of the Board will be to concern itself with the gradual phasing out of the remaining 3,444 beds. The conditions under which they will be phased out are clearly set out in the Bill. It will be the responsibility of the Board during its first six months to send a report to the Secretary of State saying how it proposes to start on this task. I think your Lordships will find in the Bill that if for any reason it cannot complete its task to produce a first report within six months, it can ask the Secretary of State for an extension.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, rightly referred to the loss of income. But there will be, so far as these 1,000 beds are concerned, very little loss of income, because they are the beds which are considerably under-utilised. I am not going to say that when the other beds are phased out there will not be a loss of income—there will be a loss of income—but immediately the loss of income will not amount to very much. As they are gradually phased out and the various conditions and provisions within the Bill come into being, the National Health Service will earn, I imagine, a considerable amount of money as a result of making available to the private sector certain facilities within the National Health Service which will not be available in the private sector and which the private sector will want to take advantage of. So this loss of money is not necessarily as serious as some noble Lords think.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: Is the noble Lord serious when he tells us that 1,000 beds paying £250 a week is chickenfeed to the Health Service? It is a considerable amount of money.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If 1,000 beds were paying £250 a week to the National Health Service their withdrawal would be a considerable loss, but I have been at

117 some pains to point out that they are 1,000 beds which are hardly used by private patients. It is no good noble Lords shaking their heads and smiling. This is one of the facts of life. Facts of life are not always pleasant, but this is a fact of life.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to there being no reference in the 1974 Report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health to pay beds. I hope there would not be. The Chief Medical Officer of Health is an official. He is a servant of the Departmant, and he would have known, as the whole of the Department knew in 1974, what the Government's intention was. I should have thought that it was improper for somebody holding a position such as he held to make a comment on this subject without being invited to do so.
Lord SANDYS: In saying that the noble Lord has acknowledged that the intention expressed by the Government in the Bill is a purely political intention, which we know already, but further it is a grossly misleading factor in the Government's policy to suggest at any stage that it is for the benefit of the Health Service as a whole.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord knows that if we were to stand here for the next year and discuss this matter we should not agree.
Lord SANDYS: We certainly would not.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We think that it is going to be a very good thing for the National Health Service, and if the noble Lord were to talk privately to a good many of the consultants and members of the medical profession I am sure they would tell him that they too regard it as a very good thing for private practices as well.
Lord SANDYS: Nonsense.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No. The only other point I want to refer to is the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who asked what happens if there is a fire at a hospital after the withdrawal of 1,000 beds had been settled. I think she will find that the answer is probably in Clause 5, which
118
allows the Secretary of State to authorise beds temporarily for private use if there is some misfortune—that is not a very good word: some emergency. If there is an emergency, due to almost any cause whatsoever, then the Secretary of State is able to authorise pay beds on a temporary basis.
We cannot accept—and I imagine this is perfectly clear to your Lordships—the Amendment before the Committee. As the Principal Deputy Chairman said, if Amendment No.10 is accepted or carried then she cannot put Amendment No.11, but with the greatest respect I would suggest that what I have said applies also to Amendments Nos.12 and 13. I think we would be going over the same ground again, because the principles involved are much the same, so when I attempted to answer Amendments Nos.10 and 11 I was in fact speaking to 12 and 13.
8. 50 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his reply but, as he will appreciate, there are very great difficulties for us in view of what he said. I am grateful to all those who have supported me in the Amendment, in particular the three noble Lords who are doctors and for whose advise we are always grateful and the many noble Lords who have spoken from personal experience. It is useful to have my noble friend Lady Vickers talk of Devon, my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve talk of Hertfordshire and my noble friend Lord Auckland talk about Cambridge. It brings reality to the discussion when noble Lords speak about places they know. I think we would all agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, said; that we only wish the whole matter could have been referred to the Royal Commission, and I am surprised that the Government do not think so, too.
It is clear from what Lord Wells-Pestell said that the Government are in great difficulties over the Bill. He has explained time and again that the Bill is the outcome of the agreement reached through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and discussions with the medical profession. But nothing can take away the fact that it is, as he said, a political policy; it has brought politics into the National Health Service and into

119 medicine in a most undesirable way. Thus, he cannot object when we raise points about it. We are deeply concerned about the Bill because when I said in reply to his earlier remark that the Government gave undertakings to the doctors in 1946, I was pointing out that this was not just a change of matter on a political policy; like, for example, reorganising the National Health Service, which could be subject to change in the light of events. This was a fundamental principle about the right of a professional person to sell his skill in the market place after he has fulfilled his contract to the NHS, and to change one's mind on that is a very serious matter indeed.
We have talked about Schedule 2 and the noble Lord explained that there will be quotas for areas. This is a subject to which we shall return later because nowhere is "area" defined in the Bill. I was interested to hear that the details have not yet been decided because the Committee should know of a letter which I have received from a consultant dermatologist at Farnborough Hospital in Kent, who writes:
"First of all, we are told that the cuts have been agreed after consultation. As far as my colleagues and I know, no consultations have occurred. There may have been consultations up at the Elephant or with some remote BMA committee, but the people on the spot who are going to be affected have not been consulted at all. Secondly, the cut in bed numbers is about a third of the total which, apparently, is the average over most of the country. In our locality there are virtually no private beds available outside the Health Service, yet our beds are cut as severely as everyone else's. It is clearly unrealistic to expect our patients to be treated by us in nursing homes up in the West End of London."
This is the consequence of phasing out the 1,000 beds in this arbitrary way, and to argue that the patients will be better served as a result seems extraordinary. I am pressing the Amendment because we think it would be far better, in the interests of
both the NHS patients and others working in the Service and private practice, if it were the Board rather than the Secretary of State who was responsible for phasing the first 1,000 beds. We might then get some shift on this arbitrary figure in an arbitrary time-scale.
Now that we know the reason why the figure of 1, 000 was fixed on—because Lord Goodman thought that, 1,000 beds could be withdrawn without harming the Health Service—one is bound to ask how much detailed preparation there was before the figure was arrived at. I am extremely sceptical about average figures for bed occupancy. I am sure that Lord Wells-Pestell was speaking the truth when he said that pay beds had an occupancy rate of 49 per cent., but an average rate conceals a great many things; many will be above average and many below and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, rightly pointed out, many beds will be occupied at intervals by NHS patients, many will be kept for specialist subjects, specialist illnesses, and must be kept pending those cases arriving, and many will always be kept empty for emergencies.
However, if the argument on the whole of the Bill is the occupancy rate, there is no doubt that the Government will accept our Amendment No.16 which insists that the 1,000 beds shall be used for NHS patients, and we will return to that and the arguments to be adduced when we debate that Amendment. In the meantime, I cannot withdraw the Amendment we are discussing because I believe it to be a matter of importance and I therefore urge noble Lords to join me in the Division Lobby to support it.
8.54 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents 40.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Gisborough, L.

Amulree, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Greenway L.

Balerno, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Hanworth, V.

Belstead, L.

Elles, B.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Henley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Faithfull, B.

Hill of Luton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Gainford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Garner, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Morris, L.

St. Just, L.

Inglewood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Killearn, L.

Newall, L.

Stamp, L.

Kinnaird, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swansea, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Onslow, E.

Tranmire, L.

Long, V.

Pender, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lyell, L.

Platt, L.

Vickers, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Marley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Merrivale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Monson, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winstanley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Plurenden, L.

Blyton, L.

Kagan, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Oram, L.

Walston, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller].

Jacques, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9. 3 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No.12:
Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 13 to ("due") in line 18 and insert ("In making such proposals the Board shall have").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No.13:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No.13 and will speak at the same time to Amendment No.14, because, of course, Amendment No.13 is a paving Amendment. We come now to a series of Amendments which, for want of a better title I shall call the "Goodman Amendments". Those of us who heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, speak on Second Reading, will know that he himself asked the Government whether they would consider looking further at the definitions of various parts of the Bill to see whether it was possible to tighten up the arrangements that had been made. This is the first of a series of Amendments that we have tabled to that end. As the noble Lord will appreciate, they in no
122
way go against the principle of the Bill. They are Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested ought to go into the Bill, and, indeed, the noble Lord, with whom I discussed them last week, had hoped to be here. However, shortly before we entered the Committee stage I had a note to say he was ill. The note says that he is in a pay bed and he hopes that the pay beds will last. I simply quote his note. I hope that that commends the particular Amendments before the Committee.
Amendment No. 14 adds to this clause the very important words, "at a satisfactory standard". It will be seen that the point of this matter is that as the pay beds are phased out subsection 3(b) states:
"the extent to which, in the case of each NHS hospital in Great Britain, alternative accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry are reasonably available …"
We wish to add the words after "facilities", "at a satisfactory standard". It will easily be seen, therefore, that this is in no way a wrecking Amendment, but is designed to ensure that the alternative facilities which will replace private beds in hospitals will not only be facilities but facilities "at a satisfactory standard". On reflection, I would add the words, "and at a reasonable cost". We shall have to return to this matter at Report stage

