Sitting of 10 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th November],
  That the Promoters of the Anglian Water Authority Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further procedings thereon in order to proceed with that BUI, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session, and their locus standi has not been disallowed;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned until tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a public inquiry into the increase in building cost of Ninewells Hospital, Dundee.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): As the building contractors have moved for arbitration in the light of the final certificate issued on 26th October 1976 and have also started legal proceedings against the health board, it would be inappropriate to take a decision at this stage on the holding of an inquiry.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister has given perhaps the only answer he could give in the circumstances. Does he accept that there is considerable anxiety about the manner in which these costs have been built up? Is the system of public accounting at the Scottish Office sufficiently sophisticated to deal with such circumstances? Will the Minister conduct an internal departmental inquiry into the way in which the costs escalated from £10 million to £25 million?
    Mr. Ewing: I accept that there is public concern on this question, but there is Government concern as well. These are highly complicated, complex and difficult legal matters. It would be better if the House agreed that we should leave the matter to take its legal process before examining it further.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the same costly, insensitive blind bureaucracy has been displayed by the Tayside Health Board in its dealings with the services offered by Arbroath Infirmary? Will he look into that? Does he realise that health boards will be giving poorer services to local people at greater cost?
    Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member has a Question later on the Order Paper on the subject, and it would be unfair for me to pre-empt the answer to that Question.

    Community Councils
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest position regarding the establishment of community councils in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Schemes for the establishment of community councils have been received from all 56 district and islands councils accompanied by a very large number of representations disagreeing with details of the proposals. All schemes and the relevant representations are being considered as quickly as possible. To date, nine have been approved and my right hon. Friend expects to deal with almost all of them before the end of the year.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am gratified to hear that my hon. Friend seeks to secure completion before the end of the year. Is he aware that the involvement of grassroots interest in furtherance of the community spirit and in the campaign against many of the social evils that afflict our areas is dependent on setting up the community councils as quickly as possible? Will he see that he adheres to that timetable?
    Mr. McElhone: I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). We are trying to meet the deadline before the end of the year, but there are certain difficulties. This exercise reflected a very genuine concern by Glasgow and other districts to consider the observations of local communities. That was certainly the spirit of Wheatley. All I can say to my hon. Friend is to assure him that I, with my noble Friend who has day-to-day responsibility for community councils, will be trying to ensure that as many as possible are dealt with through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the end of the year.
    Mr. MacCormick: Does not the Minister accept that the last Conservative Government went to a great deal of trouble to create a new tier in local government, and that we do not want community
    388
    councils in Scotland until we have got rid of these ridiculous regional authorities? Is that not a more important priority?
    Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing to do with the original Question. He might wish not to support regional authorities in Scotland, but if that is so why did he and his party put up so many candidates for the regional authorities?
    Mr. Carmichael: I appreciate the difficulties and the work involved in setting up community councils and in vetting the proposals for them. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider urging the Secretary of State to devote more resources to this task? There is a great deal of local enthusiasm for community councils, and it would be unfortunate if it were dissipated by a delay in setting them up.
    Mr. McElhone: I accept my hon. Friend's comments about the enthusiasm for local community councils. The views of the local authorities had to be in by 15th May this year. Glasgow sent in its views five days afterwards, and most of the other authorities sent them in at the last moment together with views and considerations from local communities. The result was a large number of submissions having to be dealt with in a very short time. The Scottish Office officials are working extremely hard to ensure that my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity of approving almost all of them before the end of the year.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is it necessary to set up community councils all together? Could it not be done one at a time? What about the situation in Glasgow? Many of the questions today have come from Glasgow Members, who are naturally very concerned. Will the Minister give some indication when Glasgow may expect the community councils? Will he be more definite than "before the end of the year"?
    Mr. McElhone: I can only repeat what I said earlier. There was a large number of representations, especially from Glasgow. The whole basis of Wheatley on this issue was to ensure that local communities' representations were considered, and not merely the views of local authorities. My right hon. Friend is keen to ensure that ordinary communities that

    389
    are concerned about the spirit of family life and the development of the community in their areas receive a fair hearing. He decided to ensure that all representations were studied carefully in the interests of the communities. When that has been done, he will make his decision. My right hon. Friend is conscious of the need to get early decisions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that almost all of them should have been carried through before the end of the year.
    Mr. Lambie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the setting up of community councils will mean substantial increases in public expenditure for very little effort? Will he consider scrapping the whole idea of community councils and using the money that would have been involved in increased public expenditure for more necessary services?
    Mr. McElhone: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in community affairs in his constituency. Despite his opposition and protest, I can assure the House that my hon. Friend sends me many letters on behalf of his constituents as he does to my ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office. I must point out to my hon. Friend that by getting community spirit and community life going in Scotland, we hope to prevent expenditure on vandalism, for example, and on other aspects of community life that are disagreeable to most of us and that are occupying the minds of many people in the Government, especially my hon. Friend who deals with these matters at the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in approving the scheme has meant that in some areas the initial enthusiasm is fading away? To take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith), may I ask whether the Glasgow scheme will be approved by the end of the year? What will be the cost of community councils to public funds in a full year?
    Mr. McElhone: It is not for us to determine the actual cost. That is a matter that is left to the discretion of local authorities. The authorities made allowances for the cost in their rate support grant allocations from the Scottish Office. I understand that Glasgow is allocating
    390
    about £300 per community council. That may be good for some of the smaller councils but it may be difficult for some of the larger ones, which will include many thousands of Glasgow constituents.
    As regards enthusiasm and the time lag, I can only say that there were many representations. I can only repeat what I have said so often. We have only a few weeks to go, and we regard community councils as a most important factor in our communities.

    Scottish Development Agency (Job Creation)
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new jobs have been created to date as a result of the work of the Scottish Development Agency.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): In detail, this is a matter for the Agency. I am satisfied, nevertheless, that the Agency's industrial investment, factory building and environmental activities to date will have a significant impact on both the creation and the maintenance of employment. Factory lettings alone will, it is estimated, account for over 2,000 jobs.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a reply like that puts a smokescreen across the work of the Agency? How can he reconcile his answer with the words of the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that the Agency would produce an industrial transformation in Scotland? Does he agree that putting the Scottish Development Agency into the present unemployment situation is the equivalent of sending an army with peashooters to fight a modern war?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I must say that that is one of the daftest supplementary questions I have heard since I joined the Scottish Office. The Agency has not yet reached its first birthday, but already there have been two substantial factory building programmes and investment in two major companies that will help to create and maintain jobs. We all appreciate the worthwhile environmental work that has been done by the Agency in a very short time.
    Mr. Selby: Did Alexander Stephens Engineering take advantage of the offer to approach the Agency for financial assistance before it closed down?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The Stephens issue is quite another matter, as my hon. Friend well knows. I know that the Agency has been able to help in Govan not only in employment but in environmental matters that are important to my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Monro: Does the Minister of State realise that his answers are astonishingly uninformative and complacent? How many jobs has the SDA retained through pseudo-nationalisation, and how many has it actually created?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I have already indicated how many jobs have been created or are likely to be created as a result of the factory building programme. I have indicated, too—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed this in the Press—the work that has been done by the Agency regarding Ranco Motors and only recently as regards Munrospun Knitwear of Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the debates that took place in the House about the Highlands and Islands Development Board. There was great opposition from the Conservatives, but my postbag is now filled with letters written by Conservative Members asking whether I can get help from the HIDB as well as from the SDA.

    Crimes of Violence and Dishonesty
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest increases in crimes of violence and dishonesty in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to combat the rise of crimes of violence and dishonesty in Scotland.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: First indications for the early part of 1976 suggest that the upward trend for 1975 which the former Secretary of State announced on 9th March has continued, largely in the area of crimes of dishonesty. We are in regular contact with chief constables about crime prevention measures and have studied with them what further measures can be taken to improve public co-operation and support for the police in crime prevention measures, such as the present
    392
    publicity campaign on crime prevention including vandalism.
    Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply, but does it not demonstrate complete complacency? Is he surprised that there are so many failures in education? Is there not demonstrated a degree of complacency towards a major and growing social evil? Will the hon. Gentleman announce some measures that demonstrate that the Government mind about the crime rate and that they are willing to assist society in preventing the increasing difficulties which are brought about by crime by assisting the police to prevent it by, if necessary, taking measures through the Lord Advocate's Department?
    Mr. Ewing: I realise the difficulties that the hon. and learned Gentleman faced today of all days and the difficulty he obviously had in preparing that supplementary question. We have announced various measures to assist the police in combating crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty. I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the strength of the police force in Scotland is now higher than it has ever been. However, the police require the public's co-operation. It is in that area of public co-operation that we are desperately anxious to enlist the aid of both hon. Members and members of the public.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scotland already has the highest prison population per head in the Western world? As we still have a distressingly high criminal incidence rate, will he examine alternative forms of sentencing which would not only be cheaper but might even be more effective?
    Mr. Ewing: We are at present examining alternative forms of sentencing, such as community work. We have asked four regional authorities in Scotland to consider that possibility. We are in discussions with the regional authorities at the moment.
    I must correct a wrong impression that appears to have been given. We have in Scotland the highest male population prison rate in Western Europe, but it must be said at this time of women's lib that we have the lowest female prison population in Western Europe.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister realise that half the men admitted to Scottish prisons in any one year are admitted for non-payment of fines and other minor offences? Instead of being complacent about experimenting with community service orders, will he appreciate that such orders have been tried out successfully during the last four years south of the border? Will he speed up the implementation of these proposals in Scotland in order that the prisons can deal with the real problem of hardened prisoners in our society?
    Mr. Ewing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has realised the true facts. I understood that in recent weeks he and some of his hon. Friends were saying tha half the prison population were held because of the non-payment of fines. The true daily position is that only 8 per cent, of the prison population are held because of non-payment of fines. It requires some consultation—I thought that the Opposition were in favour of consultation—with regional authorities to introduce and implement community service orders.
    Mrs. Bain: Specifically as regards juvenile crime, will the Minister indicate when he expects the various steering committees to report and when we can expect intermediate powers to be awarded to children's panels to fulfil their useful rôle in Scottish society?
    Mr. Ewing: That is a matter for the social work departments. I cannot say when the various steering committees dealing with that aspect of the problem will report. Serious consideration is now being given to the possibility of giving children's panels wider powers and ranges of treatment.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement regarding the prospects for the Scottish fishing industry.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The market has continued to improve with the value of land-
    394
    ings for the Scottish industry as a whole for the first nine months of 1976, at £60·4 million, some 43 per cent, above the comparable figure for 1975. Progress has been made in external aspects of the common fisheries policy, but there are still difficult and important issues in fisheries limits and conservation matters to be resolved.
    Mr. Sproat: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great and growing concern, particularly in Aberdeen, regarding access to the Faroese ground after 1st January? What provision for negotiation with the Faroese through the EEC has he made or is he in process of making?
    Mr. Millan: The first step is to get Community confidence established by the establishment of the 200-mile limit and then agreement by the members of the Community that the Community will carry out those negotiations.
    The Faroese problem is being tackled by the Community now. In the programme of discussions and consultations that the Community hopes to put into operation before the end of the year, it hopes to have at least preliminary consultations on that as well as many other problems.
    Mr. Grimond: Have the British Government obtained any undertaking, such as I understand the Irish Government have got, that if they agreed to 200 miles their special need for a 50-mile limit would be given every consideration by the Community?
    Mr. Millan: The Irish Government's demands are for a limit up to 50 miles. In that respect the Irish Government are on the same footing as the British Government. There were references in the recent communique not only to the special problems of the Irish fishing industry, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the complete text, to the special needs and interests of the northern regions of the United Kingdom, which include Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the support given by the spokesman for the Scottish National Party, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), to the proposition of broad bands of up to 50 miles contradicts the claim for a 100-mile limit made at the weekend?

    395
    Secondly, has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on the anger expressed by Scottish fishermen and their official spokesman regarding the attempt by the spokesman for the SNP to involve them in provocative and illegal actions?
    Mr. Millan: I know that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), who is the fisheries spokesman for the SNP, has made a lot of very silly statements recently which have been repudiated by the fishermen. I also know that, despite the fact that the SNP has been pretending to be in favour of a 100-mile limit, the hon. Member for Banff has within the last few days signed an appeal for limits of up to 50 miles, which is the objective of the British Government.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Secretary of State give a clear undertaking that he is able to represent the Scottish fishing industry in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy as effectively and energetically as the Irish fishing industry has been represented by its Government? Is he aware that these renegotiations are a critical test of the argument put forward by those of us who supported Britain in Europe in the referendum that Scotland's interests are better represented through Britain than through a separate Scottish representation?
    Mr. Millan: The answer to both questions is an unequivocal " Yes ".
    Mr. Watt: Does the House recognise that the Scottish National Party accepts a 50-mile limit under protest but that it reserves the right for an independent Scotland to seek to extend it to 100 miles? Regarding the outcome of the discussions on haddock quotas this week, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Scottish fishermen deeply resent the fact that they have to stop fishing for haddock while the boats of other nations are allowed to go on fishing for that species in our waters?
    Mr. Millan: I think that the more the hon. Gentleman says about fishing, the better, because he contradicts himself with every successive statement. I am glad that the SNP is now in favour of a 50-mile limit. That is another instant change of policy.
    We have had discussions with the industry within the last couple of days regarding haddock. I hope to be able to make
    396
    an announcement soon. The House will know that the quotas were agreed with the industry and that we are under legal obligations on this matter. It is in our long-term interests to have conservation policies which stick and are effective. There is room for flexibility on the haddock and whiting quotas, for example. We intend to use that flexibility. We are also looking at other possibilities. I hope to make a statement with the next two to three days.

    Agriculture
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the target for agricultural expansion in Scotland is being achieved.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): We shall shortly be examining the economic situation and prospects of the farming industry with the National Farmers Unions during the annual review. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the outcome of that review.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are big discrepancies in the financial returns of certain sections of the industry, as exemplified by the action which had to be taken recently regarding returns for fat pigs? Does he accept that unless that is put right we cannot have a healthy agriculture industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: One of the fascinating things about the agriculture industry is that there are always big discrepancies. Those who produce certain crops or commodities may do well one year but not so well the next year. However, all-round prospects are good. Indeed, the economic returns to the farmers are well up on anything that they have had during the last few years.
    Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons for lack of investment in agriculture in Scotland is uncertainty surrounding the green pound? Does he further agree that that could be overcome by the establishment of a sovereign, strong Scottish pound to which a green pound Scots would be linked and that the establishment of a strong and healthy green pound Scots would give satisfaction to agriculture interests in Scotland, both consumers and producers alike?
    Mr. Brown: I have enough difficulty understanding how the green pound works, never mind the tortuous statement made by the hon. Gentleman about a mythical Scottish pound. The basic fundamental facts concerning the indicators in the industry are all favourable to the farming community. I rest my case on that.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers in Scotland had a very successful year last year? It would be in the interests of consumers—and we on this side of the House represent them—if the Government insisted on sticking to their policy on the green pound and did not yield to the blandishments of either the National Farmers Union or the Scottish National Party, both of which are in favour of the interests of farmers and against those of consumers.
    Mr. Brown: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that farmers are having a very successful year in Scotland, but equally it is true that unless there are successful years the availability of food for consumers is at risk, The Government have an obligation to ensure that there are adequate food supplies. However, on the other hand, farmers cannot expect to be totally immune from the effect of inflation or from the economic problems of industry generally.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Leaving aside the infantile economic futility of a separate Scots pound, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a change quickly in the green pound instead of maintaining the 30 per cent, difference between it and the £ sterling? This difference compares with a 2 per cent, change in food prices which would result from an adjustment of the green pound.
    Mr. Brown: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member was talking about me when he began his remarks. The green pound is under constant review, but we see a need to look at it in the context of the annual review, which is the most significant date in the farming calendar.

    Outer Isles (Shipping Service)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of
    398
    the MV "Loch Carron" from service on the West Coast of Scotland.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend accepted the unanimous recommendation by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland that the cargo service between Glasgow and the Outer Isles, operated by the "Loch Carron" should be withdrawn after 31st October 1976. The current annual deficit on this service, which was met by revenue grant, was nearly £400,000, and with traffic down to about 5,000 tons this was a loss of £80 on every ton carried.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the directive to the Scottish Transport Group from the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee at the hearing last year was that the company should advertise more and improve its services? Nothing was done and, therefore, the company has, in effect, thumbed its nose at the directive. Will the Minister see that the permission is withdrawn?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I cannot accept that any operator would wish to withdraw what he regarded as a successful service. From the discussions we have had, I am satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for alternative services for livestock and oil and fuel. The position regarding livestock services will be monitored, and this will be helpful.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to reduce the number of road accidents in Scotland which have resulted in fatalities and serious injury.
    Mr. McElhone: My right hon. Friend will continue to take and support measures designed to reduce such road accidents. Fatal and serious injury casualties for 1975 were the lowest since 1965.
    Mr. Hunter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the last few months the number of fatal and serious injury accidents in Scotland has been quite appalling, particularly at weekends? Many of these accidents happen in relatively quiet country roads where the traffic is not heavy. In any preventive measures he takes, will my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that warning notices or signs should be displayed more frequently in

    399
    such roads to enable motorists to see that they should drive more carefully and with less speed?
    Mr. McElhone: I am always in favour of care on the roads, but I must disagree with my hon. Friend when he talks about a serious increase in the number of fatal accidents. My information is that the welcome trend which I have just announced continued through the first six months of this year. If my hon. Friend has a peculiar problem in his area I will be happy to discuss it with him. The Department has a road safety unit which, in addition to carrying out accident studies on trunk roads, advises local authorities about accident prevention. I will discuss with my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend later this week the suggestion about setting up notices.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that one of the most serious forms of accident is to children alighting from school buses? In recent months there have been some fatalities of this kind in my constituency. Will the Minister consider adopting the system of other countries in which school buses have flashing signs which prevent any traffic from moving when the bus has stopped? This not only prevents cars from overtaking school buses but it stops traffic from moving on the other side of the road. This would make a considerable contribution to road safety and would reassure many parents.
    Mr. McElhone: Of course, I am prepared to look at any suggestions from any side of the House.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Minister say whether many of these fatal accidents were related to drink problems? Have the Government made any estimate of the increase or decrease in the number of road deaths as a result of the greatly extended drinking hours provided for in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill?
    Mr. McElhone: I cannot comment on the effects of the new licensing legislation because it has not yet come into effect. However, I share the hon. Member's concern about drinking and driving. The Government have accepted the recommendations in the Blennerhassett Report as a basis for new drink-and-drive
    400
    regulations. These will be introduced as soon as possible.