123
because I do not wish to add a manuscript Amendment at such short notice.
The noble Lord will agree that the last thing anyone would wish to do would be to provide alternative facilities that were providing a second-class service or facility for private patients. Not only is this of course undesirable on medical grounds, but it would be grossly unfair that people who had not been party to the agreements, and who might have expected to have a private room in a hospital, have now to have a private room in a nursing home. They must expect the facilities to be "at a satisfactory standard". But even if we were not concerned with the patients, it would be equally important that the facilities should be "at a satisfactory standard" for the consultants and doctors.
Nothing would be worse for them than to find that what they had expected as a result of the Goodman agreements, which were facilities for private practice entirely in keeping with what the Government have said they wish to preserve—that is, the private practice of medicine—were facilities at a standard lower than they would have had had the facilities been in a hospital. It is because we want to make quite sure that the alternative facilities are of a standard equal to those that have been phased out that we have put down the Amendment. It is in line with those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Second Reading. It does not go against the principle of the Bill, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
9. 9 p. m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry to hear of the indisposition of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I am glad that he was good enough to let somebody know that he would not be here this evening. With regard to Amendment No. 13, I do not see how the removal of the requirement to consider both criteria in Clause 3(3) together would help the task of the Board. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow either one or the other of the criteria in Clause 3(3)(a) and (b) to be ignored by the Board. Frankly, I do not see what the purpose of that is, or what use it would serve. The clause as drafted is, I believe, a fair and honest interpretation of the compromise—if I may use
124
that word—which is before us this evening. It was the essence of that compromise that the only way of determining the distribution of the reductions which is fair and reasonable to both viewpoints was by having regard to both criteria as envisaged in the proposals of 15th December, and six months was the time allowed in that compromise. It is because we do not see that this will help in any way—it will not improve the situation—that we certainly cannot accept it.
With regard to Amendment No. 14, the effect of the Amendment would be to alter the statement in subsection (3) of the criteria followed in determining the distribution made by Schedule 2 of the overall reduction of pay beds required by the clause to the extent that the alternative facilities referred to in paragraph (b) would be those whose standard was satisfactory. The Bill, as drafted, corresponds to paragraph 3(b) of the proposals of 15th December. The criteria were there stated as:
"the extent to which the pay beds are being used and the reasonable availability of alternative beds and facilities for the practice of private medicine"
The terms of Clause 3 subsection 3(a) and (b) fairly reflect this, to the extent that the legal drafting allowed.
The proposed Amendment covers ground that has largely been covered in previous debates in another place. The Amendment seeks to incorporate into the terms of the criteria at subsection 3(b) the concept that the reasonable alternative facilities shall be, "at a satisfactory standard". The Committee in another place debated a similar Amendment to Clause 4(7). It was explained on that occasion that the Government did not think it was desirable or necessary to add these words to the criteria, which do not appear in the 15th December proposals. My right honourable friend said on that occasion, as reported at cols. 883 and 884 of the Official Report:
"I am aware of the concern of the medical and dental professions, and, in particular, of the Royal Colleges, that the Health Services Board should be required to take into account the standard of alternative facilities in the private sector when considering its proposals for progressive revocation of authorisations of pay beds and other facilities for private practice in NHS hospitals; and discussions have been taking place with them on this. There are two points to be made. First, the Government accepted in the 15th December proposals that in phasing out pay beds and facilities the Board could have regard to the

125
intention of the Government to allow occasional admissions of patients privately to specialised National Health Service facilities if these particular services could not reasonably be provided in the private sector to a satisfactory standard, and that this would not disadvantage the National Health Service patients. This, of course, is embodied in the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill, which we shall be discussing later. This means that there is no question of the private sector being driven to duplicate, possibly in an unsatisfactory way, every sophisticated feature of the National Health Service.
The second point is that, in determining the programme for phasing out, both the Secretary of State, in relation to the 1,000 beds, and the Board are obliged to look at the provision which is reasonably available in the private sector. I want to emphasise that this will inevitably involve a reasonable degree of matching up the nature of what is provided by the pay beds or other facilities at present as compared with the nature of what the private sector can already, or will in future be able to, provide. On the other hand, the Government have never said that they intend pay beds to remain until it can be guaranteed that private practice will be everywhere available as fully and completely as it might be while pay beds and private facilities remain authorised in the National Health Service hospitals."
The Secretary of State had several meetings with the BMA on this matter, and this is really what transpired at those meetings.
"The Government are allowing time for a measure of development and improvement of private sector facilities. The process of matching up will take reasonable account of the character of the private sector provision, and therefore of the kinds of medical practice which could be satisfactorily carried out in it. The private sector is subject to control by registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975, and if it were shown that this control did not sufficiently maintain standards the Government have made clear—my right honourable friend and his predecessor—that they are prepared to consider, in consultation with the professions, what improvements there might be. Primarily, of course, it is for the professional people who work in private hospitals and nursing homes to maintain professional standards."
The criterion in the Bill already requires the exercise of judgment as to the extent of alternative accommodation reasonably available. It would make for greater uncertainty to bring in specifically the further concept of "satisfactory" standards. I would not have thought that there was any need for this Amendment, because I would have thought that the two things would go together automatically. For that reason, the Government are not able to accept the Amendment.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I ask him one question in the light of the explanation
126
which he has given of this clause and of the clauses which it is proposed to amend? In the light of what he has said, could he tell me, looking again at the Bill, in line 28, what is the purpose of the adverb, "reasonably" in the phrase, "reasonably available"? If the adverb "reasonably" applies merely to availability, surely things are either available or not available. What does "reasonably available" mean? Or is the noble Lord now saying that the adverb, "reasonably" there should relate to the nature of the facilities in the line before? Could he explain to me what that adverb, "reasonably" is doing in this paragraph? What does it mean? What are we to interpret from it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should have thought the question of distance. Presumably you cannot hold that a thing is reasonably available unless it is very accessible.
Lord O'HAGAN: I listened to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with great care, and I did my best to understand the complex argument that he deployed. I am not sure that I followed him in all his remarks. I think we are in the realms of textual criticism and scholarly debate about the exact interpretation to be put on the words used in the Goodman proposals,
"… reasonable availability of alternative beds and facilities"
These occur in paragraph 3(d) of the document issued on 15th December. As I understand it the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, maintained that the word, "reasonable" applied to distance only and that the question of standards, as mentioned in the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young, is not relevant, or if it is relevant is already sufficiently contained in the word "reasonable". If that is his position, I do not follow the logic of his argument because when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was in better health and able to attend your Lordships' deliberations and spoke on Second Reading he said that he hoped that the word, "reasonable" would be interpreted as meaning reasonable in every sense, which I would understand not to be restricted wholly to matters of geography but also to the question of standards.

127
So we are in the realm of biblical disputation as to what the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was in using the word "reasonable" in the context in which it is now being used. If your Lordships are asked to choose between the interpretation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I hope that you will incline towards the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who intended a wider meaning than did the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The logic of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is that the alternative facilities may be of an unsatisfactory standard. If he does not wish to include the words, "at a satisfactory standard", it implies that he may consider that the alternative will be at an unsatisfactory standard and still acceptable under the terms of the Bill.
Clause 2 is declaratory and explains things which it is not necessary to explain fully in the law and outlines the general intention of the Board. If we are going to have explanatory proposals, let us include this one because it is in the spirit of the Goodman proposals. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will see fit to accept the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
Lord HILL of LUTON: May I support what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has just said. It may be increasing senility, but I fail to grasp the meaning of much that the noble Lord said. It sounded like departmental "gobbledegook" Look at the simple issue: the facilities should be reasonably available. The adverb qualifies the adjective "avail-able". To my mind that refers to physical access to the facilities. When it comes to the alternative accommodation and facilities is it not reasonable to ask that before you reduce the number of pay beds in National Health hospitals you have regard to the satisfactory or other character of those facilities? What is it all about? No wonder Parliament is often accused of spending wasted hours in obscurities. The simple fact is that, if for an important decision you are to take account of what is alternatively available, surely it is right that the facilities said to be available should be facilities that are satisfactory. That is the simple and unambiguous issue and I should hope that the noble Lord,
128
Lord Wells-Pestell, unless he is under strict instructions to accept nothing, will accept this reasonable proposition.
Lord PLATT: What worries me is the alternative accommodation. We have heard that it has to be reasonably accessible; I will accept that. There seems to be an argument about how good the facilities should be. Nobody says how good the doctors are going to be. The fact is that anybody who goes into a pay bed in an NHS hospital knows that his surgeon or his physician is a consultant and has reached a fairly high degree of proficiency. Whatever the facilities of a private nursing home, nobody is going to monitor its work, whereas in the NHS hospital everybody knows what everybody else is doing, what their standards are and what their ethical standards are. This is why I dislike this Bill so much.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: To my mind one of the weaknesses in the Goodman proposals is how we are to define and provide satisfactory and reasonable alternative accommodation and facilities in the many small hospitals which are suggested. I believe that good accommodation will be easier to supply in these small hospitals than good facilities. A comfortable bed in a nice room is not too hard to give a patient; but to give him and his consultants access which is as good as they have at present to pathology, x-rays, nursing, physiotherapy and so on, is much more difficult. Will they have a resident house physician or house surgeon to help them care for their patients in these small hospitals? I know from personal experience how difficult it is to find resident medical officers for even the best of the smaller private hospitals which exist at present, hospitals such as the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers (Sister Agnes) or the BUPA Hospital in Bryanston Square.
I submit that it is a nonsense to suggest that it will be possible to provide facilities in all these smaller hospitals of anything like the standard that the consultants and their assistants now have for their patients (and for which their patients pay) in the larger National Health Service hospitals.
9. 27 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell,

129
that I thought that he gave a completely deplorable answer to my Amendment. It seems to me that he might look very carefully at his own Bill, where he will see that the words "at a satisfactory standard" are in fact taken from Clause 8(2) of the Bill at the top of page 10. There it says:
"In this subsection 'privately available' means available at a satisfactory standard otherwise than at an NHS hospital."
If it is possible to use this definition in one part of the Bill I should have thought it was not asking too much to use it in another part of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan made clear, this was a definition that Lord Goodman himself felt ought to be included in the Bill because it made much clearer what were the intentions behind the agreements which were reached. The fact is that as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated to the Committee, the Government are quite happy that private facilities will not always be as good as those that existed in National Health Service Hospitals. I shall read carefully what he has said in Hansard tomorrow, but I think that this is a deplorable statement. It means that by this Bill we are committing
a lot of people to what could be a secondclass situation—not only the patients but, of course, the doctors as well. I think therefore that this is not a matter which I can leave as it is.
As I have said, it is the first of a number of Amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, felt ought to be included in the Bill. It is one that clearly has the support of a number of our medically qualified colleagues who have spoken this evening. I am grateful for what the noble Lords, Lord Hill, Lord Platt and Lord Hunt of Fawley, have had to say. To argue that a private room that may be a comfortable room is an equal facility is simply not good enough. It must mean medical facilities at a satisfactory standard which is implied in Clause 8 and should be stated consistently through the Bill. I cannot withdraw this Amendment, and I will therefore press the matter to a Division.
9. 31 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Henley, L.

Platt, L.

Banks, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belstead, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Seear, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Seebohm, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Elles, B.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Janner, L.

Blyton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kagan, L.

Brockway, L.

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

Kaldor, L.

Castle, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Champion, L.

Hale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Maelor, L.

Plurenden, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Northfield, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Peddie, L.

Stone, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9. 38 p. m
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No 14:
Page 3, line 28, after ("facilities") insert ("at a satisfactory standard").
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9. 47 p. m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("area") and insert ("district").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, and with the leave
The noble Baroness said:I beg to move.
On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70: Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Platt, L.

Banks, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Inglewood, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Gowrie, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

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

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Northfield. L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 44 and 88. All these Amendments relate to the same word. The difficulty here is to define the word "area"—how large that is in practice—and I should like the Government to give us their definition of that word. The sensible course to take would be to try to break down areas into districts because they would then be much easier to operate economically and also much more personal.
At this stage, it is preferable to disregard London and the other major cities and to look at the countryside where a much larger mileage has to be covered. May I take as an example the County of Cumberland or Yorkshire where perhaps there will be a National Health Service hospital at one end of the county and a private hospital at the other, with a top gynaecologist or consultant having to travel between the two hospitals. if this large mileage in Cumberland or Yorkshire could be broken down into districts it would be much less expensive for that consultant, especially when one considers the cost of petrol, at nearly £1 a gallon, the travelling time of the consultant and the speed at which that consultant would have to travel between the hospitals in those counties. We want to try to help consultants to narrow down the area.
Therefore I should like the Government to give us their definition of the word "area" I would be very interested if they could explain what an "area" consists of, whether it is so many square miles. As yet I do not think anyone has been able to define "area". I am probing to investigate how big an area is in the minds of the Government. When looking at a large county such as Cumberland, one immediately thinks of the patients and their relatives. I had the experience, when my boy was in hospital, of visiting quite often the orthopaedic hospital in Bath. It was in the 1960s, when the new Areas took over, and I believe it was the orthopaedic hospital at Taunton—I stand to be corrected—which was broken up and moved into the orthopaedic hospital at Bath. It is a very difficult road from Taunton to Bath at week-ends for parents visiting their children or relatives visiting one another in hospital. The best thing is a small area so that people can visit their relatives and friends easily. I hope the Government can see that.
I have known of great hardship among people in the country districts trying to get about at week-ends, and not everybody has a car. Economically this is an extravagant way of going on. Your expenses for your consultants are bound to rise over a larger area with larger mileage. I should like to see these huge areas reduced down to smaller districts. It works, if I understand rightly, with district councils; it certainly brings the personal touch into the district. I am still
134
trying to find out how big this "area" is in mileage. I should like the Government to give us their views and the reason why they want this word "area" in the Bill. At this moment it could well be something of a disaster to the efficient working of the hospitals. I beg to move.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I should very much like to support the noble Viscount in questioning the meaning of "area", and I support the change to the word "district" for perhaps a slightly different reason. It is only two years since we reorganised the Health Service and we based the whole structure of the Health Service on the district within the Area, and that district is, on the whole, co-termininous with the local planning authority. Much of this Bill is concerned with planning permission when we get further on, and I should have thought we ought to be exact and use the same terminology. It is for that reason that I should like the word changed to "district".
9. 54 p. m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I share the concern of noble Lords opposite about the use of "area" and "district", and I think we all probably agree that we have had more than our fair share of reorganisation of one form or another. There are various meanings for "areas" and "districts" in all the forms of reorganisation we have had. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said earlier that she could not find "area" defined anywhere in the Bill. In fact, the area in Schedule 2 to which she was referring is the Area Health Authority, which is mentioned and interpreted in Clause 11. I think perhaps the noble Baroness was confused with Schedule 2 and the "area" with a small "a" we are now discussing in Clause 4. Amendment No. 15 is one that could indicate that the private sector facilities that have been taken into account in the preparation of Schedule 2 are only those that are allocated in the same management district of the hospital. This Amendment I could not commend to the Committee, because it would be to negate the basis on which the Goodman proposals for the 1, 000 beds in Schedule 2 were drawn up.
The term "district" has no statutory backing in the National Health Service, and has come to be equated with a sort

135
of unit of management within an Area Health Authority's area. For instance, in the case of Great Ormond Street, which serves as the Hospital for Sick Children, it would be impossible to define an area. It serves in a dual capacity, and is the specialist hospital for children for the whole of the country. In the same way, in Camden and Islington the Area Health Authority is divided into two districts for the purpose of management, and I think no one in the authority would claim for one moment that the area or district served by University College Hospital, or the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, had to be confined to the South Camden District.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: We are not talking purely about teaching hospitals and post-graduate teaching hospitals. I am concerned with the picture all over the country, and in the countryside certainly "district" has an enormous meaning. I agree that in London it is confused, but then we know that the National Health Service in London, the hospital distribution in London, the number of teaching hospitals, have been creating a problem for as long as I can remember, and are likely to go on creating a problem. We are trying to legislate for the whole of the country, and "district" has a meaning in the National Health Service all around the country. What I said originally is that it is largely coterminous with the local authority, and that this is very important for planning purposes.
Baroness STEDMAN: Although the district is co-terminous with local authority districts, it is not necessarily the right sort of area for a hospital. I do not think that we can confine a hospital to a district in the meaning of "district" under local authority organisation. It is rather more like the schools having their catchment areas. I prefer to think of an area being a catchment area; the area served by the hospital, but not having any closely defined boundaries or districts, or being parts of an Area Health Authority's administrative areas.
What we have to look at in Amendments Nos. 15 and 88, which go together, and the ones to which the noble Viscount spoke, Amendments Nos. 40 and 44,
136
is the fact that they have a relation to the criteria which were laid down in the Goodman proposals. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like the reference to the Goodman proposals, but the Bill before the House incorporates the agreement that was arrived at through the offices of Lord Goodman, and the phrase, "area served by that hospital" in the subsection is not synonomous with the area administered by the Area Health Authority. Nor will it necessarily be the same as the district in which and by which the hospital is primarily managed. Not all the hospitals in the district serve the whole of the district, talking of districts in the terms of local authority districts.
Lord WINSTANLEY: The noble Baroness's noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has already told us that the words, "reasonably available" which appear in the clause immediately adjacent to the words we are discussing mean "accessible". If that means "accessible", why do we need the words, "in the area served by that hospital"? Are they not redundant? Are they needed at all?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, because some hospitals serve a wider catchment area than others, and are not necessarily the same as part of the Area Health Authority's area. They may have some sort of speciality that they can offer in that area which has to be open to a wider number of people in a wider acreage than we have in the ordinary sense of "area" as in Area Health Authority
Baroness SEEAR: This is all madly confusing. Cannot the Government think of a better word? When "area" is spelt with a capital "A" it means one thing but when it is spelt with a small "a" it means something else. When one is talking one cannot articulate a small or capital "a" and naturally people become confused. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government, even at this late stage of their career, to think of a better term to describe "area" with a small "a". While on my feet, let me register a protest against the idea that Parliament is here to confirm an agreement arrived at between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman —for whom I have the greatest respect, well or ill—and the Government outside the walls of Westminster. We have protested throughout this Session that