    Forestry
    Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to encourage an increase in planting in the private forestry sector in Scotland.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues will be looking most carefully at the findings of the interdepartmental review group recently set up to consider the whole question of how private forestry is affected by Government policies on taxation, grants and amenities.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister appreciate that timber represents our third biggest import bill, after fuel and food, and that Scotland has the largest percentage of area available for planting? Nevertheless, Scotland is bottom of the European league for the percentage of area under trees. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if substantial tax incentives were given to the private sector of forestry this would make a great contribution to improving our balance of payments?
    Mr. Brown: In general I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out the inconsistency in increasing public expenditure to help the private sector. Of course, the balance of payments argument is one which everyone can accept. However, there is a dilemma here, and it is one which faces the Forestry Commission also: how much can any Government devote to an industry on which there will be no return for 40 or 50 years?
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend resist totally the blandishments of those who wish to see valuable public resources going into private industry? Will he discuss the matter with the new Chairman of the Forestry Commission to ensure that that organisation has money available from the public sector for the growing of trees?
    Mr. Brown: I share a lot of my hon. Friend's ideological ideas. We must, however, face the fact that about 50 per cent, of timber production comes from the private sector, and it would be irresponsible to ignore its contribution. Nevertheless, I have had discussions with the new

    401
    Chairman of the Forestry Commission and one of my priorities is to ensure that the maximum effort is made in the public sector.
    Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister agree that what is really needed is a long-term consensus policy, subscribed to by all parties, so that the timber industry can get on with producing timber in the way it was able to do between the late 1940s and the disastrous Tory White Paper of 1972?
    Mr. Brown: As usual, the Scottish National Party is riding about three horses. [An HON. MEMBER: " And falling off all of them."] They can attack both Governments—
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, both Governments.
    Mr. Brown: I cannot reply to all these interjections. To do so would take too long. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) should appreciate that the SNP is in a unique position. It can attack both Governments on the basis of all sorts of unrealistic things, as it has done particularly with regard to forestry. There would be hardly any room for a sheep, never mind for beef farming, if the SNP had its way.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the levels of rate support grant.
    Mr. Millan: At my meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 5th November, I informed authorities that the rate support grant settlement for 1977–78 will be related to the February 1976 White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd 6393. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has conveyed to me the views of member authorities that the reductions in local authority expenditure would entail the curtailment of services and some redundancy.
    Mr. Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman found a solution to the difficult problem of ensuring that local authorities which have kept within the expenditure targets do not find themselves penalised through the rate support grant mechan-
    402
    ism in respect of authorities which have exceeded their expenditure targets?
    Mr. Millan: The guidelines were not meant to be absolute, because the Scottish Office does not have the kind of information that would enable us to lay down firm lines. The guidelines were meant to be indications of what would be reasonable, given that we wanted authorities to keep within an overall target I am sorry that there is no mechanism within the rate support grant that can be identified and be acceptable to the local authorities themselves to enable me to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I know that this is a sore point with local authorities which feel that they have co-operated with the Government and that they are being penalised. If I could deal with that problem I should be happy to attempt to do so, but so far I have seen no way of doing that, and I think that local authorities take the same view as I do.
    Mr. Dalyell: Sensitive as I am to the dangers of special pleading, may I none the less ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises that Lothian Region has something of a special problem because of the new town of Livingston, as regards both size and the state it is at as a new town?
    Mr. Millan: Livingston is not the only new town in Scotland. Every local authority feels that it has a special problem of one sort or another.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the need for government at all levels to contribute to cuts in public expenditure, but would not the right hon. Gentleman get more co-operation from local authorities if he first set his own house in order, and that of the central Government, by cutting back new schemes of public expenditure or reducing the burden of legislation which passes down to local authorities? Would it not be much better if he were to proceed on the basis of co-operation instead of dictation?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has, as usual, dodged the issue of local government expenditure by pretending that there is some painless way of getting local government expenditure under the kind of control that the Government have indicated. The hon. Gentleman pretends in

    403
    this House that it can all be done painlessly when it comes down to local level, but the leader of the Conservative Group on Strathclyde Regional Council only last week was calling for a further reduction in public expenditure, at the expense of 5,000 jobs. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants?

    Social Work (Scotland) Act
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. McElhone: In the seven years since most of the provisions of the Act came into operation, the social work services have developed into a major instrument for helping people in need and for promoting the social welfare of the community generally. The increase in local authority expenditure on social work—which has almost doubled in the last five years—is reflected in substantially increased staff and other resources.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children's panels set up under the Act have been undermined by the fact that List D schools are greatly overcrowded and in some areas social work departments are overloaded and can only cope with emergency cases? Does he think, as many of us on this side do, that it would be a good idea to re-establish a separate probation service?
    Mr. McElhone: I do not share that view. Perhaps I may give the figures of the numbers involved in social work in Scotland. In 1970 the figure was 7,978, while in 1974 it was 12,800. The hon. Gentleman has several times raised with me the question of waiting lists at List D schools. Indeed, this was the subject of an Adjournment debate. In June 1975 there were 576 on the waiting list, and on 17th October of this year that figure was down to 362. Next week my Department is having a meeting with all the people involved in the running of List D schools and on the agenda, at my request, is a proposal to look at the whole question of List D accommodation. I have recently visited many of the List D schools. I found that one in Aberdeen had 20 empty places. I want that examined. I believe that we should look for a better way of allocating places and that if we were to succeed in finding it the
    404
    figure of 362 would be substantially reduced.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware of a considerable lack of liaison between regional social work departments and district housing authorities, particularly in relation to the problem of battered wives? Will he consider transferring the social work departments to district council authorities?
    Mr. McElhone: That is not a matter for me. I realise the concern that exists about battered wives, and I can tell my hon. Friend that in Edinburgh on Monday my hon. Friend who is responsible for Scottish housing and I will be meeting a joint group of the housing and social work departments of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman take the greatest care to ensure that reductions in social work expenditure do not lead ultimately to increased expenditure? For example, is he aware that on a grant of less than £100,000 the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children spends £500,000 every year on essential work, and that if this grant were withdrawn the net cost to the Exchequer and public expenditure would be very much greater?
    Mr. McElhone: I am aware of the great work done by the Royal Society. We all applaud its efforts. It does a wonderful job all over Scotland. Subventions come in the main through local authorities as social work provision, and the Government have not asked local authorities to make any cuts at all. The provision for social work in the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 was 3 per cent, above that for last year. I appreciate the many demands made upon local authorities for social work, but the priorities within a region for social work and other services are determined by local authorities. It is not an easy task for them, and we are co-operating as much as possible. I hope that the initiative that I have taken with church leaders and other bodies will help in some way to take care of the problem rightly raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a year has elapsed

    405
    since the debate on the Children Bill when he indicated to the House that working parties were looking into the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act? What has happened since then? When will these bodies report, and when can action be expected in terms of legislation?
    Mr. McElhone: A number of committees are considering the whole question of the Act about which the hon. Gentleman asks and in which he took a great interest when it was going through the House. My right hon. Friend has been consulting many bodies on the whole question of children and children's panels and reparations. I hope that the submissions coming in will be made known in a statement by my right hon. Friend some time in the near future.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement by the Lothian Regional Council that if the Government do not alter their position on the rate support grant the council will be required to cut home help services by 10 per cent, and close at least one old folk's home? How can that be reconciled with the spirit of the Social Work (Scotland) Act?
    Mr. McElhone: I am not aware of the position with regard to home helps in the Lothian Region, but I take it that what my hon. Friend says is correct. Perhaps I can give the figures for the total number of home helps. In 1970, 33,000 households were receiving home help services. In 1974, the number was 56,000. In Glasgow, the area which I know best, although there was a rationalisation of home help services, more families were getting the service from home helps; but I appreciate the position outlined by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: The fact that there is no List D accommodation at all in the Highlands Region is a matter of grave concern in the region. Can the hon. Gentleman see his way to reconsidering his attitude to the Kinmylies project?
    Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Kinmylies project. I had a good meeting with the Highland Region in St. Andrew's House on the whole question of List D provision in the Highlands Region. The region appreciates the difficulties of the Government at the
    406
    present time. I said that although we were keen on the project we were considering looking at the phasing of it. I want to be honest with the House. I cannot give a date, but the whole question of List D provision and the way in which it will be disbursed into local authorities' care is being actively considered by my right hon. Friend.

  CRIMINAL TRIALS (110-DAY RULE)
  Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate how many accused persons have been released under the 110-day rule since 1945; and when and in what court these releases occurred.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): No records are kept of these particulars.
  Mr. Fairbairn: No doubt it is wise for the Lord Advocate not to keep records of his own incompetence. Does he not appreciate that there is growing public concern in Scotland that the incompatibility of those who are employed in his Department results in miscarriages of justice with growing frequency when men are released who have been charged with serious crimes? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to demonstrate that he is in charge of the Department for which he is responsible?
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not noted for his consistency, except perhaps in demanding my resignation. He has asked for certain figures, and the Question relates to that. In effect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is criticising the Government for not cutting public expenditure enough At the same time, he is demanding that my Department keeps statistics which it cannot usefully and productively keep.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is it not the case with regard to the Tartan Army trial that the presiding judge who heard the application refused an extension of the 110-day rule? Does this not reflect on the competence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, since if the presiding judge had thought that there was justification he would have granted an extension? Is it not the case that there are also instances in Scotland in

  407
  respect of other court cases? The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look at the administration of his Department in order to make sure that these problems do not arise in future.
  The Lord Advocate: I would refute any suggestion that the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were in any way connected with the competence of those running the cases concerned. I should indicate that the Government and the Crown were guided in this particular aspect of the law by two reported cases, Bickerstaff and Boyle. For the first time, the line of reasoning in those cases was questioned in the Tartan Army trial. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that a bill of advocation has been tabled by the Crown which raises the matter, and this will be heard by the High Court of Justiciary on Friday.
  Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the Lord Advocate, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment. If he cannot give me the figures, I can give them to him.

  OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
  Mr. Monroasked the Lord Advocate how many prosecutions there have been relating to the possession of offensive weapons in the last 12 months.
  The Lord Advocate: Between 1st November 1975 and 31st October 1976 there were 1,557 prosecutions for offences under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which makes it an offence for a person to have in his possession an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. In addition, prosecutions have been brought for offences involving the use of offensive weapons, as, for example, in assaults and breaches of the peace, but separate statistics are not available for these.
  Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister for his reply. Since it is possible at the drop of a hat for the police to search a person for drugs or for protected birds' eggs, should it not be made easier for a policeman to search for offensive weapons than it is at the present time?
  The Lord Advocate: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, a recommendation that an experiment in this direction should be tried for a period of five years was made in the Scottish Council on Crime's report in 1975. It is only fair to add that the figures for convictions over the past three years indicate a decline in the number of convictions for offences under Section 1 of the 1953 Act.
  Mr. Buchan: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not follow the facile analogy in respect of searching for birds' eggs and so on. This matter was closely examined over a period of years, and most of the arguments on the social aspects came down against the proposition that we should open this up to search for offensive weapons.
  The Lord Advocate: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are two sides to the question, but I do not agree with the way he put his side of it.

  GLASGOW HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL TRIALS)
  Mr. Rifkindasked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the present procedure for hearing criminal trials at the High Court in Glasgow.
  The Lord Advocate: No, but I consider that those concerned are doing the best they can with the available facilities.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate accept that, while the present system for the hearing of criminal trials in the High Court in Glasgow may be convenient for the Crown Office and for the presiding judge, the procedure is grossly inconvenient for defence counsel, the accused, witnesses, potential jurors, the public and the taxpayer? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that he is dissatisfied with the present procedure, what does he intend to do in the short term to rectify the situation?
  The Lord Advocate: It would not be correct to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present arrangements are convenient for the judges or the prosecution, but there are great difficulties here. Personally, I think that there is a great deal to be said for introducing, for an experimental period, a fixed diet system

  409
  in Glasgow. This would raise considerable difficulties, but the recommendation was made by the Thomson Committee and I hope that it will be possible.
  Mr. Dalyell: Has any estimate been made of the cost to the taxpayer of implementing the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind)?
  The Lord Advocate: No. My hon. Friend raises a relevant point. I remind the hon. Member for Pentlands that an increase in expenditure would undoubtedly be likely.
  Mr. Fairbairn: While the Lord Advocate says that the arrangements are not convenient for judges and prosecutors in the High Court of Glasgow, does he not appreciate that the inconvenience of those concerned is of the order that my hon. Friend the Member for Pent-lands mentioned? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to accelerate what he has put forward in a genuine attempt at fixed diets in Glasgow in which the consideration of all those who have to appear is equally considered?
  The Lord Advocate: I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, but this is a matter which ministerially does not rest with me.

  COURTS (STIRLINGSHIRE)
  Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate when he next plans to make an official visit to the courts in Stirlingshire.
  The Lord Advocate: I have no plans at present to visit the courts in Stirling District.
  Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the purpose of the courts in Stirlingshire is to protect the good people of Stirlingshire from some of the rogues who live there? If the Department of Trade grants my request for a Government inquiry into the affairs of Scottish and Universal Investments, and if that inquiry reveals evidence of fraud or any other criminal activities, will my right hon. and learned Friend see that those responsible are prosecuted, whether they are in castles in Stirlingshire or in accountants' offices in Glasgow or anywhere else?
  The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong for me to comment on the particular case raised by my hon. Friend but if any alleged criminal offences are reported to my Department they will be fully investigated.
  Mr. MacCormick: Does the Lord Advocate know of the disgraceful attempts being made at present to remove the jurisdiction for parliamentary elections from the sheriff courts and place them with unnamed local authorities? What is he doing about that?
  The Lord Advocate: That is not a proper question for me.

  PARA-MILITARY ORGANISATIONS (FILM)
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate why he asked BBC Scotland to arrange a private viewing of the "Current Account" programme dealing with alleged para-military organisations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  The Lord Advocate: I saw the programme live on television. I did not personally ask BBC Scotland for a private viewing. As the programme appeared to indicate that offences had been committed in Scotland, I instructed the procurator fiscal at Glasgow to investigate and report to me. He obtained a private viewing of the programme and I hope that he will be in a position to report to me in the near future.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the Lord Advocate agree that Scotland has been fortunate in having a limited number of terrorist outrages compared with Ulster? Ought not the BBC and other media to show the greatest caution in making such programmes? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman investigating, or will the prosecuting authorities investigate, a newspaper report that one of the so-called terrorists was offered a substantial sum in expenses only on condition that he said something sensational?
  The Lord Advocate: I note the earlier point which the hon. Gentleman has made and I entirely agree with it. I am satisfied that we have not had the same amount of terrorist activity in Scotland.

  ROTARY TOOLS TRIAL
  Mr. Buchananasked the Lord Advocate if he is now in a position to indicate the cost to the taxpayer of the Rotary Tools trial at Glasgow which terminated on 6th June 1976.
  The Lord Advocate: The defence costs are not yet known to the Law Society. I am therefore unable to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 30th June 1976.
  Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to do something about settling this account? The trial finished in 1976 and it is testing our credulity to expect us to believe that he cannot finalise the accounts by this time. Surely the defence and the prosecution know what the trial cost the taxpayer. If they do not know, they should.
  The Lord Advocate: I can only say to my hon. Friend that no public body can come into the reckoning until the firm concerned has submitted accounts.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that we reached only Question No. 12 to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that this is making a farce of Question Time? Two weeks today at Ten o'clock in the morning my Question was handed in, but only reached the halfway mark.
  You made a personal appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that you should also have emphasised the point to the Front Benches. Whether we like it or not, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone) made a speech in answer to every question. As a consequence, our Questions were never reached.
  It is hardly worth while hon. Members going to the trouble to put down Questions when that sort of thing happens, especially when there are so many supplementary questions from hon. Members who would not take the trouble to put down a Question themselves. Would you consider effective ways and means of end-
  412
  ing this farce and giving us a fair chance of getting a Question answered?
  Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish you to think that the protest made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was limited to his side of the House. This is not the first time that he and others have had this experience. I should like you to take note that many of us on the Back Benches on both sides fully agree with his submission.
  Mr. Speaker: I made an appeal to those who were here at the beginning of Question Time, but I think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has done a service to the House in some of the things that he has said. I hope that the House will bear them in mind.

  EEC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
  Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that when a meeting of the Council of Ministers has been held in Brussels, it is the accepted undertaking of the Government that a statement is made in the House. On Monday there was an important meeting of the Ministers of Finance in Brussels, but there is no statement today. I was wondering whether there was anything that you could do to encourage the Government to honour that undertaking so that we may have statements on these important matters which are in progress.
  Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House and others are present and will have heard what the hon. Member has said.

  VACCINES SUPPLY (ROCHDALE)
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. 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 which should have urgent consideration; namely
  "The lack of vaccine supply in Rochdale and the national implications of such lack of supply."
  This matter has come to my notice only in the last 30 minutes.

  413
  The House will be aware that there has been an outbreak of polio in my constituency and it threatens to spread to one or two other parts of the country, particularly parts of Wales. I now learn from the medical officer of health, as a result of a telephone call this afternoon, that he is unable to vaccinate schoolchildren in Rochdale because he cannot obtain sufficient quantities of the vaccine required. I submit, therefore, that as lives are at stake this matter should have urgent consideration and should be sufficiently important to warrant the attention of the House at this time.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
  "The lack of vaccine supply in Rochdale and the national implications of such lack of supply."
  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. All I have to decide is whether the question must take precedence over all other business. It is not the importance of the matter that I am deciding.
  I have given consideration to the representations of the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: Unless there is objection, in order to save time I propose to put the Question on the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Farm Amalgamations (Variation) Scheme 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) (Amendment) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr Stoddart.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LORDS AMENDMENTS)
3.36 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That, for the remainder of this Session, any Questions necessary to dispose of Motions moved by a Minister of the Crown, and any amendments thereto selected by Mr. Speaker, relating to Committees to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Amendments to Bills shall be decided forthwith, and proceedings on such Motions, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the House that I have received a manuscript amendment from the Official Opposition and that I have selected it for debate. The amendment reads as follows: to leave out from "Bills" to "though".
Mr. Foot: When this House disagrees with amendments made in another place to Bills sent there by this House it is the convention to appoint a Committee to draw up reasons for such disagreement. The Bill is then sent back to the other place with the House of Commons reasons for disagreeing with the Lords amendments. The appointment of such a Committee has always been treated by the House as a formality—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We may have some discussion about that later, but it is the usual understanding that the appointment of such a Committee has always been treated as a formality—to such an extent, indeed, that it is not even provided for in the Standing Orders of the House. I believe that it is right that the appointment of such Committees should continue to be treated as a formality in that sense.
Giving reasons to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments is in one sense no more than a necessary courtesy. The decisions of substance on the amendments have already been taken by the House by the time the appointment of such a Committee is proposed and in drawing up its reasons the Committee is bound by the decisions of the House. I think there is no real disagreement between the parties on that aspect of the matter.