137
arrangements fixed up outside Parliament with any bodies, however virtuous they may be, are not appropriate ways of presenting legislation to us for Parliament to receive, approve and agree. Parliament is not a rubber stamp, especially over something which Lord Goodman and the Government have fixed up in private.
Baroness STEDMAN: The proposals embodied in the Bill are to give power to implement decisions which were arrived at following consultations with the medical and dental professions in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, acted as an intermediary. I would be the last person to yield that Parliament does not have the right and duty to have the final say as to what should be in their legislation. But the Bill was introduced and embodies the agreement that was reached with the professions. I know that noble Lords opposite dislike it and that they do not accept that the Goodman proposals have any significance, as it were, in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, the Government have brought forward the Bill to separate pay beds and private practice from the NHS and, in so doing, are embodying the principles that were within those agreed proposals.
I go along with the noble Baroness in wishing that we could find another word that would mean the catchment area of the hospital without having to use the word "area" and I am sure that the Department has given great thought to this. If noble Lords opposite can come up with an alternative word which means the same as a catchment area and will not confine us to absolute boundaries for all hospitals, I am sure the Government would be happy to consider it; but at the moment I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: This is a difficult Amendment to discuss because while the Bill deals with the phasing out of pay beds—about which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had quite a lot to recommend, with most of which I did not agree—I suggest that we should, in discussing this subject, go back to the question whether we have sufficient hospitals in every area to deal with the population who use them. In doing that, we should discuss the Amendment in connection with the relevant Schedule.
138
In Durham County, for example, we must consider whether we have sufficient hospitals to cater for all the accidents that occur in the mining areas, and in a way that has nothing to do with the phasing out of pay beds. I want as many hospitals as we can get and I find it difficult to discuss the Amendment in these terms because, with great respect, it seems to have nothing to do with the phasing out of pay beds. I do not want the Committee to get into a bigger muddle than the Government are already in but I felt that I had to make this point; in a way I am saying something rather nice about the Government, something I do not often do.
I know Cumbria very well. I think that in Cumbria we might probably require some more hospitals. That would not fit in either with the pay bed issue or this Amendment. I find this a difficult Amendment. I would rather discuss it when we come to debate the Schedules with the areas and the question of whether we ought to have more hospitals before starting to phase out pay beds.
Lord SANDYS: I believe my noble friend Lord Long has brought before your Lordships an Amendment which needs much greater perseverence because the reply given by the noble Baroness—and of course we welcome her to the Committee as she is making her first contribution to the Committee stage—was highly unsatisfactory from our side of the Committee, because she referred to Clause 11 which deals, of course, with the interpretation. She told us that Area with a capital A means what is set out in that clause. She added that she did not think we could confine "district" to the interpretation given in local authority legislation— I believe I took down her words correctly.
However, there is the strongest argument —and I think many of my noble friends set this out—that the context in which we should discuss this Amendment is a local context; that is for the district. The noble Baroness referred to the catchment area which is not precisely the same. She dealt in some detail with the situation in London and I think was taken to task, quite correctly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on the question of catchment areas for teaching hospitals. But I think

139
our concern is in the broader context of districts throughout the country.
One principal difficulty about the word "area" is its vagueness. It is undefined in Clause 11, and the Government know perfectly well that their principal reason for not accepting this Amendment is that it conflicts with Schedule 2. Schedule 2 as set out does not concern districts at all. Therefore, we are saying to the Government, "In order that Clause 3 shall be satisfactorily drafted in this very unacceptable Bill, so far as we are concerned it is of no importance whatever at this stage that it should conflict with Schedule 2 in regard to their arrangements". It is of far greater importance, as mentioned by my noble friend, that in small areas parents should be able to visit children in hospital, and similar matters; and the economic factors are of course overwhelming, especially the high energy costs which affect everything involving the hospital problem. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further except that I believe this Amendment is most important to the Bill.
Viscount LONG: This Amendment seems to have had a very good airing. My noble friends and noble Lords on the Liberal side have expressed great interest in it. But if I might tell the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite why we do not
140
like this Bill, it is because of the poisonous way politics were placed into it. We are dealing with a profession in the medical world, a very old-established body of people going back thousands of years, who do not know about the roughing-up or viciousness of politics. This situation has been placed in their camp, and I find it sad that all the time we on this side of the Committee are accused of not liking this or that. We are trying to defend the doctors, nurses, consultants and patients.
Having said that, I am still no nearer as to what is the definition of an area. It struck me just now that we had in Wiltshire certain hospitals called district hospitals in small areas. I believe they are still district hospitals. Some of them were previously known as cottage hospitals. But all the time we are coming up against the idea of London and the cities. But in the country people have to travel many more miles, and at night and during the snow and other bad weather it can be very difficult. There is also the cost and other problems. I know that parents and relatives already find it very difficult travelling long distances to hospitals around the county. However, we have expressed the point and have aired the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10. 11 p. m
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert (";and
(c) the extent to which, in the case of each NHS hospital, the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use for resident patients who are not private patients.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment it may be helpful to the Committee if I try to put us procedurally slightly further back on the track. I have spoken already to Amendment No. 13, which is necessary for Amendment No. 16, but Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 go together. It will be apparent that Clause 3(3) is a declaratory clause, setting out in relation to the Area Health Authorities and the preserved Boards how the phasing out will be arranged. Amendment No. 16 will come in as paragraph (c), and it means that it is necessary to take out the word "and" in paragraph (a) in order that it reads grammatically. The effect of this procedurally is that Amendment No. 16 is dependent upon the paving Amendment No. 13.
This we regard as another important Amendment because it seems to me very necessary that the beds that are phased out of National Health hospitals should be for use for patients who are not private patients but who are other patients in the National Health Service. There is no guarantee at all in the Bill that the beds phased out will be so used, and at any rate in one case known to a number of noble Lords the accommodation resulting from phased out beds has now been used for offices. Therefore, if this happens it is very unlikely that there will be any alteration to the length of the queue. This is important to the argument, because as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on Second Reading, at column 1472 of the Official Report of 12st October:
"In short, it is a widely held belief that the continued existence of pay beds has conferred, at the expense of the majority, an unacceptable degree of privilege on those who can afford to pay a premium for jumping the queue."
He went on to argue that this was the main purpose behind the Bill. If this is the purpose which was behind the whole of the Goodman proposals, behind the Bill—to prevent queue jumping—so that those who went into a hospital bed should do so only on medical grounds, and not
142
because they could afford to pay, it is absolutely essential that the phased out beds should be used by National Health Service patients.
Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment. When we were talking about Amendment No. 10, the first talked about, it became quite clear that the Government felt that the 1,000 beds that will be phased out at first ought to be used by National Health Service patients. At any rate, one of the reasons for not accepting this Amendment, so far as I could see, was that this was part of the Goodman agreement and it would therefore satisfy those who felt that there was something very unfair about the present system. If there is something unfair about the present system, the only way you could put it right would be to make quite sure that those at present in the queue will get into the beds pay now being occupied by private patients—and that is what this Amendment is intended to do.
I think it becomes even more important if one looks at the figures which have been given, showing a decline in the number of hospital beds in the National Health Service over the last 10 years. These figures, which were given by the Department of Health and Social Services in their Annual Report of 1975, show that the number of available beds in National Health Service hospitals in England has decreased over the last 10 years by 11 per cent. In 1965 there were 437,000 beds, and in 1975 only 387,000. There has therefore been a steady fall in the number of beds in National Health Service hospitals. This is undoubtedly a fact, and one way at least of being constructive in what really is a very difficult situation is to make sure that those beds which are phased out will be used by National Health Service patients.
I cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. It seems to me to be entirely in line with what they would want to see. It certainly cannot be considered against the principle of the Bill. It does something which I am sure everybody who cares about the Health Service at all would want: it tries to put all the available capital equipment to the best possible use, and it ensures, I hope, that the queue would get shorter, because there would be,

143
within six months if the Government do not accept our Amendments in another place or at any rate within a very short time, 1,000 more beds for the National Health Service. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment, because it seems to me a constructive suggestion. I beg to move.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I should like warmly to support this Amendment. Like many noble Lords in this Committee, I know a great many hospitals from the inside—as a patient, in connection with leagues of hospital friends and in other capacities. All noble Lords will know that in the past there have been what have been called amenity beds, which are beds which have been made available to National Health Service patients and which, very often, are beds only curtained off at the ends of wards. They are in no way private beds at all. My reason for supporting this Amendment is that I also know that the private beds which have so far been used in hospitals are in private rooms. They are in properly constructed rooms which are not always very nice but which have been used for private patients in the past. It is because they are rooms that they are private, because they are unable to be got at by other people in the wards.
In other words—and I have a lot of knowledge of this—if somebody of importance (be it a Minister in the Government; be it somebody who is very important in industry; be it anybody whom the Press, for instance, want to get hold of) is in hospital, the only way of ensuring that they cannot be got hold of is by putting them in a private room. That is not an amenity room, as I have said, because an amenity bed is hardly ever private. As most people will know—at least, all of us who have been patients—if the patient is very important (as I know to my cost with my late husband) then directly he comes out of an anaesthetic there is a secretary waiting, there are the television people waiting.
Everybody wants to know how you are and the only method of keeping people away is by putting you in a room, now called a private room. I urge that those rooms should in future be amenity rooms. That would be the right way to use these
144
rooms which have in the past been used for private patients. It is vitally important that all hospitals should be urged to use these rooms correctly. Waiting lists are now far too long. In the foreseeable future, if this Bill goes through Parliament, the use of these rooms would enable waiting lists to be cut down. The people who need privacy as the result of an accident or illness, and who have not booked, should be able to have these rooms. They should not be turned into offices as they have been in some hospitals. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. I believe it is vital for the future of those rooms in the hospitals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I feel in some sympathy with the point of view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but what disturbes us is the use of the word "resident". The effect of this Amendment would be to add a further condition, that no pay bed authorisation should be withdrawn unless each hospital affected has sufficient resources to put the beds to good use for resident patients who are not private patients. This is the substance of the Amendment. It also seeks to ensure that any resources released are directed to the benefit of patient services rather than used, for example, for administrative purposes. Obviously it would seem quite reasonable and proper that all beds released from being pay beds should be made available for the use of patients but the Amendment says, "for resident patients".
Generally pay beds as single wards attached to general wards will fairly readily be absorbed into the general pool, while those in larger traditional pay bed wings may not lend themselves so readily to adaptation for general National Health Service use. One also has to take into account the fact that a good many of our hospitals need fundamental reorganisation and that accommodation in some of our National Health Service hospitals leaves much to be desired. In some places there are too many beds in one ward and beds are much too close together. When the pay beds are gradually phased out we have to look at the whole picture. Living and working conditions in some of our hospitals leave much to be desired. I do not say that that applies to every hospital but certainly to a good many. We have

145
to look at it from the point of view of making more room available not only for patients but also for nursing, medical and doctors' use. One often hears complaints of the close proximity of working. All that has to be taken into account.
Coming back to the purpose of the Amendment, with which I find myself in some considerable sympathy, if one has the word "resident" one is immediately tied down to using it for resident patients. Our casualty departments are dealing with more and more patients. It would be a very good thing if we could use beds perhaps for day patients. Our out-patient departments are doing more and more surgery. I am not saying that they are doing surgery of a particularly onerous kind, but they are doing various forms of surgery where it would be a good thing to be able to put somebody who had some minor surgery in the morning into bed for the rest of the morning or the rest of the day. I think, too, that our out-patient departments need recovery rooms. Bearing all this in mind, the word "resident", I think, means exactly what the noble Baroness intends it to mean; that is, not somebody who is going to occupy a bed for an hour or two in the morning but for a whole day.
I do not think that in principle there is anything between us because, obviously, we have got to see that, so far as is humanly possible, these beds are put to the best possible use. Bearing in mind that people are working in conditions where they may need more room, there must be some kind of reorganisation to provide more room; but, having said all that, I think that an increasing number of beds will be used for day patients recovery rooms, out-patients or people who can stay in the hospital for a morning or an afternoon. I would ask the noble Baroness to take that into account when considering whether, in the light of what I have said, this is an Amendment which she ought to press.
Lord O'HAGAN: I understood from what the noble Lord said that he was in general in sympathy with the objective that the Amendment tries to achieve. My noble friend's paragraph (c) would add a third criterion to the two already in the subsection. All these criteria are qualified by the words, "the extent to which", so there is some degree of qualification for
146
each of these three criteria because the authorities and boards called upon to examine these beds in question under these criteria do not just have to examine, as it were, bed by bed or item by item; they have to take a general view of the "extent to which". There is some degree of flexibility in the two paragraphs already in the Bill and this degree of flexibility is retained in the additional subsection introduced by my noble friend.
What I want to ask the noble Lord is this. Given that the same freedom of manoeuvre to deal with particular circumstances is contained in all three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), consistently; and given his only real objection is to the word "resident", is he saying to the Committee that he would be prepared to accept this Amendment in some other form or that he would be willing to look at it again and perhaps hope to introduce his own Amendment?—because the burden of his remarks was not at all against the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment, but in fact the reverse. Yet at the end I was waiting for him to say something about how he would prefer to have the objective which he shares achieved by words added to the Bill.
10. 30 p. m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I should like to follow that point. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made it utterly clear that he is in sympathy with the spirit of this Amendment, and, indeed, he would like to think that the facilities made available through the withdrawal of private beds from NHS hospitals were going to be used for the broad interests of non-paying patients. I have total sympathy with that aim and objective. He has implied that the only difficulty is the presence of this unfortunate word, "resident". I take some of the points he has made. There are occasions where casualty departments or out-patients operations require beds for purposes which could hardly be described accurately as "resident". That is a real point.
I wonder whether his expression of sympathy is quite as real as it may seem. I should like to follow the question already put to him. know that boble Lords on the Front Bench are not given to answering hypothetical questions, but I should like him to tell me whether, had this Amendment been set down without

147
the word, "resident", he would have accepted it. I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us. It is beginning to become my suspicion that he has not the slightest intention of accepting any Amendments. If that is the case, I wonder why we are going to discuss all these Amendments and why we do not just vote on them.
Lord KINNAIRD: I do not know whether I am speaking out of turn. I am certainly not knowledgeable about the Health Service. What has struck me from listening to this debate is that in this Amendment it says:
"…the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use…"
The Minister has said that what they need is more room, more use of space. I suggest to the Government that what they need is more money. They are very short of it. Yet, in withdrawing these beds from the Health Service they are doing away with millions of pounds. Can they afford to do this? This means a loss of millions of pounds of revenue from private patients.
Lord SANDYS: I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the expression of sympathy which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, addressed to the Committee had a somewhat synthetic flavour. I should like to link Amendment No. 16 with Amendment No. 9, which my noble friend Lady Young moved, concerning no detriment. The two Amendments are closely linked in matters touching upon the trades unions. The staff implications contained in this Amendment, as indeed in Amendment No. 9, are important. The following have special interests, so far as the staffing is concerned: COHSE, NUPE, NALGO, the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the smaller unions. Of course also very important are the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Mid-wives, the BMA and British Dental Association.
Another point is Lord Wells-Pestell's attitude on no detriment. I must confess I thought he was far from sympathetic at column 1509 on Thursday, 4th November, in the Official Report. The noble Lord
148
referred to no detriment, and he cast doubt about the suggestion that it was very important. He said at the end of the column:
"When one talks about detriment in the trade union world that means loss of jobs, and very often the loss of a large number of jobs".
We do not know, and cannot quantify from outside, what number of jobs may be concerned either in the initial phasing out—does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Can the noble Lord tell me what this question of detriment has to do with the present Amendment?
Lord SANDYS: Yes. It is very closely associated with the question of resources, and resources principally concern the aspect of staffing and equipment. I believe this to be very closely cognate with the Amendment we are discussing.
Finally, I concern myself with the "swap" arrangement, under which private beds were made available to the National Health Service, and have been over the last 30 years or so. That has been strongly to the benefit of the National Health Service, because on many occasions private beds have not been fully occupied. Occupation levels are referred to in a very considerable document published by the Department. I will not go into details here, because it is a lengthy, tricky and technical matter; but I will say that one situation has been overlooked by the Government. That is where a charity has over a period, either long or short, endowed either a single bed or a group of private beds, and those beds or groups of beds in wards or wings of hospitals are to be phased out. There could be a breach of charitable law there, and there is a case for concerning ourselves on Amendment No. 16 with this very important aspect. I have not chosen to raise charitable law hitherto, but I suggest to the noble Lord, in the kindest possible way, that the Government should look on this as a matter of some seriousness.
Baroness YOUNG: I am afraid I find it very difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on my Amendment. The whole time he spoke about the need to use the rooms