415
An alteration to the situation arose last night, because the Opposition wished to propose an additional name as a member of the Committee. However, the time for opposed business had expired and Mr. Speaker therefore ruled that the amendment could not be taken last night.
In the light of this situation, which I believe is unprecedented, the Government have thought it right to table the motion which appears on the Order Paper today to allow the Questions necessary to the appointment of such Committees, and any amendments which the Chair may think it appropriate to select, to be taken at the end of our consideration of Lords amendments. The motion also provides for such Questions to be decided forthwith.
As I have said, the appointment of such a Committee is no more than a formality and a courtesy and I believe it is in accordance with the spirit in which the House has treated these motions in the past to make such provision. The appointment of these Committees is merely the logical consequence of decisions the House has already taken and I do not believe there can be any dispute about the need to appoint them.
I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the motion. If there is debate, perhaps I might be allowed to reply later. I believe this to be the best way for the House to proceed. That is why the Government have tabled the motion.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He asked us whether we can accept the motion in due course. Are we to take it that, in the same spirit, he will accept the amendment?
Mr. Foot: The amendment has not yet been moved. What I would prefer to do, if it suits the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition, is to comment on the amendment after it has been moved. The amendment would permit a debate to take place and would mean that the motion would not be put forthwith. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to that amendment or to the amendment of which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) gave notice yesterday, proposing the addition of a name.
Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for questioning me further. I am anxious to explain. I was referring to the amendment of which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) yesterday gave notice. As I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to waste the time of the House and wishes to get on expeditiously with the business, perhaps he will indicate whether he is prepared to accept that amendment.
Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman would prefer it, I am prepared now to comment on the proposal made last night by the right hon. Member for Yeovil. The difficulty about that proposal is that if it were carried, instead of there being parity on the Committee which decides on the answer of disagreement to the Lords, the Government would be in a minority. It would be the first time in history that that had been proposed. No one could say that such a proposition as that was not altering the whole spirit and letter of the way in which these matters have been dealt with. If the amendment were to be carried it would alter the whole nature of the procedure, and we do not think that that is the right course to take.
3.44 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Question, to leave out from " Bills" to "though".
I am quite prepared to meet the convenience of the Secretary of State by moving the amendment to which Mr. Speaker has referred. The effect would be to permit discussion of the two later motions which we reach after the guillotine procedures this evening. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendment and subsequently take a useful and positive part in the discussion of those two later motions.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the giving of reasons to the Lords for disagreeing with them in their amendments was a necessary courtesy. We have sometimes come to the sad conclusion that the Government do not regard courtesy as ever being necessary.
There are two explanations for the situation in which the Government find themselves. One is kindly and the other less kindly. I accept without hesitation the

417
kindly explanation, which is that somewhere in the shades of the Government Benches there lurks some sense of shame, some unease, at the grubby expedients which the Government have been driven to adopt to get through their shoddy business. This somehow puts them off their stroke and disturbs their judgment. The less kindly interpretation is that the Government take Parliament so much for granted that they feel themselves to be excused from taking pains with the rules or showing too much courtesy.
As the motion is concerned with the time of the House, it would be convenient for me to say now that later tonight, at the expiry of the guillotine time, the Opposition would be fully justified in following the example set by the Labour Party when in opposition on the Industrial Relations Bill and requiring the House to vote through the night and into the morning. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends have a lively recollection of finishing voting at 11 o'clock in the morning, having started voting at 11 o'clock at night, without a word of argument or debate having been expended. Out of regard for the House and respect for its convenience, this would not be the intention of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Get on with it.
Mr. Peyton: Do not tempt us too far. Despite the characteristically bad behaviour of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who knows no better, we would feel obliged to vote on a number of the most important amendments, but that would be only a very small number. If we were to exercise this restraint, I must make it absolutely clear that we would do so on the understanding that it implies no qualification whatsoever of our support for the House of Lords or our abhorrence and detestation of the Government's actions.
The question we have to ask meanwhile is, why should the Government be permitted to dispose of this matter as quickly and easily as they wish now to do? I suppose it is necessary—
Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there have been occasions in the past when we have gone
418
through the process of the guillotine in respect of Lords amendments, although it has never happened when a Tory Government have been in power. A Tory Government have never been placed in the predicament of having to get rid of Lords amendments—and there is irony in that. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we have been through this procedure before, but never on any occasion have we had to go through the process of passing the motion on the Order Paper, because the Tory Front Bench has never before bothered to challenge the procedure, although there have been similar occasions during the lifetime of the present Government?
Mr. Peyton: I do not suppose that that intervention was particularly useful to anybody else in the House, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to have a glass of water.
It is necessary for me to remind the House that the Government majority—which on these three Bills came down to one and in one instance depended on the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire)—hardly justifies their coming forward as the unsullied champions of democratic rights and attacking vigorously and viciously the House of Lords, which is simply doing the duty laid upon it by a Labour Government in 1949. Nor does it warrant their having it all their own way on a Committee which is designed to give reasons. I can think of few collections of people whom I would regard as less fitted than right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to formulate reasons for anything.
We therefore seek to amend the motion to allow discussions of the later motions which will come up tonight. We recognise that the rather peremptory conduct of the Government is very convenient to the Left wing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) reminds me more of Sydney cricket ground than of anything else. I am tempted to wonder what he looks like when he is standing up. I thought for a moment that we were going to have a demonstration of the reality of the nightmare, but happily we were let off.
This peremptory demand is, as I was saying, very convenient to the Left. It

419
behoves us at any rate to ask the question, what of the moderates? Their influence is not obvious, but they are talked of much. What of the moderates, who have done so much to get the Labour Party into power by giving it a veneer of respectability? But these people are constantly dragged at the chariot wheels of the Left.
We hope that the Government will accept this very reasonable amendment, but before I sit down I would like to quote a passage from "Erskine May", a book not every page of which absolutely thrills me. But on page 602 there occurs this majestic sentence:
"When ministers command the confidence of a majority in both Houses, concord is assured."
What a marvellously lucid explanation of the discord in which we presently find ourselves, when Ministers command the confidence of neither House.
I hope that lion. Members will care to exercise their imaginations about what happens in the situation referred to later on that page, where there occurs reference to how communication takes place between the two Houses. The usual way, it is said, is by message. It goes on:
"Conferences between the two Houses are now obsolete, since their main function, that of providing an occasion for communicating reasons for disagreement to amendments to bills, has been taken over by the modern practice of sending messages … it remains theoretically possible for either House to request a conference with reference to amendments to bills disagreed to."
What a lovely thought that we should now have a conference between the two Houses. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends, notable for their modesty and restraint, would wish on such an occasion to be mere spectators, because we would like to witness the happy reunions between the bands of brothers from both Houses, including, from the other place, the staunch and loyal supporters of the Labour Party, particularly the Wilson creations, so popular and so well thought of on the Benches opposite. When they brought their messages down here and came to talk to us, we would like them to come bearing their Division records, because, although we impute nothing but the highest and nicest motives to these distinguished people, that unkind and nightmare group below
420
the Gangway opposite has some very serious scores to wipe off.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South)rose—
Mr. Peyton: I ask the pardon of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry), for whom I have nothing but respect, for I have done him wrong. But I must warn him that he should be more careful as to where he sits. Not even the gleam of his reputation could survive the tarnish which he is risking now.
The Government have got themselves into a real difficulty, not for the first time. As usual, they seek to put the blame upon other people.
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is nit-picking.
Mr. Peyton: I must say that the advice I get from that quarter—
Mr. Russell Kerr:—is brilliant.
Mr. Peyton: I repeat what I said the other day. I do not believe that Lewis Carroll—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise it as a point of order pertaining to this case and generally. Is it not a frequent occurrence for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to turn their backs on the Chair and address parts of the House other than the Chair? That is, of course, out of order. Will you please draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and of right hon. and hon. Members generally to the fact that they should address the Chair and not the Bar of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who came into this House on the same day as I did—
Mr. Robert Mellish: You have done rather better than he has.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear what the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said. I have the good fortune not to hear everything. But it makes a pleasant interlude for me in the Chair if right hon. and hon. Members do look this way.
Mr. Peyton: I am charmed by your invitation, Mr. Speaker. Since you have been kind enough to say that it matters to you, I shall endeavour never to err again. But, by way of excuse, perhaps I should explain that I got that bad habit from observing the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when he was Prime Minister, whom I never copy in any other respect. I had hoped that, during the course of my remarks, I might pick up a bite from the odd minnow, but I never thought to get a whale such as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
When I was interrupted just now, I was endeavouring to waste—[Interruption.] I find it very difficult to refrain from wasting the time of the House discussing those people who are, in my view, a sort of Lewis Carroll nightmare of the Mad Hatter's tea party, who, instead of being pleasant, are thoroughly venomous. I hope that before long the Labour Party will shed their influence and learn to behave as a respectable political party again, free of such malign influence.
The Government have once again got themselves into a thorough mess in the handling of Parliament's business. I hope that they will at least show a degree of contrition and courtesy by accepting the amendment.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Who am I, Mr. Speaker, to intrude upon these proceedings? I must first express an interest. I have long nurtured the ambition to serve upon the Reasons Committee on the Education Bill. It was for this object that I sought election to the House and for which I remain here. There may be other ambitions which mean rather more to me.
But there is a far more important reason why this matter should not be dispatched as lightly as the Government Front Bench wishes. On several occasions in the course of this Parliament it has been necessary to assert that there are now several parties strongly represented on the Opposition Benches and that these parties have as much right to a place in the proceedings of the House as those whose leaders sit on the two Front Benches, and their exclusion from committees of all kinds is something that
422
the House ought not to tolerate. It was for that reason that we were prepared to see a name go forward from my own party, and would be prepared on other occasions to see names go forward from other minority parties, to ensure that on other committees, as well as on this, the minorities in this House are represented.
We have been through all this before on a number of other issues, and I had hoped that the matter was resolved. I had hoped that the House had come to agreement that we ought to ensure a system of representation on committees which genuinely reflected opinion in this House. We seemed to have reached that point, but now, quite unexpectedly, we are faced with the issue again in the particular context of the usually rather little considered occasion of the Reasons Committee on a Bill.
What we are confronted with at this time of day is a device which will, unfortunately, prevent us from discussing the merits of the case, from advancing our claims, and from hearing the Government's answer to them. The Leader of the House took the opportunity to give some indication of what is in the Government's mind in response to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), but we have not been able to explore the matter as fully as we might.
There are many issues that we should like to explore, not least because my noble Friends in another place are themselves responsible for some of the amendments upon which a discussion of reasons will take place. We therefore have a close concern in the matter.
For my part, whatever the heights of eloquence to which the Leader of the House might have wished to rise later tonight, I should have been content with a quite short debate on this matter. I am sure that the subject of my place on or absence from the Reasons Committee can be dispatched with limited argument in a short time. If we could have spent an hour on it later tonight, instead of a rather longer time discussing whether to discuss it at this time, we should have proceeded more sensibly. Why on earth not allocate a modest and reasonable period to resolving the matter instead of trying to foreclose all debate?

423
The end result is to spend time discussing whether to debate at all, and that is not sensible.
If there is one respect in which I would part company from the Leader of the House it is when he said that we were dealing with what had become a formality. Of course, it is true that in recent history very little attention has been attracted by the particular kind of committee which is the subject of these discussions. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman—as I ought not to need to do—that it is of formalities that many of our liberties are made. It is of things which time and time again are not mentioned and not contradicted or referred to but which on one crucial occasion become important that many fundamental liberties depend.
We all know how many times measures go through this House on the nod, without any challenge, because there is no challenge to be made, measures which on some other occasion may be the subject of challenge. We know how many procedures we have here which for most of the time go without any particular notice or any particular disturbance. But at some point, when some matter of great importance is in the minds of hon. Members, they cease to be formalities and become matters of great importance.
I therefore counsel the House never to consider any of its procedures always to be a formality. Every one of our procedures has a time and place when it becomes important. If for 300 days in the year we can treat it as a formality and let it go through with no additional trouble at all, there will be a day when we have to consider it important.
On this occasion we have had to look carefully at the issue of the Reasons Committee, and I am glad that hon. Members in parties other than my own have shared my feeling about it. The Government have not so far shown any willingness to meet us on the point at issue, although I suspect that in their deeper councils they are aware that there is a point of fairness to be granted. They have not shown any willingness so far to meet us, and in those circumstances I do not see how I can encourage my hon. Friends to vote in such a way as to preclude any debate on the merits of the issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton
424
(Mr. Heffer) seems to think that there is no issue at stake, but if he found himself on the Opposition side of the House as a member of a minority party—
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) a Tory stooge? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Charges of personal abuse, as I have said before, are much to be deprecated. I am not able in this place to hear all the exchanges from below the Gangway, but I must say that interruptions of that sort are unworthy of the House.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you explain to the House whether it is a term of abuse to say that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a Tory or a stooge?
Mr. Speaker: If I called the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) a stooge, I have no doubt that he would soon understand that it was not very complimentary.
Mr. Beith: There are times when I am glad that my range of hearing is as limited as you have admitted yours to be, Mr. Speaker, although my wit is not equal to yours. If that is the view held by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I suggest that he consults the defeated Tory candidate in my constituency, who certainly does not share it.
The issue is one of relating the procedure of the House to its membership and the composition of the parties within it. That ought to concern hon. Members in whichever part of the House they may sit, because it will affect them sooner or later.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Member clear up a point which was raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)? It occurs to me that the Leader of the House has a different Order Paper from mine. I understood the Leader of the House to say that if the motion placing the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the Committee were to be

425
accepted, it would put the Government in a minority position. That was what he said, I believe.
From page 13351 of today's Order Paper it seems clear to me that the acceptance of the proposition would give the Government parity, with three members of the Labour Party, two members of the Conservative Party and a member of the Liberal Party. Does the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed agree with my interpretation? If so, will he find out whether the Leader of the House has got it wrong again?
Mr. Foot: What I should have said—I apologise to the House if I did not make it clear—was parity below the Chair. It does not alter the argument that I am presenting, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. If the House agrees to the proposal for adding the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), it will give the Opposition parties a majority below the Chair.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman points to the difficulties of our proceedings. It is precisely in order to examine these complications that we should look at the next Government motion, which is explicitly designed to prevent us from debating the issue.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. We had occasion to discuss it in regard to the composition of the Committee of Selection. But we have been over this course many times. On the face of it, the simple achievement of the amendment that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) advanced last night was to bring about parity. If that presents the Government with special difficulties, why do they seek to deny themselves the opportunity to explain those difficulties to the House?
Since we are not to be given that opportunity, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment, which will ensure that the matter could be debated.
4.10 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: That useful work of reference called "Erskine May" makes it quite clear that the object of a Reasons Committee is not to justify decisions of the Commons but to offer persuasion to the House of Lords
426
about why it should find itself in agreement with the House of Commons.
The House of Commons has a diverse composition, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) stressed. Therefore, unless the Reasons Committee reflects as accurately as possible the composition of the House, it is unlikely to do the best job of drawing up persuasive reasons why the two Houses should find themselves in agreement.
Once again the Leader of the House has let the cat out of the bag that he knows neither procedure nor his job. Assuming that this motion is passed unamended, it is clear that he believes that, if the amendment which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will have to move later tonight without any supporting argument is carried, there will be the same parity on the Reasons Committee as there is on every Standing Committee following the Government's undertaking to ensure parity on Committees.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a case for the Reasons Committee having a Government majority, that is a case that he must make to the House. It is not a case that is self-evident, because the Government themselves agreed to parity on Standing Committees. Moreover, the relevant Standing Order of the House lays down that Committees of the House shall reflect the composition of the House.
The Opposition raise the matter now on my right hon. Friend's amendment to the Business Motion simply because, if the Business Motion is passed unamended, we shall have no further opportunity to raise the matter.
It is not just on the Reasons Committee the appointment of which was moved last night by a Minister that the House will be denied all opportunity of debate or discussion. It is every Reasons Committee that the Government will seek to appoint this week and, indeed, for the remainder of this Session—even further than the timetable resolutions which are functioning this week and possibly next week as well, since there is no reason for believing that this Session will end next week or on any particular date.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Since the motion refers to "this Session", I am sure that my hon.

427
Friend will agree that, if the Government continue to deal with their business so completely incompetently, the Session could go on for several weeks, during which time the Government might lose 20 by-elections.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has made a most valuable contribution. The longer the Session lasts, the more by-elections the Government are likely to lose.
I hope that every hon. Member is seized of the point that this debate in which we are now engaged is the last moment in time at which any hon. Member can contribute his comments or advice to the House, including the Leader of the House, although giving the Leader of the House any advice from any part of the House seems to be a singularly unrewarding occupation except in terms of extending his education in procedure. This is the last occasion on which any hon. Member will have the right which he would have but for the passage of this motion.
This is not part of the timetable resolutions. The passage of this motion unamended in no way expedites the business which is the subject of the timetable resolutions. I hope that there is no doubt about that. This is not a necessary part of the timetable resolutions achieving their task. This is a new restriction on the freedom of speech in this House which the Leader of the House has conceived within the past 24 hours, and it does him little credit.
At no stage has the Leader of the House endeavoured to justify to the House his refusal to allow hon. Members to debate this Reasons Committee appointment motion. He made no attempt to do that in moving this motion, and the reason that he did not is that he knows that even the business on which the Government rely does not depend upon the passage of this motion unamended. He is unable to say to his hon. Friends "Unless you allow this further gag on Members of the House, the Government's business cannot be completed." He is unable to say that or, rather, he is unable to say it truthfully, because the Government's timetable is in no way affected by this motion.
Why, therefore, has he done it? He has done it for exactly the same reason
428
as he denied petitioners the right to petition against the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. He has done it because he dare not allow reasonable argument to see the light of day. He knows perfectly well that the Government themselves deliberately delayed the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. He knows that they did not attempt to make any progress on it for a period of six weeks or more after 8th June. It was not the Opposition who held up these measures. It was not the House of Lords which held up these measures. It was the Leader of the House, who is responsible for the Government's programme on the Floor of the House and who, every Thursday, gives the House the business for the coming week.
We have to discuss the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in this context because we shall not have the opportunity to discuss the effect of this resolution on a Reasons Committee in respect of that Bill when the motion is moved for it. Therefore, we have to discuss it now.
Why do the Government want to delay the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and why do they want to prevent the House from having a Committee which can reflect accurately its reasons for disagreeing with any of their Lordships' amendments? I think that the House knows why. It is because they want firms in the shipbuilding industry and in the aircraft industry to sack lots of their workers. They want to see them sacked week after week so that, eventually, if the Bill should receive the Royal Assent, the nationalised shipbuilding corporation and aircraft corporation will have labour forces which have already been slashed brutally. The Bill is not intended to save employment in those industries. It is intended as a vehicle for slashing employment.
Mr. F. A. Burden: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Prime Minister said that, when nationalisation had taken place, there would have to be a rationalisation?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, and we all know that there is only one exception to the rule that rationalisation means fewer jobs. That is in the highly paid superstructure which is invented and superimposed upon the management

429
structures which are already there. That is what rationalisation means in the context of nationalisation.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Then, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, during the time that the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries have been in the hands of private enterprise, the Merseyside shipyards which once employed 20,000 today employ only 3,500? Is not that a clear indication that jobs have been lost because of the inability of private enterprise to organise their industries properly?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not an indication of anything of the kind. To the extent that these industries depend on orders coming from abroad, there will be fewer customers—
Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for this discussion to be taking place on a specific Bill, despite the fact that there is a motion before the House dealing with the whole concept?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I was about to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) to the fact that there is a motion. I hope that he will address his remarks to that.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were discussing the fact that the debate has to encompass those debates that would have taken place but for this motion being passed unamended. If the motion is passed unamended—and it is for the benefit of the hon. Member who intervened rather than for yourself that I make this observation—the reasons for not disagreeing with their Lordships would have been able to be put before the House in a debate to appoint a Reasons Committee. If the motion before the House is passed without amendment, it will have the effect of preventing these debates and therefore preventing these arguments from being advanced. It is in the context of pointing out the merits of the argument that would have been advanced as a reason for not agreeing to the motion unamended that it is necessary to present the arguments that would have been advanced were that not
430
the case. The grounds for passing the motion without amendment would have to go by without being studied specifically in the House.
I do not wish to waste time in digressing in the direction in which the hon. Member invited me, because the question which his own colleagues put to me earlier was about employment. Employment in both the aircraft and shipbuilding industries and, incidentally, in the ship-repairing industry will be more dependent on the volume of overseas orders than on any other factor. The Government are forcing these great industries into nationalised corporations so that the customers can no longer choose where their order is executed. The question whether the customer would be able to choose where the order is executed was put four times running to the Minister in the Committee, but he refused to answer, because the customer will not be able to choose. Therefore, the volume of orders in each of the three industries from overseas customers is bound to be lower than would otherwise be the case, That is because they have the alternative of going to Sweden, Holland, Portugal, or even to Brazil and certainly to Japan, where they can specify who carries out the order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am at a disadvantage as I have been in the Chair only for a moment or two. It appears that the hon. Member is straying beyond the bounds of the motion.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am giving examples of the arguments which it would have been in order to advance before the House decided who could suitably represent it on a Committee to draw up reasons for the Lords.
A number of undesirable consequences will follow unless my right hon. Friend's amendment is passed. Among the consequences that will not follow is frustration of the Government's business. I wish that it would, but it will not. The first consequence that will follow is that the Government will be able to pack the Reasons Committee with a Government majority, although they agree that such a majority is utterly inappropriate in Committees, which is why Standing Committees do not have a Government majority. The second consequence is that the Government will be able to pack the Committee

431
without having to justify it to the House and without hon. Members being able to challenge the reasons. The third consequence is that the Government will be able to exclude all the smaller Opposition parties from the Committee without those parties being able to protest or challenge them by argument.
All hon. Members who wish to advance arguments in favour of putting in reasoned resolutions will be silenced. We have been denied what would have been the most suitable vehicle—a Committee of the Whole House. That would have been able to draw up reasons which are representative of the House. Instead, we have this miserable situation which once again the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, who was once a parliamentarian, has insisted on inflicting upon the House. He is intent on denying the House of Commons the right to do its duty to the nation. I hope that he will be ashamed of himself and that the House will insist on the insertion of my right hon. Friend's amendment.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Robert Adley: Before entering the Chamber, I was in the Table Office and I saw the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) with a book under his arm. It was called "Freedom under Foot" by Nora Beloff. It was a thin book and should have been written on a single sheet, because the Leader of the House is trampling on the freedom of the House to come to reasonable decisions.
If words have any meaning, the words which the Leader of the House uttered earlier about the composition of the Reasons Committee were meaningless. Only when I was able to intervene in the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did the Leader of the House come up with some cock and bull excuse about Members below the Chair being the members of the Reasons Committee to whom he was referring. The example set by the Leader of the House is now appealing to his hon. Friends. Yesterday, the Father of the House—of all people—suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was out of order in seeking
432
a Standing Order No. 9 debate. Fortunately Mr. Speaker intervened to uphold the rights of Back Benchers.
In attempting to force through the motion the Government are operating not only the guillotine, but the jackboot. They claim that they have an adequate mandate for their legislation, but if one tots up the votes at the last General Election of the parties that voted for the motion to guillotine the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and the number of votes cast for the parties that opposed it, one discovers that 11,522,752 people voted for the Labour Party, plus the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). But 16,817,424 people voted for the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru. That situation excludes the new position resulting from the three by-elections at Woolwich, Walsall, North and Workington.
Surely that means that the other place along the corridor has every right to take account of the current support in the country for these controversial Socialist measures, particularly when the Government depend for their existence on the support of a man who was interned in Belfast for three years for being a member of the IRA. [HON. MEMBERS: "Treachery."] It seems even now—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless we can hear what the hon. Member is saying, none of us profits.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you suggesting that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is entirely in order, because I have not heard him mention the motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I was suggesting was that, if I could hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying, I should be able to judge.
Mr. Adley: I was not casting any aspersions on the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am casting aspersions on the Government. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in his own words in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" is presumably proud of the fact that he was

433
interned for three years in Belfast. I am casting no aspersions on him. But if the Government with a majority of one have to rely on this particular hon. Member—I do not balk the word "honourable"—I think this is a relevant point to our debate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) appears to be offering additional succour to the Government. I do not wish to enter into the merits of that argument except to say that occasionally when the right hon. Gentleman makes speeches on racial issues he is roundly and vehemently criticised by members of the present Government who seem very anxious to have his support now. Any port in a storm, indeed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the amendment.
Mr. Adley: I have the amendment before me, and I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is at the nub of this argument, in that unless we are allowed to discuss who might be properly made a member of this Committee the whole debate falls to the ground. The Government's view may well be that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) would be a better member of the Committee than the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Therefore, this is a very relevant matter in this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be the view of the hon. Member, but that is not my impression of what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) was saying.
Mr. Adley: As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) reflects the general impression which I was trying—inadequately—to convey to the House.
Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend were to propose that, instead of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the
434
right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) were to be a member of the Committee, surely the Leader of the House would accept that with alacrity after last night's news.
Mr. Adley: That is a very interesting intervention by my hon. Friend to which I should like to give consideration and I may be moved to move a manuscript amendment to that effect later in the afternoon. I should like further to consider that point.
On the motion, we are discussing the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, and that lies at the nub of this debate—the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. The fact of the matter is that, certainly on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which has been called "the Jack Jones Benefit Bill", the Government are clearly influenced by Mr. Jack Jones's views of another place. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, that the House of Lords is a far more legitimate part of the British political scene—I stress the word "political"—than is the Trades Union Congress.
If we in this place are to discuss—that is the nub of the motion—the freedom of the House of Commons and of the British people, I think that I speak for a number of my constituents when I say that they regard the House of Lords as a far safer guardian of the freedom of Parliament and of the individual than are Mr. Jack Jones and those whom he purports to represent.
Mr. Martin Flannery: They are never on our side.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Observations from a sedentary position are not in order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the House of Lords as a democratic assembly. It has an inbuilt Tory majority which on no occasion supports the Labour Party. If that is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of democracy he is entitled to such an opinion, but democrats in general do not share that opinion of that undemocratic body.
Mr. Adley: This country has a two-Chamber Parliament. It is up to the Government to come to the House of

435
Commons at any time, as no doubt the Lord President of the Council would like to do, and to present a motion to abolish another place. Unless and until that happens we shall have a two-Chamber Parliament. That is the point I was seeking to make and it is a point which the arrogance of certain hon. Members opposite causes them constantly to ignore.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my hon. Friend accept that by their actions this Government are in danger of making the other place more representative of public opinion than they are?
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Time after time in the past two years Mr. Speaker has had to sit there unable, even if willing, to comment adversely on motions which have appeared on the Order Paper. As recently as the day before yesterday he told me that he had absolutely no control over the Order Paper of the House of Commons. It is, therefore, perfectly open to the Government to table a motion stipulating, let us say, that no Member may speak or vote in the Chamber unless he is a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party or a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Only the conventions of the House prevent the Government from doing that. That was the point that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was seeking to make.
We depend greatly upon the conventions of the House. I do not want to see a closed shop enforced in the House of Commons. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I shall fight, fight and fight again for the freedom of Members of Parliament.
4.36 p.m.
Sir John Rodgers: I do not wish to prolong the debate on this procedural matter. I wish, as one who has been a Member of Parliament for over 25 years, to say that the mess in which the Government now find themselves stems from the attitude of the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. It dates back to 26th May when he tried to circumvent Mr. Speaker's ruling that the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill was a hybrid
436
Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had then tried to accommodate all parts of the House, the Government would not be in the mess they are in now and we should not be having a debate such as this.
Only yesterday the Prime Minister himself said that the one problem facing the country and facing this Government should be how to tackle the desperate problem of growing inflation and that everything else was secondary. How right he was. One of the most secondary things the Government are doing is to try to rush through five Bills which are totally irrelevant to the situation facing the country.
If only the Lord President of the Council would remember that he is speaking as Leader of the House and not as the ringmaster of the Labour Party, even at this late hour he could rise and announce that two of the Bills could wait for a later time and could be introduced then. Chat is what the country requires. None of these measures will help to solve the financial problems now facing us. It is up to the Leader of the House to recognise this and to try to bring about some accommodation between the Government, the principal Opposition party and the minor Opposition parties and see whether we cannot get, not necessarily concord, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to it, but at least some form of co-operation. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to speak now for the House of Commons and not just for the Labour Party.
4.39 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This business motion introduces a much larger and more serious precedent than may at first sight appear and portends a very considerable erosion of the rights of the House and of hon. Members. I am surprised and regretful and puzzled as to the reasons why the Government should have thought it necessary to introduce it.
The Lord President is quite right in saying that it is a traditional and proper part of our procedure to give reasons for disagreement and that the method of doing so is by the appointment of a Committee to draw up the reasons. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, in the event of the House requiring

437
to resolve the question of the membership of any of its Committees for any purpose, it is the function of the House as a whole to do that job and that the motion which must be put before the House for that purpose is debatable and amendable.
There is no precedent yet for what we are being asked to do. We are establishing that, when the House sets up a Committee, the membership of that Committee shall not be debatable but only votable. Make no mistake that the pressures, which are well understood, are such that this case will not be firmly distinguished and discriminated from other cases. This will be a precedent for the proposition that the House can nominate a Committee by a motion which is not debatable but only votable. I venture to prophesy that it will not be long before the convenience to the managers of such a precedent will be recognised and followed.
The House, rightly or wrongly, and narrowly, has come to a decision to limit the time which it spends on considering Lords amendments on the Bills to which its resolutions apply. If the right hon. Gentleman could argue that there was a possibility of the House frustrating that decision, he would have some ground, some case, for a Business Motion of this sort. However, he is in no such danger.
Let us suppose that the motion, which stands as the second Order of the Day, is allowed to be debated, that an amendment to it is duly selected, by you, Mr. Speaker, and that it is debated. The debate is such that the Chair has the power and discretion, and would know when to exercise the discretion, to keep it within reasonable limits, having regard to the narrow nature of the subject matter. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman may well have been coming to the conclusion that the debate on this motion, where it stood upon the Orders of the Day, might well have been more brief than the debate which is taking place now. However, in any case there is no threat to the transaction of his business that the right hon. Gentleman has to apprehend from the debating as well as the voting upon such a motion as this. It is that fact which makes all the more serious the erosion, which we are invited to attempt, into the rights of the House.
438
Therefore, I hope that the Lord President will recognise that this kind of motion is not only not necessary to facilitate his purpose but will have the opposite effect. In addition, it is almost bound to be used to deny the House the right of debating propositions upon which it is to vote. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts.
4.44 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: When the Leader of the House moved the motion I wondered whether he realised the point of principle with which the House was concerned. When he went on to say that if he accepted the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) concerning membership of the first Committee to draw up reasons for disagreing to certain Lords amendments it would turn the parity which existed into a majority against the Government, I thought for a moment that it was because he did not appreciate what he was doing. But it is clear from the intervention he made during the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the right hon. Gentleman realised full well what he was doing. He said then that he was suggesting setting up not a Committee that had parity but one which had parity below the Chair, as he described it. I do not know whether the Leader of the House was implying that the chairman of the Committee would be in some way in a similar situation to that of a Chairman of a Standing Committee. I see that he shakes his head. If he was not making that point I cannot understand the purpose of his comment. Presumably the member of the Committee who is elected Chairman will be voting in that Committee in the same way as any other member. The Lord President is creating not a Committee of parity but a Committee which has a majority on the Government side.
Mr. George Cunningham: I presume that the Committee would be like a Select Committee of the House, where the Chairman votes only if there is a tie between the other members. Therefore, for normal voting purposes the Government would not have a majority if one of the Government members were Chairman.
Mr. Carlisle: As far as I can see from "Erskine May" and the Standing Orders, there are no rules laid down on the working of this Committee. It is clear—I should have thought that the Leader of the House would accept that this is right—that the membership of that Committee should reflect the composition of the House, as the Standing Orders require for Committees dealing with Public Bills. I realise that they relate only to Standing Committees, but it seems to be the nearest analogy to a Committee of this nature.
The Leader of the House said that this matter could be dealt with without debate because it was a formality. In many circumstances the Committee to give reasons may well be a formality. However, in the case of these Bills the Committee will be asked to formulate reasons for rejecting amendments without their ever having been debated on the Floor of the House, due to the guillotine. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be said that the Committee which has to formulate reasons, vote on them, amend them, reject them, or agree to them is a mere formality. It is much more than a formality. Therefore, I think it important that that Committee should be properly set up and should reflect the composition of the House.
As like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I cannot understand what the Leader of the House is afraid of. If he would allow debate on the motion which is very narrow, he would find that it did not go on for all that long and that it had no effect on Government business. It can only be that he is not prepared to allow debate and is not prepared to hear the arguments against what he proposes to do because he knows that there is no justification for the Committee he is attempting to set up.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: What is at the heart of this argument is, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, what is at the very heart of Parliament. Parliament is often referred to, somewhat contemptuously, as a talking shop, but this proposition would close the shop. It would shutter the shop and stop it from even talking about its own procedures.
I suspect that the motion is without precedent in that it is intended to pro-
440
hibit us from discussing our own affairs. It is as though the right hon. Gentleman had guillotined the debate on a report of the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He would like to.
Mr. Tebbit: I do not know whether he would like to do so today, but no doubt after a week or two the right hon. Gentleman will have convinced himself of some democratic argument for doing so.
The problem is that we have now become accustomed to procedural motions designed to truncate the rights of Members in opposing or even questioning the Executive. At present the Opposition Benches are filled mainly with Conservatives, but that is a situation which even the most optimistic Labour Member must know will not last for ever.
I urge Labour Members who think of themselves primarily as parliamentarians as opposed to members of the Executive—or those who have had it made plain to them that they will not become members of the Executive—to realise that before long they will be suffering from the difficulties that Oppositions always face in making their arguments heard in the country. They will then no doubt take a different view.
Curiously, not one of them has so far put a point of view. They seem to regard a majority of one as being sufficient not just to get their business, but to get it without argument or discussion.
The Government have tabled the motion because they do not want us to discuss it or the amendment concerning the composition of the Committee which will discuss the reasons for disagreeing with their Lordships. We therefore face a twofold problem. The first and most important aspect is that to which I have already alluded, the procedural problem and the problem of whether the Executive will allow the House the right to discuss its own affairs. The second aspect of the problem concerns the suitability of the Committee drawn up.
We are surprised that the Government, having to rely as they do on four splinter group Members who sit on their side of the House, should consider that they have a majority. We would not find that a convincing argument unless those Members actually took the Labour Whip. Even

441
some members of this Government would hesitate to offer the Labour Whip to at least one of those Members upon whose votes they rely to get their business through the House.
The Lord President said that this matter was only a formality, but let him not take formalities of this sort for granted. If the formal powers we have are taken for granted, we shall have to exercise them more frequently so that they are not allowed to rust or be corroded by the corruption of misuse or disuse.
The Lord President is irritated by Parliament and his irritation is not a lovely sight to see. It would be even more unlovely to see this Parliament's rights to discuss its own affairs truncated not only on this occasion but in future when the Lord President brings his motions before the House without even bothering to argue the case for them.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Lawson:I am not surprised that the Lord President should at this moment be leaving the Chamber, in view of my hon. Friend's speech. His whole thesis, such as it was, has been torn to shreds.
He began this debate by trying to maintain that the action of the Opposition in trying to add a name to the membership of the Committee was unprecedented. It might be rare, but it is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the motion which he has put before the House today, and he has given no argument for attempting to create this precedent.
The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is rare because the position in which the House finds itself is rare. Even within the political lifetime of anybody here there cannot have been an occasion when a Government have attempted to force through legislation against the objections of the House of Lords when that Government have not had a majority of their own party in the House of Commons. Since that is unprecedented, it is therefore wholly appropriate that a slightly antique device should have been reinstated to try to deal with the problem of Lords' amendments and the reasons for objections to them.
442
I make one comment with great sadness. Perhaps I may declare a rather oblique interest as a director of a publishing firm which is proud to have the Leader of the House as one of its authors. It is a matter of very great sadness that he should have sold down the river his previous devotion to Parliament and, in particular, to the House of Commons. I never thought I should hear him telling the House, as he did not so long ago, that he would curtail debate in this House for the sake of the House of Commons. There is no House of Commons interest in curtailing debate in this House. The interest of the House lies in the opposite direction, in having a full debate. The Lord President has other interests at heart when he seeks to curtail debate.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman become the great poseur of the House? Why has he adopted this stance? I think that it may be, in view of his recent remarks to a Fabian meeting in Cambridge, that he has been so carried away by parliamentary democracy Indian-style that he thinks it is a better brand than the democracy that hitherto he has espoused. No doubt in due course we shall see proposals for the incarceration of journalists and the suspension of elections. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasim for Mrs. Gandhi's democracy bodes ill for the House of Commons.
But I suspect that there may be another reason why he is attempting at every opportunity to curtail debate in the House. It is that he has been seduced by a new doctrine, the doctrine of trade union infallibility. The most reactionary cardinal who ever lived has never promoted the cause of papal infallibility with the dedication with which the right hon. Gentleman promotes the cause of trade union infallibility.
One of the oddities about his belief in trade union infallibility—which means the infallibility of certain important trade union leaders—is that it has just been repudiated by rank and file trade union members themselves. That is what happened at Workington and Walsall, but the right lion. Gentleman still holds to his belief in trade union infallibility. It must have caused him great pain and distress to discover that that doctrine has been shown to be incompatible with his belief

443
in Parliament and the House of Commons, although no doubt initially he thought it was compatible. He has now had to make a choice between the two, and regrettably he has not chosen Parliament. He has chosen trade union infallibility, and that is the doctrine to which he now holds. That is the great sadness that lies behind the debate and behind many of the speeches that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman.
Behind all this lies the question of what the relationship should be between the House of Lords and this House. I do not pretend for a moment that it is a satisfactory relationship at present. Of course it is not. But if the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals for reforming the House of Lords, let him put them to the House. We shall judge them on their merits, Maybe something better could be devised but the right hon. Gentleman has not done so.
If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do that, and if it is a question of defiance of the will of the people that Labour Members below the Gangway speak of so often, let the question of the relationship between the two Houses be put to the people and let the people choose in a General Election. We are ready for that and it is the Government who are not.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think it best to avoid personal attacks on the Lord President choose to speak more to his colleagues below the Gangway than to the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Skinner: I am not sure that I want to listen—[Interruption.] I am not sure that I want to listen to any more of this.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not address the House from the centre of the Floor.
Mr. Griffiths: The point I want to make above all else is that we live at a time when parliamentary democracy is at risk across the whole world. It is at risk in this country and in many others. The threats to our parliamentary democracy do not arise only from the right hon. Gentleman. All of us know that power is seeping away from this place to big business, big unions, big media and big civil services.
Mr. Powell: And to Brussels.
Mr. Griffiths: And to Brussels, as my right hon. Friend says. We are witnessing a serious erosion of the powers of Parliament. This debate, procedural as it may be, must be seen in the context—I am sure that all of us as Members of this House are deeply concerned about the process of parliamentary democracy starting to wither away—of several weeks during which, for reasons that need not be debated at length, the Government have found it necessary to curtail debate in the House not once but many times. They have seen fit to take amendments that were considered necessary by more than one party in another place and to spurn them out of hand without consideration and without giving reasons for their rejection. We now come to the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and if the motion be carried we are not even to have an effective debate on the reasons for the House disagreeing with the Lords amendments.
I am prepared to give the Leader of the House credit for not wishing to do what he has done. He conceives it to be his duty to get the Government business through. Other Leaders have taken a similar view in the past, and no doubt they will do so in the future. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the number and the intensity of the guillotines and gags has reached a point at which there must be concern in all parts of the House about what is happening to free speech and to Parliament.
I tried to ask myself why the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to do this to Parliament. Like many of my hon. Friends I do not believe that it was necessary for him to do it in that the Government's business would otherwise have been frustrated. No one believes that the small Committee that sits in a small room and decides in a very few minutes what message to send back to the Lords would, whatever its composition, have frustrated the Government's business.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil moved his amendment last night, I believe that the Leader of the House was irritated. Perhaps he was tired. I believe that he grew angry and decided that he would show my right hon. Friend and the House who was

445
boss. He did that, and put the motion upon the Order Paper. I believe that was the first reason for his acting in this way, but perhaps a further reason was his conception of his duties as Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman appears to believe that his first duty is to get through the Government's business regardless of the procedures of the House, even though, as we all know, the procedures are designed to safeguard Parliament itself and the rights of free speech in our country. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government's business must come first, and that the procedures of the House must take second place.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman said that they must take no place.
Mr. Griffiths: No place, as my hon. Friend says. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman conceives it to be his duty to get through the business regardless of whether there is adequate discussion. In so doing, I am bound to tell him, he has destroyed the reputation that he had built up in this place over many years as a civil libertarian and as a great servant of Parliament itself. He has many times in the past held the House by his oratory. If I may say so, he has written and spoken magnificently on the side of civil rights. But power has corrupted him. I fear that the absolute power that he now seeks will corrupt him absolutely. That is the position in which we now find ourselves.
Mr. George Cunningham: In order to make the debate a bit real, will the hon. Gentleman give us an example of one reason on one Bill of the type that is cooked up in that little room and sent up to the House of Lords? That is what it is all about. Will he read out one reason on any Bill of his choosing?
Mr. Griffiths: I think that the hon. Gentleman, rather characteristically, has missed the point. He has not done so narrowly. He has missed it by a mile. He frequently does, so I shall leave him in his capacity for error.
I speak only to the Leader of the House as I do not wish to take the time of this place. It is tragic that power should have corrupted one who felt so deeply, wrote so eloquently and spoke so fiercely about the rights of Parliament.
446
What he has done as Leader of the House of Commons, not Fuehrer of the Reichstag, is to put Government before Parliament. I hope that he appreciates the significance of that. He has put Government before Parliament and party before country. In so doing he has forfeited any confidence he might have enjoyed in this place.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has moved our affairs a little further to the point at which people outside the House will finally lose confidence in Parliament itself. If there cannot be free speech here, there can be free speech nowhere. The right hon. Gentleman today, wittingly or otherwise, has put one more nail in the coffin of Parliament in this country.
5.9 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have listened carefully to Opposition Members, and apart from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I do not think that it has been worth listening to any of them.
A question is raised that is interesting from my point of view—namely, whether the motion is essential from the point of view of getting through the business. I do not know. The Government feel that it is necessary. I trust that in reply the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman did not raise many of the other erroneous issues raised by other hon. Gentlemen. For example, he did not make the point that my right hon. Friend was deliberately trying to undermine and erode the rights of Parliament. That was a ludicrous statement. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that the motion could do that. I do not think that he made a personal attack on my right hon. Friend by suggesting that he was intentionally doing that. That is precisely what many Opposition Members have been attempting to do this afternoon. They have referred to my right hon. Friend's past writings and statements as though in those days he was the white, shining angel of the Conservative Party. That was not how I understood their views on my right hon. Friend today.
Mr. Flannery: Aneurin Bevan.
Mr. Heffer: When Aneurin Bevan was alive, he, just like my right hon. Friend, was the devil incarnate. No doubt when the time comes for my right hon. Friend to pass over to the other side he, like Aneurin Bevan, will overnight become a saint and we shall hear many quotations from his speeches and writings.
I should like to recall to the House the writings of Sir Winston Churchill relating to the Lords. I do not know whether Opposition Members have read the very interesting book by Sir Winston Churchill published in 1909 when the Liberal Government were trying to get a Finance Bill through based on what was known as the People's Budget. I should like to recall to hon. Gentlemen, especially to the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, what Sir Winston actually said. As a matter of fact, I trust that in a few days the quotation will be printed somewhere. It is interesting to find out what Sir Winston Churchill said about the character and nature of the other place. He said that their Lordships were in the main very narrow, ordinary run of the mill people who supported the Tory Party.
The Opposition are again raising this issue as a great matter of principle when in fact they are trying to stop the Government's legislative programme being carried into effect. Of course, it is always a matter of great principle, as it was in the days of the Liberal Government in 1909. The suggestion was that people and the national interest had to be protected The same argument has been developed again today.
Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: Certainly.
Mr. Churchill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving publicity to any Churchill publication. Is he aware that, since 1909, there have been two Parliament Acts, the most recent of which was of the Labour Party's making? It is that state of affairs which has presented us with the present situation. While I am delighted for him to go on giving plugs to the Churchill family—I am not sure whether that was his purpose—will he now address himself to the point at issue?
Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. At that time the other place was voting against Finance Bills. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 were passed because on both occasions, when progressive Governments were trying to get through progressive legislation, the inbuilt Tory majority in the House of Lords tried to stop that legislation from going through. That is what the argument is about. On every occasion, the Tories elevated Members—
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that both you and share a devotion to free speech, but are the Parliament Act 1911 and advertising, for the Churchill Foundation's books anything to do with the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is that they are what in Wales are called second cousins to the subject. Other hon. Members have roamed rather widely.
Mr. Heffer: I want to bring my speech to a conclusion very quickly. I shall ignore the typically snide remarks made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
Mr. John Mendelson: Uriah Heep.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Chingford is better known among some of my hon. Friends as the Uriah Creep of the House of Commons, so I shall ignore his remarks.
The House is fully aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not and has no intention of trying to curtail democracy. My right hon. Friend has not defended the curtailment of democracy in the Indian sub-continent. Indeed, he replied more than adequately to the point made in a letter in the New Statesman.
The Opposition wish to try to get over to the general public that the Labour Party is out to destroy our democratic traditions. They know that is untrue. But, like the Hitlerite regime, the Opposition think that if they repeat it often enough sufficient people will actually believe it. That is their intention.