149
and the beds to be phased out for a whole variety of uses, most of which were for out-patients. He quoted—and I hope I understood him correctly—the instance of someone involved in an accident and needing a bed for the morning, and someone else needing to stay in hospital for one day, together with rooms that are in general use, and so on. Yet, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 3, he will find it is not concerned at all with out-patients but with in-patients. That is my under-standing of it, having looked at the 1968 Act. Section 1(1) is concerned with in-patients. Therefore Clause 3 is concerned with the phasing out of resident patients. When the noble Lord wants to talk about the phasing out of private out-patients, he needs to refer to Section 1(2) of the 1968 Act. He does that in Clause 4. We cannot possibly amend Clause 3 to make it apply to out-patients. It can apply only to in-patients, which are perhaps more correctly described as "resident patients". That is why the noble Lord referred to it in these terms.
When we come to Clause 4, we have Amendments to meet the point about out-patients, which is just as important a matter of principle as the matter concerning resident patients. But I do not think he could really criticise the Amendment on those grounds, because his reply does not seem to be relevant to Clause 3 at all. What in fact we got into, if I may say so with respect to him, was a very delightful philosophical discussion about "when is a resident not a resident?" It reminded me very much of the kind of essay I was asked to write as an under-graduate: "How do you know that you arc not now dreaming?"—which in fact seems a rather suitable topic for some of the proceedings of this Committee.
When we are dealing with a clause which refers entirely to resident patients, and I put down an Amendment which refers entirely to resident patients, only to be told that I should be talking about out-patients, I find myself somewhat confused. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friends Lord O'Hagan and Lord Sandys all made clear, there is a case here for using the beds flexibly. I am not at all against that, and if I could get an undertaking from the Government that they would redraft the Amendment so that the beds could be used by out-
150
patients as well as by in-patients, I should be perfectly satisfied.
What will not satisfy me or, I believe, any of my colleagues—and I think I speak here for those on the Cross-Benches and the Liberal Benches—is that we should go through this whole performance of phasing out beds, only to discover that they would be better used for offices, which is one of the uses to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said they could be put, which seems to me a fantastic reason when the Government have said that the reason for having the Bill is to shorten the National Health Service queues. The whole thing is so inconsistent as to defy imagination.
As my noble friend Lady Macleod said, there is a great need for more amenity beds. They could be used for that reason, and we should not be averse to anything like that. I concluded from what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said to my noble friend, that he is not prepared to take this Amendment back and redraft it to meet these very real points. If that is the case, I found his reply so unsatisfactory that I shall press this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is obvious that either I am not making myself clear—and I thought I had done so—or the noble Baroness chooses not to follow what I have been saying. The Amendment states:
"…the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use for resident patients".
All I said was that if the word "resident" was left in it would make it difficult—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, agreed with me—to use them for persons who, although attending hospital for help and treatment, would not be resident patients. I see nothing inconsistent in that, and I am astounded that the noble Baroness seems to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, talked about things which, with the greatest respect, had no bearing at all on the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: With due respect to the noble Lord—and, of course, I admire his knowledge of this subject—I sincerely suggest that matters affecting detriment touch upon this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: On that we must disagree. My difficulty is that the phrase "resident patients" would make it impossible to use the beds for any other

151
purpose whatsoever. Before the noble Baroness was so insistent about putting this to the Committee, I was prepared to say that I would take it back and look at it, but I must say that, as it stands at the moment, we could not accept the Amendment. I do not know whether it is possible to find a phrase other than "resident patients", to include persons who will not he resident. I must leave it to the noble Baroness to decide what she wants to do.
Lord STONE: Might I suggest that the common term "in-patients" would suffice?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Why is the noble Lord so choosy about the questions he answers? He has answered part of the questions, but the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, put a very clear one. He asked: is the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, strong enough for him to say that if the word "resident" is left out, or if some other words are added to allow day or temporary patients to come in, he will find the Amendment acceptable? That is the kind of answer which I am certain my noble friends are waiting to hear. The noble Lord offered to take back the Amendment. Is the noble Lord able to say that he will take it back with a view to finding words which will remove the restriction on residence? If the noble Lord could say that, I have no doubt that my noble friend would think twice about putting the Amendment to the Committee; but he has not done so. Will the noble Lord answer the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, instead of the other questions which were not pushed with the same emphasis and clearness?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not prepared to say to your Lordships that will take it back "with a view to finding words", because I am not sure that words
can be found which will enable these beds to be used for in-patients as well as out-patients. I am quite prepared to take back the Amendment and have a look at it but I can make no promise other than that.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that the noble Lord has made a very satisfactory offer. The noble Lord has said that he would like these beds to be used, yet he criticises my use of the phrase "for resident patients" although Clause 3 makes it perfectly clear that the 1968 Act, to which reference is made, speaks of making beds available to resident private patients. I do not believe it is good enough if the noble Lord, with all the skills which are available to him, is unable to say, "I sympathise with your point; the Government would like to make the best possible use of these beds and we could redraft the provision so as to include out-patients as well as in-patients". After all, it is not a major matter of principle but what we all want to do. I think, however, we are going to be told that it is not the Government's intention that these beds should always be used for patients. That is the reason why the Government are not prepared to accept this draft.
In the circumstances, I shall press my Amendment, although I should find it quite acceptable if the Government came back with an Amendment of their own on Report. I would willingly withdraw the Amendment we have moved today if it were found to be inconsistent with anything that the Government were prepared to do.
10. 47 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ampthill, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gainford, L.

Amulree, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gisborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Balerno, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Blakenham, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kemsley, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Newall, L.

Seear, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Stamp, L.

Long, V.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Lyell, L.

Pender, L.

Swansea, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Platt, L.

Tranmire, L.

Marley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Monson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winstanley, L.

Morris, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Sandys, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kaldor, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Kissin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris, of Kenwood, L.

White, B.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10. 56 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG: Now that we have moved a number of what we regard as important Amendments to this Bill, we hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill in another place. Not only have we the Amendment that we have just moved whereby the beds phased out will at any rate be used by National Health Service patients and not turned into offices, or something like that, which has been the fate of some of them phased out, and that at least the interests of the patients will come first, but we shall have produced a much more realistic timetable in Clause 3(1), and put in an important Amendment that it should be the Board and not the Secretary of State who shall decide on the first 1,000 beds to be phased out. This seems to us on this side of the Committee to cover two very important matters of principle.
Thirdly, we have put in an Amendment which Lord Goodman wanted, that the alternative facilities should be at a satisfactory standard. None of these Amendments is in any way against the principle of the Bill, but all of them are designed to see that all patients, whether they are in the National Health Service or as private
154
patients, have the best possible treatment that is available. That is the principle that we wish to see carried out throughout this Bill. Whether it is based on the narrow definition of the Goodman agreements or not, it is after all the patients whose interests should come first, and it is that which has motivated us to move the Amendments as we have.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Functions of Board as regards withdrawal of NHS facilities from private patients]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("progressive") and insert ("grant or").
The noble Baroness said: The Board and its functions are an integral part of the proposals under this Bill. Amendment No. 17 is designed so that power shall be given to the Board not only to phase out private beds from National Health hospitals but, where it thinks right, to increase the number. This Amendment received a tied vote in another place. It was never debated at all on Report because it was guillotined before it was reached, and this is the first opportunity for anybody to express a further opinion on it and to say what is wanted. It would be unfortunate if, as seems likely, the proceedings of this House are to be guillotined

155
in another place when they go back and possibly there might not be an opportunity to debate this matter again in another place.
The functions of the Board as at present proposed have what can only be described as a ratchet effect. It progressively phases them out, and there is no provision at all for increasing the number anywhere at any time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, took me to task earlier for saying that on one issue the Government had changed their mind. He replied that all Governments changed their minds because circumstances change. I put it to him on this matter that many circumstances could change in the NHS. After all, who could have foreseen 15 years ago that we would have a Bill like this, that the doctors would ever contemplate going on strike or that the trade unions would feel the way they do? Perhaps we should all have been more farseeing, but in the event probably most people did not expect many of these things. I will, therefore, put to the noble Lord some of the things that might occur in the next 10 to 20 years.
If Lord Wells-Pestell looks at the Registrar General's forecasts of population he will see that already they have changed enormously. Ten years ago the Registrar General was forecasting a large increase in the population. Now we know that we have a declining birth rate but that we have an enormous increase in the population in the age group 75-plus. I am not an expert in these matters, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that, with the largest growth in the population of those over 75, the need for hospital care for them will increase. The Government have argued that the 1,000 beds being phased out will not necessarily be used for those patients. Is it not possible that some of them or their relatives may wish to make private provision for an elderly relative who perhaps has some long terminal illness and will want that provision in hospital? And when the statistics—we cannot argue about this; it is a fact stated in the Government's own publication Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England—make it perfectly clear what the problems of the future may be, how are we to know that those people will not want private provision? The
156
document, in paragraph 11, also highlights two problems:
"… the extent of unsatisfied need in the provision for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and the pressure on services due to the rising numbers of elderly".
What about provision for the mentally handicapped, now living longer than ever? Suppose a family wishes to make provision for a mentally handicapped child or adult in a long-stay hospital as a private patient? What about new medical developments? Who is to say that there will not be some startling new medical developments that cannot possibly all take place in private hospitals but will take place in others? What about the change in the population? We already have down an Amendment on the question of new towns.
Consider, for example, the way in which the noble Lord's colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, has now changed his view, as has his Department, on what should happen in inner cities. Far from trying to take industry and offices out of inner cities, he has discovered that because of what has been the policy and the building up of new towns, inner cities are becoming denuded. That policy is to go into reverse and people are to be encouraged to return to live in the inner cities. Surely that means that there should be provision for private medical facilities where the population goes. Should it not sometimes be the case, in order to meet the Goodman proposals, that that provision should be within the Health Service? It could be in a hospital in a separate block, if that would satisfy everybody's feelings about it. As the useful and important document Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England makes clear, there are to be cuts in capital expenditure and more in domiciliary provision. Is it not sensible that there might have to be more provision for private patients because there will be less provision in NHS hospitals?
I put these as hypothetical questions, but when one is legislating one tries to take a view of the kind of things that might happen in the future, and it seems not unreasonable to assume that for any of these reasons, or even for one of them—or for none of the reasons I have given but for some others I have not suggested—we might at some future date need to make provision for more private patients.
It is for that reason that this Amendment has been put down which would make it the duty of the Board to submit from time to time, only when it thought necessary, not only that the number of private beds in hospitals should be reduced, but that they could, if it was considered necessary, be increased, not generally, but in a particular part of the country at a particular time if the circumstances arose. I do not press that they should. I am not asking that the number of beds should be increased. All I ask is that a provision should be written into legislation to make it possible, simply because no Government can foresee all the eventualities in the future. This at least would be playing safe on a number of complicated issues which will affect many individuals. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: Perhaps this is a suitable moment to remind the House of "Ferrers Law" because, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has been at pains to remind the House from time to time, the purpose of almost every piece of legislation is ultimately confounded by what turns out in the end; in other words, its purpose is reversed.
I believe those of us who have frequently argued passionately for things which have now disappeared into oblivion can perhaps regard the situation with some care. May I perhaps refer to certain events in the past? There was the Severnside Study, argued passionately during the sixties; the South-Eastern Study, a document of great technical specification and very considerable expertise. Both have been thrown into the waste paper basket. There was the Third London Airport at Foulness, a subject which your Lordships have discussed on many occasions and in very great detail. But who today would stand up from the Government Benches and propose a Bill?
I think it was the noble Baroness who proposed the withdrawal of the final portions of the initial legislation. So we do change our minds in a short space of eight or nine years. Therefore, what my noble friend Lady Young has said is of very great significance in this context; that is, that the legislation must be flexible. It must aim at providing for circumstances unforeseen but which may
158
occur within quite a short space of time, perhaps 10 years or less. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise the obvious any further, but I believe that the Amendment is highly desirable.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should have hoped that the noble Baroness who will reply would keep in mind the clear advice given by the longest-serving Prime Minister in this century. He made it clear on many occasions that the thing to do in Government or in Opposition is to keep all of your options open. What this Amendment does is to keep an option open, to grant or to remove. I do not think one can do better than urge upon the noble Baroness in replying for the Government that the Government who initiated this legislation was led by the same Prime Minister who always said, "Keep your options open." I hope that in those circumstances she feels that this is an Amendment which does just that. It need not be used if one's principle does not think it right that any extra provision should be granted, but it is an option, I believe, that, whoever the Government may be, they should keep in their locker as being one they may want to use.
11. 10 p. m.
Baroness STEDMAN: Far be it from me never to try to keep all my options open, but on this case I am here to present this part of the Bill which the Government are putting before your Lordships. The effect of the Amendment which the noble Baroness has moved would be to remove the Board's duty to make proposals for the progressive revocation of authorisations under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act, and to impose on the Board a duty to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the grant of authorisations of pay beds and facilities for private non-resident patients as well as for their revocation.
I must remind your Lordships of what my right honourable friend, a former Minister of State, said in another place; namely, that the private sector would have to stand on its own feet, and that the Government are in the business of providing a separation of pay beds from the National Health Service. I accept that the forecast that we are given today on population shows that there will be quite a shift in the age groups of our population.

159
I accept that there are people with all kinds of disabilities, mental and physical, and there are many more elderly people who may require pay beds. But there were Government Amendments tabled to Clauses 4 and 5 at the Committee stage in another place which took into account the representations which were made to them by the medical profession, and these provide for pay bed authorisations to be granted where a hospital with pay beds is permanently or temporarily closed.
So far as new towns are concerned, where a new hospital is built in a new town, and where this involves the closure of an existing hospital in the area, then any pay beds which existed at the original hospitals could, if the Board recommended, be re-provided in the new hospital. But where there were no existing pay beds in the area, any new demand for private practice which arose from the expansion of population would have to be satisfied by the private sector. I should be failing in my duty if I did not again remind your Lordships that the purpose of the Bill is not to perpetuate the existence of pay beds in the National Health Service, but to provide the machinery for effecting the separation of private medical practice from National Health Service hospitals in a reasonable and orderly manner. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I always enjoy listening to the very clear and concise way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, makes her points, and I only wish that I could agree with her. She says that it was maintained in another place that in matters of this kind the private sector must stand on its own feet. One of my concerns about the Bill is that I think that in many instances the private sector will stand on its own feet, with difficulty in places, but very successfully. The question which the noble Baroness needs to ask herself is: Will the National Health Service be able to stand on its own feet? It is rather wobbly in places and it is hardly likely to be improved by the Bill. That is our concern about it.
The argument of the noble Baroness about new towns is the kind of argument
160
that rings every single alarm bell on this side. She said quite fairly that any pay beds that already exist in new towns could be re-provided in some other form of hospital, but that any new demand would have to be provided by the private sector. As the noble Baroness knows far better than I do, new towns take a long time to develop. Her own new town of Peterborough would be one example. There may not now be a demand for private beds. There may not be a big enough population. It is most unlikely that there was a private nursing home, for example, in Peterborough new town. I should be very surprised to hear that there is one. But neither she nor I can say that into the indefinite future there will never be one.
In the meantime, any pay beds phased out mean that the inhabitants there will not have the options. I should remind Members of the Committee who talk as if it is very easy to get a good bed in hospital, that if you live in London you are very fortunate; you are very well provided with all kinds of facilities which do not necessarily exist in other parts of the country, and people are perfectly entitled, if they so wish, to make private provision for them.
My argument does not rest merely on new towns. I quoted this as one example; and I was very glad that the noble Baroness recognised that there is a very real problem with the ageing population that we have. I think that before very much longer we shall find ourselves in increasing difficulty with the number of very old people in the population for whom provision will need to be made. As I cannot see that it is at all unreasonable to ask in this matter that the Board should have powers, either to increase or to decrease the numbers of pay beds, I feel that I cannot withdraw this Amendment.
11. 16 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 53; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Berkeley, B.

Harvington, L.

Onslow, E.

Blakenham, V.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Platt, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Seear, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Elles, B.

Marley, L.

Swansea, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Castle, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, B

Fisher of Camden, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11. 23 p. m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Henley): Would I be right in supposing that Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 are consequential on the Amendment which has just been agreed to?
Baroness YOUNG: That is so. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc.
Page 3, line 39, leave out first ("the")
Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("patients") to ("and") in line 43.
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("the")
Page 3, line 46, leave out from ("patients") to end of line 2 on page 4.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 9, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve")
The noble Lord said: This group of Amendments is concerned with the timetable of the working out of the Bill and proposes to omit the period "six months"
162
and insert "twelve months". It was the group of Amendments previously referred to as "the Goodman proposals" and was the subject of a tied vote in the House of Commons. For that reason, I think it is very important that we should pay particular attention to this opportunity of re-examining the situation because, as I understand it, none of the three Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 was reached on Report in another place and were subject to the guillotine. The question of the timetable in the Bill is of vital significance. In the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State was required to phase out the beds within six months, and the Board in the present drafting are required to produce their proposals. But this really is quite impossible within the very narrow limits of six calendar months provided by the Government timetable.
Let us consider what the Board are expected to do. On being convened as a Board by the Secretary of State, they will presumably receive their appointments and meet on the first occasion. They will have to decide on their method of working; they will have to appoint their secretaries and set up their administrative procedures and organise their

163
staff at such a place and in such a way as to be most economical and to facilitate their operation. But it is not purely a matter of setting up an office, because they have a very clearly defined job to do in a very short period of time.
We ought to see what those jobs are once they are administratively organised. One of the first things they must do is to establish working relations with a Scottish and Welsh Committee. These Committees have to be set up; as indeed the four lists of assessors which are set out in Schedule 1(5) on page 23 of the Bill. There are many further problems they will have to examine, because the centre of it lies in the review of investigations of facilities in the private out-patient consultation department and facilities for accommodation. Here really lies a very particular problem for the Board. It is a matter of receiving reports from authorities tabulating equipment and, above all, recognising what equipment is located in which hospital.
It is a technical matter of the first order to identify the location of equipment: first, for radio therapy; secondly, for diagnostic pathology; thirdly, for diagnostic radiology; fourthly, for scanning; fifthly, for ultra-sonics and methods using radio isotopes. Of course, there are several hospitals in London specially skilled in this particular facility, but remarkably few in other parts of the United Kingdom. Hammersmith is well known to have been the leading hospital in this particular field for many years; but how many other principal centres of population can say, "We are as well equipped as Hammersmith"? Apart from specifying what equipment is installed in hospitals, one of the very important things to recognise is the age of the equipment, its suitability, the way in which it has been used in the past and, "Has it been perhaps underused?" There is the question of whether the catchment area to which the noble Baroness referred (highly significant in this whole field) relates to particular facilities.
The Board are being asked in the period of six months to investigate the beds after the first thousand. Of course, the Bill as drafted now has been revised after the Amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Young. We hope that that
164
Amendment will remain in the Bill. But the problem which will concern the Board is the post-Schedule 2 situation—which beds from which hospitals? This really is a particularly difficult task.
My noble friend Lady Young has referred to the demographic problem, where centres of population change. Here one can see a very difficult task facing the Board. They will have to organise themselves in such a way as to collate information from both the Department of Health and Social Security and also from the Department of Environment. Quite substantial parts in the catchment areas referred to change comparatively quickly in areas where redevelopment has taken place.
I believe that the collection of tasks to which I have referred is impossible to carry out within a period of six calendar months. During that period it will be possible to establish the initial procedures—that is, for the Board to get to know one another (a very necessary proceeding); to establish lines of communication; to recognise what their role is and to identify their relationship with both the Department of Health and also their other roles in connection with the Scottish and Welsh Committees and the assessors. Their roles with the BMA, and their consultants, and with the other organisations concerned in the whole operation is very significant.
Private practice will be very strongly affected. It is one of the tasks of the Board to so enable the smooth transition between the phasing out of pay beds in the National Health Service in such a manner as it will not affect patients in the National Health Service hospitals. I hope they will achieve their task in a satisfactory manner; but surely a period of six months is grossly inadequate. I believe that this Amendment, and its successor Amendments, are most certainly necessary to the Bill. I beg to move.
11. 32 p. m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to emphasise from practical experience, as I know the noble Baroness has had from her local government days, that six months is a short time. When you are dealingwith anything as bureaucratic as this, six months amounts only to minutes. If you take into account holiday periods,