449
Parliamentary democracy will be safeguarded much more by Labour Members who have consistently and genuinely fought for parliamentary democracy throughout the entire world and have based themselves on the Chartists and others who consistently fought for parliamentary democracy in this country against the Tory Party at different times in our history.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. John Page: I think it would be inappropriate if the arrogant discourtesy of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in leaving the Chamber as he did and treating you, Mr. Speaker, our custodian of parliamentary honour, as he did, was not mentioned this afternoon. I think it shows the disregard and disdain for Parliament which the hon. Member has, and I believe that the hon. Members for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) and Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) also showed the same disdain by following him out. I do not believe that they represent the body of opinion of Parliament as a whole.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to say "Get out your swastika"?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The language in the House is deteriorating. Did the hon. Member say that?
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I will gladly withdraw my remark, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Harrow. West (Mr. Page) to make jackbooted remarks, complaining about my getting up and leaving the Chamber? I bowed to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. We are not yet living in a jackbooted society governed by the hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could now restore ourselves to proper order. I noticed that both the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) left the Chamber and bowed to the Chair as they left.
Mr. Page: I do not wish to continue—
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friends left
450
the Chamber in a proper orderly manner and bowed to the Chair, should not the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) withdraw his imputation that they did not do so?
Mr. Page: I was not particularly referring to whether the hon. Member for Bolsover and the other two hon. Members bowed or not. My understanding was that the hon. Members for Luton, West and Feltham and Heston marched out in sympathy with the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very' anxious for us to get back to the motion. [Interruption.] I do not need any help. I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) is aware that his remarks were misconstrued to apply to two other hon. Members who left the Chamber in an orderly and peaceful manner.
Mr. Page: Of course, on your advice, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the imputation that they did not bow and that they intended discourtesy to you. However, I feel that the actions of the Leader of the House since he became Leader have encouraged hon. Members to show disregard and disdain for the old traditions of the House, and that is unfortunate.
When the Leader of the House was a Back-Bench Member below the Gangway—and I did not agree with him politically, but I felt that he was always a defender of the rights of Parliament—he once teased one of my hon. Friends by saying that he was the first navigator in history to run into both Scylla and Charybdis in one journey. He is now behaving rather like a third-rate travel agent offering his hon. Friends a package tour to some Socialist Shangri-La and finding that the aircraft crash-lands at both Sodom and Gomorrah on the way.
We are discussing why the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward this motion today. I think the key lies in the last couple of lines which say that the question shall be decided forthwith after 10 o'clock without debate. The reason that is necessary is that the Government have been forced into a state of total disarray and do not command a majority over the whole House. As a parliamentary general, the right hon. Gentleman has become Napoleon Blown-apart. He is in desperate need of a reinforcement of

451
troops. No wonder the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) was cheered when he came here on Monday at the head of the great army of nearly 5,000 constituents who had supported him the previous Thursday.
Then, of course, the Government can rely on the well-informed and patriotic voting of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), and also, sadly enough, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was my right hon. Friend but who has now nailed the Red Flag to his Ulster mast. He is someone who could give very good advice to the Government in managing their business, but I wish he did not propose to give it so wholeheartedly.
The Leader of the House seems to have only two parliamentary tactics—the guillotine and the gag. He is removing free speech and free action from the House. I wish he had the decency to accept the amendment today as one small step back to parliamentary respectability.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: The hon Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned that throughout the world parliamentary democracy is under threat. I think that hon. Members, in the course of circus proceedings such as those we are seeing this afternoon, might take note of the fact that we are not in secret session and that the public are observing our going through this ridiculous and childish charade. If parliamentary democracy ever gets the boot in this country, it will be because of the kind of thing we have seen this afternoon. We have an obligation to conduct our affairs at least as reasonably intelligently as moderately advanced children. It is high time that more hon. Members were prepared to expose themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, that is a jolly good joke. One could not get a laugh with it in a circus, but one can in the House of Commons. It is time hon. Members were prepared to expose themselves to the risk of being accused of being sanctimonious by telling the House what it should damned well be told—that it does not conduct its affairs in a fitting way for a national legislature but more in the manner of a kindergarten.
452
Listening to the antics today, one would think that an undebatable motion was unheard of in the procedure of the House of Commons. There is hardly any procedure which is unheard of in the House of Commons, because we have never reviewed our procedures rapidly or sensibly enough for them not to contain the most grotesque anachronisms. Undebatable motions are an inherent and common feature of our procedure. We do it nearly every day. Any day on which we have business that we want to discuss after 10 o'clock and dispose of, even if it is opposed we have the normal suspension motion that is put without debate because the House, in one of its few lucid intervals, decided that the case for and against that proposition was sufficiently obvious and it would be possible to vote on the matter and let the majority have its way without all the case for any against having to be put again. The House in one of those lucid intervals also recognised that if it did not do that hon. Members who wanted only to filibuster would use the occasion to do so. I should do that if there was something to which I was opposed and if the procedure of the House allowed me to do it.
Undebatable motions are not unusual. The question is whether this kind of motion is one that it is legitimate to put down as undebatable. What is it that we are talking about? We are talking about the composition of the silly little Committee that sits in a room not far from this Chamber after our debates when there is disagreement between the two Houses in order to point out the reasons for the disagreement.
It has been suggested that that Committee ought to have on it a larger representation of the Opposition parties. What would that mean? It would mean that after a majority had defeated a Lords amendment, the responsibility for expressing the reasons why it had defeated it would rest with the minority who had voted the opposite way. The House of Commons does many stupid things, but there ought to be a limit, and that would be nonsense.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cunningham: No, I will not

453
What are the reasons that are stated to the House of Lords? The whole process of stating reasons to the House of Lords is a total anachronism. The other place does not pay a blind bit of attention to what is said, and it would be very stupid if it did.
I gave the House two examples from the Industry (Amendment) Bill last month. There was one Lords amendment that would not have allowed nationalised industries to come into the private manufacturing sector. The reason given for rejecting the amendment was
"because it is wrong that the National Enterprise Board should be prevented from extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry."
No doubt that was very enlightening for their Lordships. It was an important bit of work, and we ought to give a lot of attention to deciding what kind of Committee should draft those words.
Mr. Cranley Onslow Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—
Mr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
The Committee gave another reason. It was
"because the power of the National Enterprise Board to form bodies corporate should not be fettered."
The question was whether it should be fettered. The reason was that it should not be fettered. Can anyone suggest that this is a serious part of our procedure?
Mr. Onslow: It is helpful to have from the hon. Gentleman's penetrating mind an analysis of the fatuity of the reasons set out by the Committee on which the Government have a majority. I am sure that in their consideration of the reasons sent to them, their Lordships will be interested to know what his penetrating mind has detected. Can the hon. Gentleman say why there are Opposition Members on this Committee at all?
Mr. Cunningham: I can. It is because the House on this aspect of our proceedings, as on nearly all others, has not for centuries given its tiny mind to the subject. That is the only reason why the provision is there. The hon. Gentleman knows that that kind of reason and that kind of Committee exists whichever party is in power. Let us admit
454
that the public are misled. Let us admit to them that this is a farce and that this is only a motion to delay proceedings so that the scheduled six hours of debate will take place from 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, instead of from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Foot: May I ask for the permission of the House to speak a second time?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman does not need the permission of the House.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you calling the Lord President so that the debate is now concluded and no other hon. Members will be permitted to take part?
Mr. Speaker: I called the Minister because he rose in his place. I cannot say now that the debate is concluded. We shall have to wait and see.
Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Lord President said in his first speech that he would seek to wind up the debate at the end, but there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I have sat here since 3.30 p.m. without leaving the Chamber once, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has frequently been out of the Chamber. The debate is clearly not finished. Why is the Lord President seeking to wind it up?
Mr. Clement Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of speeches from this side of the House, but only one from the Government side. There are now two Privy Councillors rising in their places to speak. Would it not make for a more elevating debate to hear their contributions.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Lord President is to reply to all the contributions in this debate and you call further hon. Members to speak, is it your intention to call the Lord President for a third time?
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I think that he would need the permission of the House.
Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having called me on this occasion, and I thank you for it.
I have listened to almost every sentence that has been uttered in the debate. I left the Chamber for half a minute, or a minute. I have heard the rest of the debate and I agree that I have a case to answer.
I do not wish to depreciate the contributions made by others, but those who have listened to the debate will, I am sure, agree that the most formidable case that I have to answer was that made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I shall seek to answer what he said. I hone also to answer the case made by others.
I repudiate any suggestion that by what we are proposing we are injuring or impairing the legitimate rights of the House. I believe that we are seeking to protect them, and it is in that way that I approach the debate.
I turn first to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and underline what I said to him before. I am not sure whether in some of his remarks he was referring to some other discussion about the composition of the Committee of Selection, the composition of other Committees, and the representations that he and his party made on that subject, and which were made by other parties. I believe that were solved that question satisfactorily in the interests of the whole House—I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that—and that we made an arrangement that was acceptable to the whole House and to the minority parties in accepting their rights.
If there is a distinction in this case I should like to elaborate to the hon Gentleman why I think that distinction has to be made. It is not because I am saying that minority parties in this House have no right to be represented on Select Committees—of course I am not saying that—and already by our actions we have proved more eloquently than any words could do that we accept the case that the hon. Gentleman and others made on that aspect of the matter.
I wish to stress what would be the effect of the proposal incorporated in the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I am
456
not criticising the Opposition for what they are seeking to do, but I should like to say what I think would be the consequence of what they are doing. What was intended was an elaboration of what has been an entirely formal procedure—so formal that no provision is made in Standing Orders for the appointment of such Committees.
This is an elaboration—exploitation might be an even stronger word to use—of what is there. Such an elaboration should not be made without examining what is proposed. What is proposed in the Government motion is, in our belief, designed to preserve the present practice of the House. If we were to alter the present practice—that would be the consequence of accepting the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—we would erode that present practice. That should be done only after much more consideration, possibly by the Sessional Committee on Procedure.
What we are proposing is a Committee of five. The extent of the change is highlighted by the fact that the Clerks have not had to turn their minds to this problem before. I am advised by the Clerks that the rules of procedure applicable to Select Committee are also applied to these Committees. Under those rules the Chairman of such a Committee would have only a casting vote. Assuming, therefore, that a Government Member is called to the Chair in the Disagreeing Committee, or whatever one likes to call it, that leaves parity of Government and others below the Chair. I believe that is all that hon. Gentlemen opposite, or Members of the minority parties or the Liberal Party, can reasonably ask for in such circumstances.
If we were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal the Government would be in a minority below the Chair. Partly for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), that would be an absurdity. It would be such an absurdity, were such a position to arise, that there would be no guarantee that further absurdities would not be created. This Committee, which has solely been a formality in the past, could be transformed into something different. That would be the consequence of accepting the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for

457
Yeovil. If that were the case, then, far from preserving the present position in relation to these matters, it might be transformed.
I turn to the remarks of the right hon Member for Down, South. If we accepted the amendment we would be transforming the nature of these Committees. We would turn them from the formality which they have been for centuries into something quite different. That is the first reason for rejecting the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not know whether he wants to intervene now or wait until after I have dealt with some of his other arguments.
Mr. Powell: Surely, in arguing the case against the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) being added to this Committee, the Lord President is eloquently doing exactly what the motion seeks to prevent the House from doing.
Mr. Foot: I said that this was not the only argument to be deployed against the right hon. Gentleman. That is why it might have been better if he had reserved his intervention until later. There are, additional arguments which sustain the present situation. So far nearly every one seems to be on my side. What I am saying is that if the amendment were carried, and if the composition of this previously formal Committee were to be changed and the Government were put into a minority, that might mean that the nature of the Committee itself would be transformed.
Mr. Adley: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the Chairman being a Government Chairman—and being deprived of a vote—and if he wishes to maintain the spirit of harmony which he talked about earlier, one way of achieving it would be to have one of the non-Government Members as Chairman.
Mr. Foot: That would be a further transformation of the Committee and would be quite a different arrangement. What we are seeking to do is to preserve the present situation of this formal Committee in exactly the same way that it has operated for about 300 years. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are proposing is a major transformation of the status of this Committee, which I believe it would be wrong for the House to undertake.
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that on the General Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure there are four Government Members and four Tory Members. That means that the Chairman, who is a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman's party, on taking the Chair is in the exact position which the Lord President mentioned. Yet this Sub-Committee has been in existence for years in its present form and it works perfectly. If the Lord President quotes the example of Select Committees why does he not accept the example of this particular Sub-Committee?
Mr. Foot: What I am seeking to do is preserve the operation of this Committee in the form in which it has operated hitherto. What has been proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite would run the risk—or invite the possibility—of changing the nature of these Committees. The onus is on those hon. Gentlemen who want to make this change. The Government are proposing to preserve the operation of these Committees in the way in which they have operated before.
Mr. Lawson: Would the Lord President give way?
Mr. Foot: No, I must get on, and the hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we would be silencing the amount of debate. But for about 300 years this Committee has been regarded as a pure formality and there has never been anything which could be regarded as a debate on the matter. This form of setting up such a Committee to express disagreement with the House of Lords dates from about 1693. I am glad that even in 1693 there was disagreement with the House of Lords. From that time until now, although there has been a possibility of debate—and although there may have been one or two occasions on which some question was asked—it has never been regarded by any Opposition, minority or majority party as a requirement for maintaining the opportunities and rights of this House that there should be debates on this motion.
Therefore the elaborate claims which have been built up that I am seeking to silence debates which normally take place are not true. For more than 300 years

459
there have been no debates and I doubt whether for the next 300 years there will be further debates. We shall be left in the same situation as we were in before if the motion is passed. What I am saying is that the motion makes no practical difference to what has been the existing custom.
I would give the right hon Member for Down, South a third answer. We had a similar timetable motion a year or so ago. It was assumed, rightly or wrongly, that that timetable motion covered the motion in respect of this Committee. Mr. Speaker gave a ruling—and the ruling in this aspect of the matter from Mr. Speaker is conclusive—that this timetable motion does not cover the reference to the Committee. That does not alter the fact that there have been a number of occasions on which a timetable motion itself has been thought to cover this reference, as well as other aspects of the timetable motion, and that in itself also denied discussion of this proposal.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's fears was that if the motion were accepted it could be taken as a precedent and used to forbid debates on the setting up of other Committees. I understand his anxiety, but for the reasons that I have already given and that I believe are apparent to anyone who examines the history of the matter, there is a great distinction between the two. That distinction goes back once again to the essential fact that these Committees have always been regarded as formalities.
Of course the House must always look carefully at any proposals for altering the way in which these matters are dealt with, and the House has been properly exercising that right today. But my claim is sustained by much more formidable arguments even than those produced by the right hon. Member for Down, South, who unwittingly has joined those who wish to transform the situation by a side wind.
I am not complaining because the Opposition seek to do so. We are told that we must not imagine, that we must not have such sinister suppositions in our minds as to believe, that they would in any sense use this change in our procedures to interfere with the Bills at present going through the House—
Mr. David James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you not rule earlier that it would be for your convenience if the Minister at the Dispatch Box were to address the Chair?
Mr. Foot: If I was not addressing you properly, Mr. Speaker, I apologise, of course.
I was saying—I think that it is a perfectly legitimate comment—that it would be a change if we were to adopt the Opposition's proposals. I am told that of course they would not dream of using such a development to assist them in preventing these other Bills from going through. The right hon. Member for Down. South said that there would be no possibility for any loss from the Government's point of view. But there could be if the debates on the setting up of the Committee were used as an opportunity for a further major debate and vote on these matters. That would be to transform our procedures in the middle of the game, and it is the Opposition who are proposing measures which could change this Committee.
The Opposition say—one of their legal representatives was very strong on this point—that this must no longer be a formality, that a stronger Committee was needed. They therefore suggest altering the composition of the Committee to give the Opposition a majority in the votes in it. They also ask us to believe that in the debates on these matters they would in no sense seek to filibuster to try to affect the major Bills. They are asking a lot in asking us to believe that.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman should be under no misunderstanding. He has twice suggested that I would do something to facilitate the passage of these odious measures. I gave no undertaking of that kind. He has seriously misunderstood me.
Mr. Foot: That helps to confirm my case. It is one of the most eloquent interventions that the right hon. Gentleman has made throughout this discussion. I might almost say that the case rests. Of course the right hon. Gentleman will use every opportunity he can to disrupt the legislation, and he has now come out with that confession.
What we propose is the best way of preserving the rights which the House

461
has had in this matter. Those who wish to transform this Committee into something much more elaborate and far-reaching are the persons who are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The acceptance of the closure motion is always, rightly, in the decision of the Chair. Is it not slightly unusual for that decision to be taken when Privy Councillors rise, wishing to be called to speak in the debate?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I have said before, all hon. Members are equal in this place—some a little more equal than others. It is customary for Mr. Speaker to decide whether to accept the closure motion.
The House having divided: Ayes 311, Noes 303.

Division No. 386.]

AYES

[5.56 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cryer, Bob

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Allaun, Frank

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hardy, Peter

Anderson, Donald

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Harper, Joseph

Archer, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Armstrong, Ernest

Davidson, Arthur

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Ashley, Jack

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Hatton, Frank

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Atkinson, Norman

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Deakins, Eric

Heffer, Eric S.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hooley, Frank

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Horam, John

Bates, Alf

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

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

Bean, R. E.

Dempsey, James

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Doig, Peter

Huckfield, Les

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dormand, J. D.

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Bidwell, Sydney

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Bishop, E. S.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Boardman, H.