165
the time when people whose advice is essential are away doing other jobs, six months is asking for this important task to be done in a slip-shod way. If it is not done in a slip-shod way, it is asking for decisions to be made by one official in order to fit in with the timetable, and you are not going to have the collective wisdom of the Board with their special contacts.
The noble Baroness has sat on planning committees, as I have. She knows that things which are not as intricate as this have been submitted, and she has found it impossible to give either planning approval or disapproval within 12 months, 18 months and two years. I sympathise with her in the advice she has to give and I hope that she can officially recognise tonight what a short period six months is and will put that on the record. I do not think that 12 months is long enough. I would leave it as open as possible to make certain that the job is well done. There is no merit in having it done in six months or 12 months; the merit is having it properly done. It will not be able to be done well in six months.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My attitude as to whether this should be six months or 12 months depends on the ultimate fate of the group of Amendments we have just passed. If this clause is going to read:
"… in accordance with this section proposals for the grant or revocation of … the authorizations …"
that makes rather a difference. If one of the roles of the Board is to alert the authorities to possible dangers and damage to the service, I should like them to do that at the earliest possible stage.
I make no secret of the fact that I have spoken in these debates on this Bill from the point of view of one who is anxious, above all else, to protect and defend the National Health Service; and because I wish to do that I should like to see National Health Service specialists spending as much time as possible in the National Health Service. One of my fears in the phasing out of private beds is that they will go a long way away—"somewhere in the catchment area" as the phrase has become. Frankly, I should like to see National Health Service specialists in the National Health Service
166
hospitals. A measure such as this will take many of them away from these hospitals for certain periods, and at a very early stage it will have a damaging effect on the Service. If those damaging effects are apparent, I should like the Board to alert the authorities at the earliest possible moment so that steps can be taken. I know this is permissive rather than obligatory, but my attitude to whether the period is six months or twelve months rather depends on whether the Amendments which have gone through this Committee ultimately remain in the Bill.
Viscount LONG: In support of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandys, I must say that after he had read out some of the things the Board would have to do in this six months' period, I have come to the conclusion that the Government are really pressurising the Board members to fulfil their task, especially as most of them are expected to be in private practice. I really do not see how they will be able to form themselves into a Board and carry out this work (bearing in mind also that there will be Scottish and Welsh Committees), and still be in their own practices at the same time. Six months, in my view, is much too short, and I think it would be better to leave it open rather than pressurise them in this way, or else to leave it at a year, if not more.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will not expect me to support him in his views tonight, and he will have got used to the fact that over a period of 25 years I have not supported him as my Member of Parliament. I have not changed my views during the time he has been in this Chamber, and therefore shall have to oppose the view he has given tonight.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is concerned, he would not expect me to give any assurances as to what will happen to Amendments made to this Bill when they get to another place. Therefore, I cannot satisfy him as to whether this is the right period of time in his view. What I can say is that the extension of this interval would unnecessarily and unacceptably prolong the period of withdrawal from the National Health Service of pay beds and of authorised facilities for private out-patients.

167
The Government accept the principles enunciated in the proposals of 15th December for determining the phasing out of pay beds and facilities from the NHS, which are listed in Clause 4(7). Those principles were, first, that for the retention of beds or facilities for private practice in NHS hospitals there should be reasonable demand for private medicine in the areas of the country served by those particular hospitals. Secondly, that for the abolition of beds or facilities for private practice in NHS hospitals there should be available sufficient accommodation or facilities for the reasonable operation of private medicine in the areas of the country served by those particular hospitals. Also, in those areas of the country presently served for private practice by a particular NHS hospital, all reasonable steps had been or were being taken to provide private beds or facilities outside NHS hospitals and that this would be kept under continuous review; and also, that where all reasonable steps to provide in the area of the country concerned alternative private beds and facilities outside an NHS hospital that could be taken were not being taken, this would, after due warning, be itself grounds for recommending the withdrawal of facilities for private practice in that particular NHS hospital. While showing a proper understanding of the difficulties which developers may encounter in seeking to provide alternative facilities, the Board should none the less approach this part of its remit with an appropriate sense of urgency.
In the Government's view, a requirement on the Board to look at the state of play every six months is a reasonable interpretation of these principles. It puts the onus on developers, and those who believe there is a substantial public demand for private practice, to demonstrate their conviction by taking steps to provide facilities to meet that demand promptly, though not of course with undue haste or without adequate preparatory planning. None the less, it is foreseen that a point could be reached when, after thorough review on a particular occasion, the Board might not be able, in following the principles in Clause 4(7), to propose any more beds or facilities for phasing out, for the time being. In that case, it can report that no proposals are at that time
168
necessary. This is allowed for in Clause 4 (2)(b). It is up to the chairman to make a case to the Secretary of State, if he thinks it unreasonable that he should submit his first report in six months. Since the object of the Bill is progressive phasing out, we should be losing the impetus in doing the job which we have set ourselves if there were too long an interval. Therefore, I must ask the House to reject these Amendments.
11. 42 p. m.
Lord SANDYS: I must confess that if I were appointed chairman of a Board, which is highly unlikely, my first recourse would be to Clause 4(2)(b), which is what any chairman would do, faced with an overwhelming situation wherein it would be totally impossible to reach the conclusion of his work in that period. The noble Baroness used the phrase, "unnecessarily and unacceptably prolonging the process of withdrawal" and she did not, I regret to say, convince me that there would be a satisfactory argument, because the phrases which followed from her brief, which she read with an assumed conviction, carried with them all the arguments which we know so well, and the phraseology which we know from another place. That phrase, which has such a familiar ring to it, "kept under continuous review" is a term of art which is so well known that it brings shouts of laughter in another place when a Minister attempts to use it.
I believe that the situation is this. The Government are attempting a piece of window-dressing in trying to force the programme unnecessarily fast. If they seriously think that this Amendment is either a wrecking or disruptive one, they have cause to reconsider it, because any reasonable chairman reading Hansard, and looking at the list of operations which he would have to complete, would say straight away, "It is out of the question that this could be fulfilled".
There is one final point, which I believe is a practical one. I make no complaint about the postal arrangements. I merely make the observation that, now that weekend collections have been discontinued, the whole operation of a week's mail has changed its cycle. It means that for someone writing a letter on a Friday or a Saturday, and failing to

169
get it into the post, the whole cycle is thrown out of phase. I believe that there is a point here, and I also feel that communications with these Welsh and Scottish Committees will take a great deal longer than the Government believe.
House resumed.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
11. 45 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26: Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Colville of Culross, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kemsley, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Sandys, L.

Gisborough, L.

Morris, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Oram, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L. (Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Peddie, L.

Castle, L.

Kagan, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Kaldor, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

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

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  THE KATYN MASSACRE: RESPONSIBILITY
  THE KATYN MASSACRE: RESPONSIBILITY
  THE KATYN MEMORIAL
  THE KATYN MEMORIAL
  THE GREEN POUND AND THE POUND STERLING
  THE GREEN POUND AND THE POUND STERLING
  COMMONWEALTH UNICAMERAL CONSTITUTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH UNICAMERAL CONSTITUTIONS
  CAP AND CONSUMER PRICES
  CAP AND CONSUMER PRICES
  EEC FOOD SUBSIDIES
  EEC FOOD SUBSIDIES
  EEC CURRENCIES AND "GREEN" EQUIVALENT
  EEC CURRENCIES AND "GREEN" EQUIVALENT
  UK FOOD SUBSIDIES: COST TO EEC
  UK FOOD SUBSIDIES: COST TO EEC
  CAP AND UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION
  CAP AND UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION
  THE GREEN POUND
  THE GREEN POUND
  HEATHROW TERMINAL TROLLEYS
  HEATHROW TERMINAL TROLLEYS