Dunnett, Jack

Hunter, Adam

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Eadie, Alex

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Edge, Geoff

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Bradley, Tom

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Janner, Greville

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

English Michael

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ennals, David

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Buchan, Norman

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Buchanan, Richard

Evans Ioan (Aberdare)

John, Brynmor

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, John (Newton)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Johnson, Waiter (Derby S)

Jones Alec (Rhondda)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Campbell, Ian

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Canavan, Dennis

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Judd, Frank

Cant, R. B.

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Kaufman, Gerald

Carmichael, Neil

Flannery, Martin

Kelley, Richard

Carter, Ray

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Kerr, Russell

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Cartwright, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Kinnock Neil

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Ford, Ben

Lambie David

Clemitson, Ivor

Forrester, John

Lamborn, Harry

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lomond, James

Cohen, Stanley

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

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Coleman, Donald

Freeson, Reginald

Leadbitter, Ted

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lee, John

Concannon, J. D.

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Conlan, Bernard

George, Bruce

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Gilbert, Dr John

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Corbett, Robin

Ginsburg, David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cowans, Harry

Golding, John

Lipton, Marcus

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gould, Bryan

Litterick, Tom

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Gourlay, Harry

Lomas, Kenneth

Crawshaw, Richard

Graham, Ted

Loyden, Eddie

Cronin, John

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Luard, Evan

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Grant, John (Islington C)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Grocott, Bruce

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Paimer, Arthur

Strang, Gavin

McCartney, Hugh

Park, George

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Parker, John

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

McElhone, Frank

Parry, Robert

Swain, Thomas

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Pavitt, Laurie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Perry, Ernest

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Mackintosh, John P.

Phipps, Dr Colin

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Maclennan, Robert

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Prescott, John

Tierney, Sydney

McNamara, Kevin

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Tinn, James

Madden, Max

Price, William (Rugby)

Tomlinson, John

Magee, Bryan

Radice, Giles

Tomney, Frank

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Torney, Tom

Mahon, Simon

Richardson, Miss Jo

Urwin, T. W.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Marks, Kenneth

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Marquand, David

Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Ward, Michael

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Watkins, David

Meacher, Michael

Rooker, J. W.

Watkinson, John

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Roper, John

Weetch, Ken

Mendelson, John

Rose, Paul B.

Weitzman, David

Mikardo, Ian

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Wellbeloved, James

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Rowlands, Ted

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Ryman, John

White, James (Pollock)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Sandelson, Neville

Whitehead, Phillip

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Sedgemore, Brian

Whitlock, William

Molloy, William

Selby, Harry

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Moonman, Eric

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Moyle, Roland

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Sillars, James

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Newens, Stanley

Silverman, Julius

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Noble, Mike

Skinner, Dennis

Woodall, Alec

Oakes, Gordon

Small, William

Woof, Robert

Ogden, Eric

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

O'Halloran, Michael

Snape, Peter

Young, David (Bolton E)

Orbach, Maurice

Spearing, Nigel

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spriggs, Leslie

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ovenden, John

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. James Hamilton and

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Mr. David Stoddart.

Padley, Walter

Stott, Roger

NOES

Adley, Robert

Carson, John

Farr, John

Aitken, Jonathan

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Fell, Anthony

Alison, Michael

Channon, Paul

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Churchill, W. S.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Arnold, Tom

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Awdry, Daniel

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Clegg, Walter

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Kenneth

Cockcroft, John

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)

Banks, Robert

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fox, Marcus

Beith, A. J.

Cope, John

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Cordle, John H.

Freud, Clement

Benyon, W.

Cormack, Patrick

Fry, Peter

Biffen, John

Corrie, John

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Biggs-Davison, John

Costain, A. P.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Blaker, Peter

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Body, Richard

Crawford, Douglas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Critchley, Julian

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Bottomley, Peter

Crouch, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Crowder, F. P.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Goodhart, Philip

Bradford, Rev Robert

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Goodhew, Victor

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Brittan, Leon

Drayson, Burnaby

Gorst, John

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Brotherton, Michael

Durant, Tony

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Dykes, Hugh

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Gray, Hamish

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Grieve, Percy

Buck, Antony

Elliott, Sir William

Griffiths, Eldon

Budgen, Nick

Emery, Peter

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Bulmer, Esmond

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Grist, Ian

Burden, F. A.

Eyre, Reginald

Grylls, Michael

Butter, Adam (Bosworth)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Hall, Sir John

Carlisle, Mark

Fairgrieve, Russell

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

464

465

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Marten, Neil

Sainsbury, Tim

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mather, Carol

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Hannam, John

Maude, Angus

Scott-Hopkins, James

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Mawby, Ray

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Havers, Sir Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Shepherd, Colin

Hawkins, Paul

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Hayhoe, Barney

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Silvester, Fred

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mills, Peter

Sims, Roger

Henderson, Douglas

Miscampbell, Norman

Sinclair, Sir George

Heseltine, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hicks, Robert

Moate, Roger

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Higgins, Terence L.

Monro, Hector

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Hodgson, Robin

Montgomery, Fergus

Speed, Keith

Holland, Philip

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Spence, John

Hooson, Emlyn

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Hordern, Peter

Morgan, Geraint

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Sproat, Iain

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Stanley, John

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Mudd, David

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Neave, Airey

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Hurd, Douglas

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Neubert, Michael

Stokes, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Newton, Tony

Stradling Thomas, J.

James, David

Normanton, Tom

Tapsell, Peter

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

Nott, John

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Jessel, Toby

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Tebbit, Norman

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Osborn, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Jopling, Michael

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Page, Richard (Workington)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Paisley, Rev Ian

Thompson, George

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pardoe, John

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Kershaw, Anthony

Parkinson, Cecil

Townsend, Cyril D.

Kilfedder, James

Pattie, Geoffrey

Trotter Neville

Kimball, Marcus

Penhaligon, David

Tugendhat, Christopher

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Percival, Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Kirk, Sir Peter

Pink, R. Bonner

Viggers, Peter

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wakeham, John

Knox, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Lamont, Norman

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Lane, David

Raison, Timothy

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rathbone, Tim

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Wall, Patrick

Lawrence, Ivan

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Walters, Dennis

Lawson, Nigel

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Warren, Kenneth

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Reid, George

Watt, Hamish

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Weatherill, Bernard

Lloyd, Ian

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wells, John

Loveridge, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Welsh, Andrew

Luce, Richard

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Ridsdale, Julian

Wiggin, Jerry

MacCormick, Iain

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wigley, Dafydd

McCrindle, Robert

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Winterton, Nicholas

McCusker, H.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Macfarlane, Neil

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

MacGregor, John

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Younger, Hon George

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Madel, David

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 310.

Division No. 387.]

AYES

[6.09 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Beith, A. J.

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Aitken, Jonathan

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Alison, Michael

Berry, Hon Anthony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Biffen, John

Brittan, Leon

Arnold, Tom

Biggs-Davison, John

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Blaker, Peter

Brotherton, Michael

Awdry, Daniel

Body, Richard

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Baker, Kenneth

Bottomley, Peter

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Banks, Robert

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Buck, Antony

Budgen, Nick

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Neubert, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Henderson, Douglas

Newton, Tony

Burden, F. A.

Heseltine, Michael

Normanton, Tom

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hicks, Robert

Nott, John

Carlisle, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.

Onslow, Cranley

Carson, John

Hodgson, Robin

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Holland, Philip

Osborn, John

Channon, Paul

Hooson, Emlyn

Page, John (Harrow West)

Churchill, W. S.

Hordern, Peter

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Page, Richard (Workington)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pardoe, John

Clegg, Walter

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Parkinson, Cecil

Cockcroft, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Penhaligon, David

Cope, John

Hurd, Douglas

Percival, Ian

Cordle, John H.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pink, R. Bonner

Corrie, John

James, David

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Costain, A. P.

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

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Jessel, Toby

Prior, Rt Hon James

Crawford, Douglas

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Critchley, Julian

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Raison, Timothy

Crouch, David

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rathbone, Tim

Crowder, F. P.

Jopling, Michael

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Reid, George

Drayson, Burnaby

Kershaw, Anthony

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kilfedder, James

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Durant, Tony

Kimball, Marcus

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dykes, Hugh

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Ridsdale, Julian

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Rifkind, Malcolm

Elliott, Sir William

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Emery, Peter

Knight, Mrs Jill

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff MW)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Knox, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Lamont, Norman

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)

Eyre, Reginald

Lane, David

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Latham, Michael (Merton)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Farr, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fell, Anthony

Lawson, Nigel

Royle, Sir Anthony

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sainsbury, Tim

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott, Nicholas

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lloyd, Ian

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fookes, Miss Janet

Loveridge, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Forman, Nigel

Luce, Richard

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Fox, Marcus

MacCormick, Iain

Shepherd, Colin

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

McCrindle, Robert

Shersby, Michael

Freud, Clement

McCusker, H.

Silvester, Fred

Fry, Peter

Macfarlane, Neil

Sims, Roger

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

MacGregor, John

Sinclair, Sir George

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Madel, David

Speed, Keith

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Spence, John

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Marten, Neil

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Goodhart, Philip

Males, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Goodhew, Victor

Maude, Angus

Sproat, Iain

Goodlad, Alastair

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gorst, John

Mawby, Ray

Stanley, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mayhew, Patrick

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Gray, Hamish

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Grieve, Percy

Mills, Peter

Stokes, John

Griffiths, Eldon

Miscampbell, Norman

Stradling Thomas, J.

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Tapsell, Peter

Grist, Ian

Moate, Roger

Taylor, R. (Croydon MW)

Grylls, Michael

Molyneaux, James

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Hall, Sir John

Monro, Hector

Tebbit, Norman

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Montgomery, Fergus

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Hampson, Dr Keith

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hannam, John

Morgan, Geraint

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Thompson, George

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Hastings, Stephen

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Havers, Sir Michael

Morrison, Hon peter (Chester)

Trotter, Neville

Hawkins, Paul

Mudd, David

Tugendhat, Christopher

Hayhoe, Barney

Neave, Airey

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Nelson, Anthony

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

468

469

Viggers, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Winterton, Nicholas

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Watt, Hemish

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Wakenham, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Wells, John

Younger, Hon George

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Welsh, Andrew

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wall, Patrick

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. W. Benyon and

Walters, Dennis

Wigley, Dafydd

Mr. Carol Mather.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dunn, James A.

Kelley, Richard

Allaun, Frank

Dunnett, Jack

Kerr, Russell

Anderson, Donald

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Archer, Peter

Eadie, Alex

Kinnock, Neil

Armstrong, Ernest

Edge, Geoff

Lambie, David

Ashley, Jack

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lamborn, Harry

Ashton, Joe

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lamond, James

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Atkinson, Norman

English, Michael

Leadbitter, Ted

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ennals, David

Lee, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Bates, Alf

Evans, John (Newton)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Bean, R. E.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Faulds, Andrew

Lipton, Marcus

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Litterick, Tom

Bidwell, Sydney

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lomas, Kenneth

Bishop, E. S.

Flannery, Martin

Loyden, Eddie

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Luard, Evan

Boardman, H.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Ford, Ben

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Forrester, John

McCartney, Hugh

Bradley, Tom

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

McElhone, Frank

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Freeson, Reginald

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Buchan, Norman

George, Bruce

Mackintosh, John P.

Buchanan, Richard

Gilbert, Dr John

Maclennan, Robert

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Ginsburg, David

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Golding, John

McNamara, Kevin

Caliaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Gould, Bryan

Madden, Max

Campbell, Ian

Gourlay, Harry

Magee, Bryan

Canavan, Dennis

Graham, Ted

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Cant, R. B.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marion, Simon

Carmichael, Neil

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Carter, Ray

Grocott, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Marquand, David

Cartwright, John

Hardy, Peter

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Harper, Joseph

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Clemitson, Ivor

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Maynard, Miss Joan

Cohen, Stanley

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Meacher, Michael

Coleman, Donald

Halton, Frank

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Mendelson, John

Concannon, J. D.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mikardo, Ian

Conlan, Bernard

Heffer, Eric S.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hooley, Frank

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Corbett, Robin

Horam, John

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Cowans, Harry

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

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Molloy, William

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Huckfield, Les

Moonman, Eric

Crawshaw, Richard

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Cronin, John

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Moyle, Roland

Cryer, Bob

Hunter, Adam

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge HIM)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Newens, Stanley

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Noble, Mike

Davidson, Arthur

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Oakes, Gordon

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Janner, Greville

Ogden, Eric

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

O'Halloran, Michael

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Orbach, Maurice

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Deakins, Eric

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Ovenden, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

John, Brynmor

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Padley, Walter

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Palmer, Arthur

Dempsey, James

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Park, George

Doig, Peter

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Parker, John

Dormand, J. D.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Parry, Robert

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Judd, Frank

Pavitt, Laurie

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kaufman, Gerald

Pendry, Tom

Perry, Ernest

470

471

Phipps, Dr Colin

Sillars, James

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Silverman, Julius

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Prescott, John

Skinner, Dennis

Ward, Michael

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Small, William

Watkins, David

Price, William (Rugby)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Watkinson, John

Radice, Giles

Snape, Peter

Weetch, Ken

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Spearing, Nigel

Weitzman, David

Richardson, Miss Jo

Spriggs, Leslie

Wellbeloved, James

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Stallard, A. W.

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

White, James (Pollok)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Stott, Roger

Whitehead, Phillip

Robinson, Geoffrey

Strang, Gavin

Whitlock, William

Roderick, Caerwyn

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Swain, Thomas

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Rooker, J. W.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Williams, Rt Horn Shirley (Hertford)

Roper, John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Rose, Paul B.

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Rowlands, Ted

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Ryman, John

Tierney, Sydney

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Sandelson, Neville

Tinn, James

Woodall, Alec

Sedgemore, Brian

Tomlinson, John

Woof, Robert

Selby, Harry

Tomney, Frank

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Torney, Tom

Young, David (Bolton E)

Sheldon Robert (Ashton-u Lyne)

Urwin, T. W.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

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

Mr. David Stoddart.

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, for the remainder of this Session, any Questions necessary to dispose of Motions moved by a Minister of the Crown, and any amendments thereto selected by Mr. Speaker, relating to Committees to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Amendments to Bills shall be decided forthwith, and proceedings on such Motions, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING)
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Sunday trading.
This has been a contentious subject in the House, but what I am about to introduce is not a particularly contentious measure. If it has any claim to remark-ability, it might well be the time of day at which this Ten-Minute Bill comes before the House.
I think that the whole House will agree that if we are to have legislation it should be good legislation, and that if we are to enforce laws, the laws that we enforce should be evenly enforced. My Bill would reform the Shops Acts of 1950 and 1965, specifically in respect of Schedule 7 dealing with Sunday trading. I want to do it predominantly because the Shops Act 1950 is a bad Act and is
472
desperately unevenly enforced, if it is enforced at all. It dates back to the Sunday Fairs Act 1448 and the Sunday Observance Act 1677, and has steadily tried to hold a delicate balance between religious observance and the problem of the little woman who needs a twist of sugar on a Sunday.
I shall give a few instances so that the House can decide just how bad is the law that we have at the moment. The state of play currently is that on a Sunday one may buy fresh milk but not powdered milk. One may buy fresh cream but not tinned cream. One may buy prophylactics only if they are on prescription. One cannot go to a chemist and buy one without a prescription. One may buy newspapers but not the Book of Common Prayer—unless one goes to a bookshop which is open on a Sunday; the only bookshops allowed to be open on a Sunday are those at an approved station. There is in the law nothing to tell one how to approve or disapprove of a station. In view of the rail cuts I disapprove of all stations, except for one or two which have remained open on a Sunday.
With regard to take-away food, almost any take-away food—[Interruption.] In the case of take-away food—[Interruption.] I can hardly hear myself speak—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman complains that he can hardly hear himself speak, it makes it much more difficult for the rest of us.
Mr. Freud: With regard to takeaway food, almost any take-away food may be sold on a Sunday, with the exception of fish and chips. One may not buy fish and chips on a Sunday. One may buy spares for motor cars, motor cycles and cycles on a Sunday. One may buy the wheels, the spokes, the tyres, the chassis, the engine and the windscreen wipers. The only thing one cannot buy is the whole car, the whole motor cycle or the whole cycle.
I do not think that I need to give any further instances of the fact that this is a plumb bad law. It is, of course, a law which is very hard to enforce, because I think that all of us, I say with respect, at some time have broken the Sunday trading laws. [Interruption.] I shall be interested to hear from anyone who has not.
There was a case, which received a fair amount of publicity, where a furniture shop opened on a Sunday, was prosecuted and then managed to get a change of usage certificate. It became a furniture and vegetable shop, and sold a carrot for £200, with a three-piece suite as a promotional gift. A law that allows people to bring the legislation of this country into such disrepute is a bad law and ought to be amended.
One of the great dangers of a bad law such as this is not only that it is unevenly enforced, if it is enforced at all, but that very frequently the police, who are unable to summon the shop in question under any other section of the law, use this outdated, outmoded and bad Schedule 7 to the Shops Act to prosecute a shop which is only doing what everyone else is doing, namely, selling things on a Sunday.
My Bill recognises Sunday as a day of worship and will not seek to have any more establishments opened on a Sunday. What it does is look at the general picture of the present law and rationalise it.
At the moment, there is a closing time for all shops, but there is no opening time. Shops may close at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., but there is no opening time laid down in the Shops Act, and, presumably, a shop-keeper could open his premises at one minute past midnight if he wished to.
My Bill would scrap all existing restrictions on what may or may not be sold
474
on Sundays. It is quite invidious to go into a shop on a Sunday only to find half the shelves covered because the goods on them may not be sold. My Bill would seek simply to allow all shops which are already open on Sundays to sell on Sundays those goods they normally sell on weekdays.
In the present law there are certain religious exemptions, especially those applying in the East End of London where markets are allowed to operate on Sundays because the Jews who live there worship on Saturdays and the shops round there do not open on Saturdays. My Bill seeks to extend the exemptions to other minorities, such as Indians, to people who have religious convictions which cause them to close their shops on other days of the week and thereby permit them to trade on Sundays.
The third object of my Bill is to give local authorities a greater say in authorising shops to open on Sundays. At the moment, a local authority may allow shops to open for 17 Sundays in the year provided that it is a holiday resort." It seems to me that it would be sensible to extend the principle of the referenda held in Wales about whether local authorities shall allow drinking on Sundays. If local authorities wish to hold a referendum, well and good, but it seems to me that they are the ultimate people who know and who should be able to decide whether a shop may open, whether there is a demand and whether people should be allowed to go to shops on Sundays.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the rights of employees would be protected. It would be made clear that no shopkeeper could give notice to an employee who did not want to work on Sundays. By the same token, it would control the wages which could be paid for Sunday working so that it would not be made so attractive financially that people found it irresistible to work on the seventh day.
Those are the very simple purposes of my Bill. I hope that the House will allow me to introduce it. It will not increase the incidence of Sunday trading, but it will regularise the absurdities and anomalies in the current law.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Torney: I do not propose to waste the time of

475
the House any further. A great deal of time has been wasted already by the forcing of Divisions. I wish merely to declare my opposition to the motion and my hope that the Bill will not see the light of day.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 197.

Division No. 388.]

AYES

[6.34 p.m.

Aitken, Jonathan

Hodgson, Robin

Reid, George

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Hooson, Emlyn

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Baker, Kenneth

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Biggs-Davison, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Body, Richard

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Kimball, Marcus

Scott-Hopkins, James

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Knox, David

Shersby, Michael

Brittan, Leon

Lawrence, Ivan

Sims, Roger

Brotherton, Michael

Lawson, Nigel

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Buck, Antony

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Speed, Keith

Budgen, Nick

Macfarlane, Neil

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Burden, F. A.

Marten, Neil

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Carlisle, Mark

Mates, Michael

Stradling Thomas, J.

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Churchill, W. S.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thompson, George

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Montgomery, Fergus

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Cockcroft, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Trotter, Neville

Cormack, Patrick

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Viggers, Peter

Crawford, Douglas

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

Durant, Tony

Mudd, David

Wakenham, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Normanton, Tom

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Fookes, Miss Janet

Nott, John

Warren, Kenneth

Glyn, Dr Alan

Onslow, Cranley

Weatherhill, Bernard

Goodhew, Victor

Page, Richard (Workington)

Weish, Andrew

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Pardoe, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Grist, Ian

Penhaligon, David

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Percival, Ian

Hayhoe, Barney

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hicks, Robert

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Clement Freud and

Higgins, Terence L.

Prior, Rt Hon James

Mr. Geraint Howells.

Holland, Philip

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Corbett, Robin

Golding, John

Anderson, Donald

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Graham, Ted

Archer, Peter

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ashley, Jack

Cronin, John

Grant, John (Islington C)

Ashton, Joe

Crowder, F. P.

Gray, Hamish

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cryer, Bob

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Bates, Alf

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Hardy, Peter

Bean, R. E.

Cowans, Harry

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Beith, A. J.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hatton, Frank

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Huckfield, Les

Boardman, H.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Dormand, J. D.

Janner, Greville

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dunn, James A.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Edge, Geoff

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

English, Michael

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Judd, Frank

Canavan, Dennis

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Kelley, Richard

Cant, R. B.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Kerr, Russell

Carmichael, Neil

Farr, John

Kilfedder, James

Carson, John

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Lambie, David

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Lamborn, Harry

Cartwright, John

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Channon, Paul

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Leadbitter, Ted

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Forrester, John

Lee, John

Clemitson, Ivor

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

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

Lipton, Marcus

Cohen, Stanley

Freeson, Reginald

Litterick, Tom

Coleman, Donald

Fry, Peter

Lomas, Kenneth

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Loyden, Eddie

Concannon, J. D.

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Luard, Evan

Conlan, Bernard

George, Bruce

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Ginsburg, David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Padley, Walter

Spriggs, Leslie

McCartney, Hugh

Paisley, Rev Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

McCusker, H.

Palmer, Arthur

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Park, George

Stoddart, David

Maclennan, Robert

Parker, John

Strang, Gavin

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Parry, Robert

Swain, Thomas

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Pavitt, Laurie

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

McNamara, Kevin

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Perry, Ernest

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Price, William (Rugby)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Marks, Kenneth

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Tierney, Sydney

Meacher, Michael

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Urwin, T. W.

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mendelson, John

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Ward, Michael

Molloy, William

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Watkins, David

Molyneaux, James

Rooker, J. W.

Watkinson, John

Moonman, Eric

Rose, Paul B.

Weitzman, David

Morgan, Geraint

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Whitehead, Phillip

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Ryman, John

Whitlock, William

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Selby, Harry

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Sillars, James

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Newens, Stanley

Skinner, Dennis

Ogden, Eric

Small, William

TELLERS for THE NOES:

O'Halloran, Michael

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Rt. Hon. E. Fernyhough and

Orbach, Maurice

Snape, Peter

Mr. Thomas Torney

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords amendments considered.

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
    Clause 1

      RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD AS BODY CORPORATE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen".
      6.45 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
      Mr. Booth: Since these amendments all deal with the method of appointment and the scope of the new National Dock Labour Board, it will be of help if I briefly set out the approach made to the issue when we last debated it in the House and in Committee.
      It was common ground between the Government and the Opposition that the responsibilities of the new Board, as laid down in the Bill, were wider than those of the existing Board. If the Bill is left broadly in its present form, the new Board will be responsible for surveying and recommending in respect of the classification of provisions under Clauses 6, 7 and 8.
      The responsibilities will also be wider because the Board will have a duty to review developments affecting the performance of dock work. It was considered that in those circumstances the new Board should be larger than the old. Although there were marginal reservations about the size of the Board, there was no great dissent from the basic proposition that the Board should comprise a chairman, vice-chairman and 12 others.
      480
      On Clause 1 we encountered more contentious debate on the issue of the Board's proportions. There was argument about the proportion of members coming from the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, who should be consulted and which interests should be represented among those serving on the Board coming from areas other than the NJC for the industry. That contentious issue is dealt with in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which increase the number of members of the new Board from 12 to 16, in addition to the chairman and vice-chairman, and increases from four to eight the number of members to be appointed other than on the nomination or renomination of the NJC.
      I urge the House to disagree with the Lords, first, because it would be wrong greatly to increase the size of the Board. The size is broadly right and it will be an effective working body. More seriously, I am anxious about the second leg of the propositions in the amendments, because they would reduce to less than half the proportion of members on the Board who came from the NJC. That would be a serious situation to create within such a Board.
      If the National Dock Labour Board is to carry confidence and have the maximum effective co-operation, which it will require from employers and employees within the scheme, it is of the utmost importance that a substantial proportion of the Board be picked from nominees of the NJC. After all, the registered employers and registered dock workers will be primarily affected by decisions of the Board and by the operation of the scheme.
      Although it is common ground between us that the Board should be bigger in order to allow interests other than those of the port employers' association and the two major unions organising registered dock unions to be represented, it would be greatly detrimental to the new Board if those other interests were in numerical terms to outweigh the representation of those who are directly involved in the scheme in the way I have described.
      Another issue is raised by Amendments Nos. 3 and 4—that of whom the Secretary of State should consult before making the appointments of those other than the nominees of the National Joint

      481
      Council. It is suggested that, in addition to consulting the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, the National Consumer Council should be consulted.
      I have studied the case that was deployed in another place for this proposition, just as I have re-examined the debates that we had in Committee on the issue of consumer interests and consumer representation. I take the view that the consumer interest is not best, or even adequately, served in the way the amendments suggest. Taking the narrow view of what "consumer interest" is and defining it as merely the price of the goods or services that the public pay, that clearly is a very small part, if any part at all, of the effect of decisions of the new National Dock Labour Board.
      The proportion of the total costs of consumer goods in United Kingdom shops which is directly attributable to transport as a whole is fairly small. The part of that attributable to handling in the docks is very small indeed. If one were to seek to ascertain how much of the cost that the consumer faces arises from cargo handling in the docks, it would be found that a very small part of that was due to wages.
      Clearly, the nature of the industry is such that there must be high fixed capital costs such as port installations, cargo handling machinery, harbour maintenance and a large number of other features besides the direct labour costs. Even giving this argument about the consumer interests on the Board its full scope, if one allowed that the wages element of dockers had an effect on consumer prices one would have to acknowledge that the Board will not negotiate wages: that will be a matter for the new National Joint Council for the industry.
      Looking at the consumer interest from that narrow point of view, there is no case whatsoever for the amendment. It might be argued that there is a much better case, based upon that proposition, for putting consumer representatives on the boards of a whole series of manufacturing organisations and retail associations throughout the country whose activities have a much greater effect on the price that the consumer pays for goods.
      482
      I am prepared, and I think that the House should be prepared, to look at consumer interests in relation to what the Board does in a wider sense than that of merely the price paid for goods in the shop and to recognise that many people are consumers in the wider sense of the activity of dock workers—people who for their normal services and for their method of earning their bread and butter are dependent upon the docks working efficiently, dependent upon the raw materials being imported which they use in the factories, or dependent upon the importation of a whole range of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. Looking at consumer interests in that wider sense, there are many more people than the National Consumer Council to be taken into account.
      We are therefore right to make a provision in the Bill for consulting the CBI and the TUC before the appointment takes place of those members of the Board other than those who are nominated directly from the NJC; and I believe that those who are put forward by the TUC and the CBI will reflect the wider consumer interest in that sense. It might be as well for me to indicate now that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment to Clause 2 requiring the Board to have
      "regard to the public interest".
      This takes account not just of consumers but of the community as a whole and of interests concerned with the use of manpower in the ports.
      There are two other issues raised in this batch of amendments. There is, first, the issue whether the National Association of Warehousekeepers should be among the list of those to be consulted before appointments are made. It is undoubtedly the case that some of the work undertaken by member of the National Association of Warehousekeepers might be classified under the Bill, but a number of employers' associations are very much in the same position, and I do not think that it would be reasonable to require consultation with all such associations before appointing members of the Board.
      The employers in question will almost all be individually or through trade associations in membership of the CBI and their interests can therefore be to that extent adequately represented. But,

      483
      as we are in any case acknowledging in the way we propose to establish the Board that a wider trade union interest than that of the unions now represented on the Board and a wider employer interest is required, it would not be advisable to focus attention in this way on one particular section of employer interests.
      The last point that arises on this batch of amendments is that arising on Amendment No. 6 which would, if agreed to, require
      "four members of the Board"
      to
      "be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports"
      The group of employers and employees not represented on the NJC and with the greatest interest in matters to be considered by the Board must obviously be those whose work might be subject to survey and a recommendation on classification.
      My view, which was not basically contested in Committee, is that it would be wrong to limit the representation on the new Board to that of unions and employers currently in classified work and those whose work might be classified in the future. It was agreed between us that the employer-employee interest—or the union-employer interest—went much wider than that, and if we disagree with this amendment, we should do so in the spirit that I have indicated to the House: first, in accepting the amendment to widen the duty of the Board to have regard to the public interest and, secondly, to enable the Secretary of State responsible—whether it is myself or any successor—to ensure that that representation of all the interests other than those directly engaged in the industry at present should be properly considered when those other appointments are made.
      Briefly, I am urging the House to make again a judgment which it made once before, a difficult judgment admittedly, on the size and composition of the Board, a judgment which has been arrived at after careful consideration of a series of issues, and one which will allow the slightly wider responsibility of the
      484
      new Board to be exercised in a responsible way in the public interest as well as in the interests of the effective working of the industry.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. James Prior: As he has with most matters in the Bill, the Secretary of State has the balance wrong here, but we do not wish to detain the House on these amendments for very long because there are far more important matters which ought to be discussed.
      In Committee we moved an amendment that there should be 14 members of the Board because we thought that 16 meant too big a Board. We were also worried that the National Joint Council was to have 50 per cent. representation, exclusive of the chairman and vice-chairman. We felt that there ought to be a much wider representation of interests on the Board, because the Government are seeking powers well beyond the powers of the Dock Labour Scheme and the Dock Labour Board as we know them now. Many other bodies and individuals, whether unions, dock users or consumers, were to be affected, and, therefore, it seemed right and proper that they should have their right to representation properly set out. Their Lordships found that it would be easy to do that if the size of the Board were increased from 12 to 16.
      I am not in favour of big boards, and I do not suppose that their Lordships are, either, but they found it the easiest way of providing for the representation they desired and getting a balance of representation. That was the logic behind Lords Amendment No. 1.
      Lords Amendment No. 6, which deals with representation of consumers, port users and their employees, and others not represented on the NJC, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult these other bodies before appointing members of the Board, whether eight, as the Government wanted, or four as is now written in the Bill. We felt that that was a sensible way of dealing with the matter.
      We do not agree with the Minister that the proportion of members from the NJC should not be less than half. Of course we recognise the importance of the National Dock Labour Board's being able to carry the confidence of the employers and employees most affected, but there

      485
      are other people whose confidence it is just as important to carry. We are disappointed that the Secretary of State has taken the view he has. We believe he is wrong and that their Lordships, particularly in Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6, are correct. We had hoped that the Secretary of State would agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
      We do not propose to divide on this series of amendments, because we wish to get on to other more important matters. We support the Lords in the amendments. We are sorry that the Secretary of State has not found it possible to accept them.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall be brief, but I think it important that one or two points should go on record in view of the speech by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about the composition of the Board. He was unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because he fully understands that the Bill extends the interests to be represented on the National Dock Labour Board for the first time since it was set up. The Opposition should at least have given my right hon. Friend credit for that and conceded the broadening of interests in the composition of the Board.
      The Opposition have argued that representation on the new body ought to go further than the CBI and the other bodies mentioned. There is a contradiction between what the Opposition have said tonight about representation of consumer interests and what they have said before. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would want to see consumer interests represented in all our institutions, and to see particularly the interests of those who work in the industry represented as well. When the composition of boards of school governors was discussed the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said that he would resist the idea that because pupils were consumers they should be represented on boards of management. It appears to me that there is no sense of unity in the Opposition about what consumer interests should mean.
      For the first time there is to be a broader-based interest represented on the Board. Most even-minded people would agree that those mainly concerned about the running of the ports industry are
      486
      those who work in it, who operate and manage it. By the inclusion of the other bodies the Bill has extended representation to other areas. In that sense the Government have given much of what the Opposition argued for in the composition of the new Board.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the Lords amendment. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) agrees that we should be giving far more acknowledgement to the rôle of consumers on boards. He talked about governors of schools. When I was on a board of governors we brought in two pupils, and I am sure that the same thing is happening in other parts of the country. The Government should have given at least token acknowledgement of the fact that consumers should have some say in the appointment of members of the Board. We made the point in Committee, but lost there. It was ably made in another place, where it was carried. I am sorry that the Government have decided to remove the Lords amendment. It should have remained. However, I accept the decision of the Opposition Front Bench that there are far more important matters to come to, and, therefore, I shall not press this question.
      Mr. Booth: In the Government's view the present provision about the appointment of members other than those who come directly from the NJC in no way excludes people who will have a high regard for the consumer interest. It leaves the matter at large and does not define the specific responsibility of particular appointees. What it does is to lay down that the Secretary of State must consult the TUC, the CBI and the NJC before he appoints them. Their duties and responsibilities will include those covered by the general duty of the Board in Clause 2, which, when we accept the amendment to that clause, will make a specific reference to the broader "public interest". I contend that that includes the interests of consumers. The fact that we are not saying what shall be the specific duties of the members of the Board additional to the NJC members does not mean that we are saying that there will be no consumer interest or responsibility recognised by the Board.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 disagreed to.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL DUTY OF THE BOARD
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 2, line 11, after "Board" insert
      ", having regard to the public interest."
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      It can be argued that the words contained in the amendment are not strictly necessary. The Board will be a responsible body and there is no reason to suppose that it will put forward proposals which it will consider to be contrary to the public interest. However, the words may help to remove what we believe to be unwarranted apprehensions, and therefore I ask the House to accept the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4

      SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREPARE NEW SCHEME
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out "in draft" and insert
      "and publish in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act,".
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 20, 42, 43 and 58.
      Mr. Walker: The amendments are directed to what those who participated in the Committee and in other proceedings will recognise as familiar ground. They require that in the case of the new Dock Labour Scheme, in any subsequent amendments to the scheme, and in proposed orders classifying or declassifying work, contrary to the Board's opinion following consideration under Clause 9, there shall be compliance with the procedure set out in the new schedule. We discussed similar amendments in Standing Committee for the best part of two hours. I have no doubt that the Con-
      488
      servatives will point out that the procedure in the schedule closely follows that provided for in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946.
      In Standing Committee my right hon. Friend said that the Government believed that the procedure in Clause 4 was a significant improvement on the procedures provided in the 1946 Act. We have neither seen nor head anything since to persuade us that our position then was wrong.
      Under the 1946 Act the Secretary of State was required to prepare a draft embodying the scheme, to give notice where copies could be obtained, to allow not less than 40 days for objections, and then to appoint the public inquiry. In the light of the results of that inquiry he was required to make an order, either in the terms of the draft, or subject to such modifications as he thought fit—the order under the 1946 scheme being subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      The Government believe that to establish such a public inquiry is no substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate—not only on the laying of an initial scheme before the House, but in the case of any subsequent amendment to it. Consequently the Bill provides that the draft new scheme, and any amendments to it, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
      Although the Bill does not expressly provide for this, the draft of the new scheme will in practice be drawn up after consultation with the Board and those interests represented on it, and after taking account of any views expressed by those concerned with the industry. A few bodies have already commented on matters concerned with the new scheme, and any further views of this kind would of course also be examined. The formal procedure in the Bill for representations to be made to the Secretary of State about the draft of the scheme, and for the draft to be amended, if appropriate, gives further opportunity for the views of those who may be affected by the operation of the scheme to be made known and taken into account. Subsequently, there will have to be the affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament to approve the draft scheme.
      These procedures allow full opportunity for interests concerned to make

      489
      their views known. To provide for a public inquiry as well would make the procedure unnecessarily cumbersome. The report of a public inquiry would in any case simply be an additional factor which the Secretary of State would have to take into account in considering whether and in what way to amend the draft scheme. He could not—and the new schedule does not propose that he should—be obliged to make any particular changes as the result of the inquiry. The Government believe that in this context, the public inquiry procedure would be time-consuming, cumbersome and unnecessary.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Prior: It will come as no surprise to the Government that we strongly approve of what their Lordships have done in this case. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this stage, since we have now moved on to one of the main amendments, to look back and consider the point that the Bill has reached.
      It seems to have very few friends left. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is one of them. It certainly has fewer friends among the dockers now that they have discovered that it is not what they anticipated it would be a year ago. It also has very few friends left in the House. One has only to move through the corridors to hear Labour Members saying that it is the worst Bill ever introduced into the House of Commons. Cabinet Ministers are prepared to say in private that it is a shocking Bill and that they cannot understand why the Government are introducing it.
      If one wants further evidence one has only to read the Press, particularly the leading articles in every newspaper which do nothing but run the Bill down. One has only to consider the country's economic situation to see just how inappropriate the Bill is at this time. It is totally irrelevant in every way to the country's needs. It has no relevance to the needs of dockland or of the dockers, to the surplus of dockers in the Port of London, and perhaps one or two other places, or to the needs of the consumers, the cold storage industry and so on. We are not surprised at the bad state of the economy when we see the Government's determination to press ahead with the Bill in its present form and to disagree with the
      490
      Lords amendments which would at least do something to improve the Bill.
      We have just discussed amendments dealing with the composition of the National Dock Labour Board. One of the points raised was that since the Board will have much increased power and authority it should have a wider composition. There is no provision in the Bill, however, for a public inquiry. It is extraordinary that a public inquiry can be called on the most trivial and detailed matters relating to planning agreements, but that on a major issue such as this, involving the employment, prosperity and future of large organisations, a public inquiry is ruled out.
      It is wrong to suggest that the affirmative resolution procedure is in any way a substitute for a public inquiry. We know that resolutions introduced under that procedure can be debated for one and a half hours, generally late at night and if there is time, and that otherwise they tend to go through on the nod. But there is no means by which such a resolution can be amended and no adequate chance to scrutinise it.
      The Government have got their business into the state where they have to guillotine even the Lords amendments. To suggest in those circumstances that the affirmative resolution procedure would provide the opporunity for what the Minister described as proper parliamentary inquiry and debate is a travesty of the truth.
      I do not believe that those outside the House will derive any confidence from the fact that an hour and a half's debate in the House is considered an adequate substitute for a proper public inquiry. We strongly support the whole concept of a public inquiry. As the Minister of State has said, the power of inquiry was available under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. Indeed, it was used on a number of occasions although the procedure was not so vital under the old Act as in this legislation.
      Why do we think that the procedure is so necessary now? First, under this legislation there has been a radical extension of port legislation into areas which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as port areas. I refer to the five-mile cargo-handling zone that can be extended by order. That is one reason

      491
      for its being necessary to have a proper public inquiry.
      Secondly, the definitions and criteria written into the Bill are ambiguous and uncertain. They will give the National Dock Labour Board a most difficult and unenviable task. They will take up a vast amount of time for both unions and employers. I do not know how employers will be able to get on with running their businesses and I do not know how others will be able to do their own jobs while they are having to make these recommendations to the Secretary of State.
      I do not believe that the Civil Service or the Government have thought out these matters for one moment. That is one of the great fears about legislation that is passed by the House nowadays. We are not engaged in the practicalities of running a business, and there is criticism outside not only from Conservative businessmen but from all sections of the community about the lack of experience in the Chamber. The criticism that we lack ability to determine what is suitable for legislation and the way that legislation should be framed is rising to a crescendo. We are all fed up with the amount of legislation, and nowhere is that feeling more prevalent than in industrial relations legislation. We have had far too much of it, and it is largely incomprehensible.
      This legislation will place obligations and duties on the National Dock Labour Board that will take an enormous amount of time, and I suggest that at the end of the day it will not be possible to come to definite and certain decisions. That is another reason for our thinking that there should be a public inquiry.
      Thirdly, there is the dispute about the precise extent of the cargo-handling zone and the relevant premises included therein. Fourthly, there is contention about the precise definition of Schedule 3—namely, what is classified and what is not. There is dissension and uncertainty about the effect of the criteria laid down in Clauses 8 and 9, to which the National Dock Labour Board must have regard when deciding on its recommendations.
      We believe that the Bill as it stands is a recipe for dispute, misunderstanding, conflict and misrepresentations. It is likely to create far more problems than
      492
      it will solve. We have argued throughout that it will set union against union, employer against employer, docker against others and achieve precisely nothing. Is it too much to ask the Government, even at this stage, to withdraw the Bill and think again? If that is too much, is it too much to ask them to have a public inquiry?
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the definitions in Clauses 8 and 9 and Schedule 3. He has suggested that there are uncertainties that the local dock labour boards will have to determine. How can he suggest that a public inquiry will be of any assistance in making decisions in borderline cases? Surely the local boards will be available in a judicial capacity. How can a public inquiry help?
      Mr. Prior: A public inquiry would bring out all the factors involved at an early stage. It would enable the National Dock Labour Board to reach far better decisions than would otherwise be the case. Surely the widest possible consultation and inquiry should be available. The publicity that would come out of an inquiry at an early stage would considerably influence any attitude that the National Dock Labour Board took.
      It is the element of publicity that is so important. It would give the wider public a chance of making up their minds and the Secretary of State a chance to examine all the evidence that it laid out in front of him.
      That is the publicity side, but there is the public interest side as well. We believe that those who have strong feelings need to have the right of a public inquiry at which to put their point of view. That right is to be denied to them.
      I know that people will be allowed to make their representations to the Minister, but that is nothing like the same as being able to have a public inquiry. I wonder what attitude Labour Members would take if instead of their being able to have a motorway public inquiry, for example, it was said " We shall allow individuals to make objections to the Minister, the Minister will decide and there will be no method by which the public can make their views known in public."

      493
      We are dealing with matters of great importance. We are extending the dock area to five miles. For the first time we shall include a great many people who have hitherto been excluded from dock work. We shall include a great many people working in the industry, a great many who have warehouses and a great many who provide employment. But we are saying that they are not to have the right to have a public inquiry, a right that they had under the 1946 Act when the circumstances were far more narrowly defined than they are now.
      Surely we have no right to take away the right to have a public inquiry. I do not believe that it is any substitute or an adequate safeguard to deal with the matter by way of affirmative resolution. That procedure may have been adequate 50 years or 100 years ago but it is not today. I say frankly, flatly and plainly that we know it is not adequate.
      Even for those of us who do not like the Bill, who would do all we could to kill it straight away, it seems essential to be able to have a public inquiry. It also seems essential from the Government's point of view to provide such hearings if they want acceptance of the Bill in the dockland areas. If public inquiries are not provided, it will be thought again that this is another way in which the covering up of the machinery is taking place. I beg Labour Members to compare the circumstances in which we have public inquiries with the failure to grant one in this case.
      Given all the circumstances and the need for such an inquiry, surely the Government should change their minds. It would not be a matter of great principle if they were to change their minds on this issue. They know that the House is fairly evenly divided. Is it suggesting too much that on this issue they give way at this stage, agree with the Lords and accept the amendment? Surely that would not be too much.
      If the Government took that course, they might be making their job considerably easier not only for the rest of the Bill but when the Bill comes into operation. If the amendment is not accepted, I doubt very much whether there will be many people in the industry who will have confidence in what the Government are seeking to do.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has made it clear that he does not like the Bill and that he would prefer it to be withdrawn. He has argued that from his point of view even a public inquiry is nothing more than a cosmetic operation. He said that the Bill has few friends, but he has been saying that ever since Second Reading. The Press has been saying that since Second Reading. Indeed, it was doing so before the Bill was published. There is nothing new in that. That is partly because the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have set out to distort the meaning and the purpose of the Bill. They have sought to put union against union and to put the worst possible construction on every clause and facet of the Bill.
      7.30 p.m.
      Now, after many hours of discussion, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is reduced to quoting in the House corridor gossip by Cabinet Ministers saying that it is a bad Bill and they do not know how it came to fruition. If he expects us to believe that, he expects us to believe anything. The right hon. Gentleman must live in a world of his own where Members and Ministers shout at the tops of their voices, especially in his hearing on the day when we are discussing the Bill, "We do not like the Bill." I suggest that is farcical.
      The right hon. Member for Lowestoft sought to elevate the public inquiry to an issue of principle, although he said that it was not. The suggestion was that without a public inquiry we were in for a great deal of difficulty in dockland.
      The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the public inquiry has been with us for a number of years and has been used on different occasions. What problems has it solved in dockland? Why is it that, over the years, we have had so many problems in dockland? Why is there trouble and strife? Why, with the existence of the public inquiry, have the problems in dockland not been resolved? I do not know. The answer is that the public inquiry might in certain circumstances produce some good. However, it cannot be elevated to the status where, if it is not in the Bill, it will destroy dockland.
      I do not understand how the public inquiry fits in here. I thought that if we

      495
      were agreed on anything regarding dockland, it was that both sides of the industry—employers and unions—should have early consultations with the National Dock Labour Board on the future of the ports, and so forth. That was the way that we saw the future of the ports and the industry developing.
      Why have a public inquiry headed by some outside person who may not know anything about dockland? We know from other inquiries that a Queen's Counsel is plucked from a panel of assessors, if that is the right description, to hold an inquiry. He may have experience of other inquiries, but he may know nothing about the subject on which he is holding the inquiry. That could happen with a public inquiry into dockland. If we had someone inexperienced and ignorant—I use the word "ignorant" in its true sense—of dockland in charge of a public inquiry and eventually making recommendations to the Minister, we could have a complete disaster.
      Who will come to the inquiry? Will it be people from outside the industry? Will it be the unions and the employers in dockland? If it is to be the latter, not people from outside the industry, why should they want a public inquiry? Surely they would be better employed in sitting down together and working out solutions to the problems in dockland.
      Mr. Loyden: I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that dockland has been the most inquired into industry in the whole of the United Kingdom from Shore to Devlin. With one or two honourable exceptions, most of the inquiries created more problems than they solved. Many of the problems in the docks industry can be resolved better and more effectively by co-operation between management and labour than by inquiries.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that I was making. The only way to achieve a healthy, efficient industry which can be of service to the nation is by consultation and co-operation between employers and workers in dockland.
      The right hon. Member for Lowestoft referred to motorway inquiries. We have heard of Rent-a-crowd and demonstrations. People from different parts of the
      496
      country attend motorway inquiries not only to put their points of view—one could argue that they were entitled to do that—but apparently to deploy disruptive tactics. Indeed, a motorway inquiry cannot start unless the objectors agree to the terms on which the inquiry is to be held.
      Is the right hon. Member for Lowestoft advocating that people from outside the docks industry should attend a public inquiry into that industry? I can imagine what he would say if, at the first public inquiry, elements of the militant Left—the extreme fringe organisations of politics—turned up and disrupted the proceedings, saying that they would not allow the inquiry to start until the basis of the inquiry was what they wanted it to be. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not want to encourage that kind of proceeding.
      Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a good reason for not holding an inquiry?
      Mr. Hughes: I think that many people are beginning to look at the worth of public inquiries generally. Public inquiries, if they are to be held, ought to be open. People should be allowed to make known their views. But in fact the opposite is happening. People's views are not being heard. At a recent motorway inquiry, people living in the area were not heard because of the disruptive tactics of others. We must take that into account.
      Mr. Giles Shaw Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey) rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the debate. We are discussing not the future or set-up of public inquiries, but public inquiries as they are now constituted.
      Mr. Hughes: Of course we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft led me along the path of motorway inquiries. I should not have thought of bringing motorway inquiries into the debate if the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned them.
      Public inquiries are expensive. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft must not imagine that a public inquiry, as an alternative to what we would like to see in the Bill, will release employers from the onerous tasks which he said they now

      497
      have and will have under the Bill and will free them for productive work. If there is a public inquiry, they will have to brief not only themselves, but everybody else involved.
      Trying to explain matters to the public or to whoever is in charge of the inquiry can be more expensive in terms of both time and cost than face-to-face discussions with the other parties involved. Indeed, if the parties are not satisfied with the way things are working out, they can be involved in more time and money in making representatives of the Minister. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is making a great mistake in elevating the public inquiry into a principle.
      I side with the Government. We should not agree with the Lords. However well a scheme may be drafted and however much consultation there might be, some people will still be dissatisfied. There will not be perfect agreement every time. If we hold out the possibility of a public inquiry either in advance or after consultation, we shall be wasting time.
      Again, I would agree to a great extent with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft about the way in which legislation passes through the House. I shall not divert too far into that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I should hope not.
      Mr. Hughes: I am glad that I anticipated that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I was disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman denigrate the affirmative procedure. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know better than most the argument in Scottish Grand Committee about the use of affirmative procedure as opposed to negative procedure. But if I were in Scottish Grand Committee, I would only just be warming up.
      We should not denigrate the House of Commons procedure and I criticise those who ask why we bother with the affirmative procedure, claiming that it is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time. There should be the fullest discussion within the House on regulations. Perhaps there is fault here on both sides of the House, because we may have accepted the principle that regulations have to be accepted in total or not at all.
      498
      The right hon. Gentleman made it plain that he does not like the Bill and would prefer not to have it. He says that there is far too much legislation dealing with various facets of industrial lime and industrial relations. But the truth is that if we go back through the history of dockland, the absence of legislation has not improved industrial relations. Over the years we have had a number of different Bills and a number of inquiries and these have led to improvements and to legislation which has improved industrial relations in dockland. Dockland has been greatly transformed and if we want to see industrial peace in dockland, we need legislation which removes the possibility of employers deliberately exploiting the situation.
      Mr. Richard Buchanan: My hon. Friend is talking in terms of legislation relating to industrial relations. Is he in favour of proposals such as those contained in the document "In Place of Strife"?
      Mr. Hughes: In that White Paper there were many proposals which would have been of value to the trade union movement. The difficulty was that some parts of it were unacceptable.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Hughes: We are now in a position to pass legislation dealing with the difficulties which have arisen because private employers of one kind and another are determined to exploit their position for themselves, their profits, and their shareholders. Many are prepared to go to any lengths to do so.
      I believe that this Bill makes a positive contribution to dockland and the prosperity of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that I am one of the Bill's friends, and I hope that we will get it on to the statute book quickly.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. David Price: I shall be brief, but first of all I declare an interest in many matters in this Bill. I must also declare that I have a very heavy cold.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) repeated one of the errors made by him and some of his hon.

      499
      Friends throughout the passage of the Bill. He talks about the docks as if they were a closed world. That might have been so in the past, with the old dock wall and the dock gate. If it were true then, which I doubt, it is certainly not true today because of the extension of dockland. Another factor, which gives occasion for this Bill, is the revolution in cargo handling. One can no longer look at the dock phase of the movement of cargo as completely separate. Therefore the arguments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North no longer hold any validity, if they ever did.
      The case for a public inquiry is perfectly well made in the old Act. The hon. Member referred to the number of inquiries made under the old Act and the major changes which were made in the arrangements of the then National Dock Labour Scheme. There was an inquiry in 1947 under Mr. George Isaacs, the then Minister of Labour, and another was conducted under John Cameron. Subsequently, decasualisation in 1967 was preceded by an inquiry under Sir George Honeyman in 1966.
      I thought that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North suggested that these inquiries were helpful and improved relations in dockland. But he cannot have it both ways. The case for change has to be made by the Government, not by the Lords amendments which are only reverting to the old procedure. I would go along with the Government more if they were proposing a change in procedure here in Parliament. I do not believe that for this type of scheme the affirmative procedure is the proper course of action. Had the Secretary of State said that we would have a Select Committee procedure I would have been more inclined to go along with him. In fact, this Bill might have proceeded through its parliamentary stages rather more smoothly if, when the White Paper was published, the Government had put it through a Select Committee before legislation. Then these details could have been examined. That procedure lends itself to this sort of thing better than the sequential examination of the Bill according to number.
      In this Bill the area designated as a cargo-handling zone will be extended, and this means that new businesses and
      500
      new employees will be brought within its scope. Parliament should be able to hear the supporting evidence, so that the Government would be on much stronger ground if they proposed a Select Committee-type of procedure rather than relying purely on the Statutory Instrument procedure. In default of the Government's coming forward with a Select Committee procedure, it is preferable to fall back on the former arrangements of the 1946 Act which are incorporated in the Lords amendment. The assumption that debate across the Floor of the House is the most effective, or indeed the only, way to proceed, is a myth. We would do far better by the Select Committee method whereby people can give evidence to hon. Members and answer their questions. Hon. Members sit together to discuss the issues at stake and a lot of party rancour goes when we combine to study a problem.
      If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to meet the point that I am making, I must tell him that the former arrangements under the 1946 Act are preferable to his new procedure.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I reinforce two aspects of the case for public inquiries. One is the use of the word "public". It seems desirable that in the handling of this Bill and in its implementation, if it is ever enacted, the public should have an opportunity to see how it is working and be able to have their voice heard, albeit through a third party who may be conducting the inquiry.
      The other aspect that must be recognised is the sheer complexity of the legislation. It is of a nature that is almost certain to produce disputes between the parties involved in the port. Where there is an arrangement for classification or designating cargo-handling zones, and it is a matter of striking a balance between the Dock Labour Board, the employee representatives and the employer representatives, the chances of a decision being taken about which one or two of the major parties involved disagree must be substantial. Therefore, it seems desirable that there should be a procedure whereby such difficulties can be resolved.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said, the statutory instrument procedure is hardly a vehicle that can be satisfactory either to the parties in disagreement or to the public

      501
      for ensuring that this measure, if it ever becomes an Act, is worked properly. The case for the public inquiry is important and should be handled effectively rather than be swept on one side, as the Government may seek to do.
      Mr. Loyden: As I said in an earlier intervention, during the last century the docks industry has been one of the most inquired into industries in the United Kingdom. Anyone listening to Opposition Members would think that no attempt had been made to find an alternative method of solving the problems that face dockland because of the technological changes.
      We recognise, as I am sure registered dock workers have long since recognised, that this industry is changing almost daily and will continue to do so in the techniques for handling goods. It is not that that the dock worker resists. What he resists is the movement of the industry away from its traditional places and the fact that the definition of dock work has become so vague that the future of the industry and the employment opportunities within it are a source of grave concern. During the last 10 years the industry's labour force has been reduced by about 50 per cent. If one bears that in mind, one realises the justification for the fears of the dockers.
      As a nation, it is important for us to recognise that, no matter what changes take place, there will always be a dock industry.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the dock industry as such on this amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will relate his contribution to the amendment.
      Mr. Loyden: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The point is that attempts have been made to deal with this industry in a number of ways. One proposal in 1972 by those employed in the industry was that those who manage it and those who work in it should get together to try to solve the problems of the industry, bearing in mind the changes to which I have referred. There was a flat rejection of that idea by the employers. They refused to enter into any mutual consideration of the problems facing the industry because of the technological
      502
      changes that were taking place almost daily. That being so, there can be no suggestion that the industry has not tried to deal with its problems.
      Although there have been many inquiries into the dock industry, nothing has emerged that has resulted in solving the problems of the industry on a long-term and permanent basis. That is why, in one sense, the Bill is setting out an entirely new base that will give the industry an opportunity for an almost constant review of what is going on. The idea of a public inquiry is important, because one must bear in mind the factors that exist in the locality for determining the work to be done.
      Mr. Spearing: The House might be under some slight misapprehension about this matter of public inquiries because, on the face of it, a public inquiry is something that looks at all the facts and uncovers information which hitherto has been private.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), in his reasonable speech, forgot that the public inquiries during the history of dockland—these were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)—were about general arrangements—I do not think anybody would quarrel with that—whereas the public inquiry to which the Lords amendment refers, and which is set out at length in new Schedule 4A, is not about an arrangement in general. That is the subject of the Bill. This inquiry will be into individual and perhaps collective designation orders. That is a different question.
      We found in Committee—I think that we have this in common across the Floor of the House—that matters of designation and definition in dock work are extremely technical. The best people to determine that sort of thing are the local boards, on which employees, employers and others will sit. They will come to some continuing relationship, as they do now. In the local environment, tuned to local custom and practice, they will come to agreements across the table on awkward definitions and perhaps on awkward designations.
      New Schedule 4A, which runs to one and a half pages, says that there can be public inquiries in respect of what will be Section 11(4). The Clause 11 proce-

      503
      dure, and that in subsection (4) in particular, relates to classification orders. It may come down to a classification of work in particular premises or in detailed form. To put into a provision the whole of the public inquiry procedure, including all the provisions of Section 250 of the Local Goverment Act 1972, which presumably could be triggered off by statutory objections, to deal with a relatively small technical matter seems, on the face of it, to be a good idea, but when one comes to think about it one realises that the practical way of dealing with a matter of this sort is by a local board. Such a board—and this has not been emphasised so far—will, under the terms of the Bill, have a wide discretion, so that instead of being shackled by statutes that do not fit local circumstances, it will be able to take all the local considerations into account.
      Clause 9 deals with references by the Secretary of State to the Board. Rather than everything being done in private, as those who have heard the debate so far might think will happen, that clause says that the Secretary of State
      "shall publish notice that he has done so, informing persons interested where they can obtain a copy of the direction, and giving them at least sixty days in which to make representations to the Board."
      Subsection (5) says:
      "The Secretary of State shall publish the Board's report, together with a statement".
      I know that that does not go as far as the Opposition would like, but, contrary to what might have been suggested, a considerable amount of information will be available to those who are properly connected with any matter at issue. Indeed, there is the 60-day period—a fairly long time—in which representations can be made.
      Some of these provisions will make it likely—I hope it will be proposed to adjust the Bill if it does not actually work—that many of these issues will be resolved on a local basis resulting from day-to-day contact and trust between employers and employees, just as in this House we do not often refer to Standing Orders because we have come to understand how things work on the basis of familiarity and trust.
      8.0 p.m.
      Despite what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has said, I hope that
      504
      the Bill will create that sort of situation in each local area so that reference to the Bill itself will be relatively incidental. We need something of this sort. Then the situations for which Opposition Members envisage a public inquiry will not occur. I sincerely hope that will be the case because all of us in the House want a proper framework for the definition of dock work in the dockland areas. That is what the Bill attempts.
      Mr. Harold Walker: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the points which have been made in the debate. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the docks industry being the most inquired into industry in this country. I shall not inflict on the House a recitation of the inquiries which have taken place over the years. But we are entitled to bear in mind that the inquiries which have taken place were not general inquiries but were related to specific issues.
      There was the Bristow Committee, which was set up in 1969 and which made recommendations. Subsequently there were the Jones-Aldington talks and their recommendations. There were the recommendations of the National Ports Council and, more recently, the ACAS report. As the House will recall, we have said many times that the Bill is very much based on and takes account of the recommendations of these various committees and inquiries.
      It is fair to recall that it was the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) himself who, speaking in Committee in general terms about inquiries, said that there had been far too many inquiries, particularly into planning matters. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the view that he expressed on that occasion because he went on to say "none the less"—and he talked of the reasons why he thought there should be provision for public inquiries in this situation.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) will be the first to recognise that we are here debating a specific proposal which has come from the House of Lords and that whether a Select Committee of this House would be an attractive alternative is not a question for me or for a Government Department. That

      505
      is a question for the House itself. The effectiveness or otherwise of Select Committees for dealing with these matters is very much a matter for the House.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to the old Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said the 1946 Act had not been effective in eliminating dockland strife and that perhaps we should regard with some scepticism, not to say cynicism, its provisions and procedures. The hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out that what we traditionally thought of as dockland and the dock industry had undergone a fundamental and radical change over the years and that we were now dealing with a concept of docklands and dock work different from that which prevailed when the 1946 Act was introduced.
      Without in any way suggesting that the hon. Gentleman accepts the provisions that we have brought forward in this legislation, I think that implicit in his remarks is an acceptance that the 1946 legislation is no longer the proper way of dealing with the matters we are seeking to tackle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North properly pointed out, the present procedures we are seeking to change and the provisions for inquiries have not diminished or removed the conflict in dockland. That is a case for not returning to the procedures of the past.
      I would refer to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft who recognised, along with his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, the radical changes which have taken place within the industry. I think he said "the radical extension of ports legislation into areas which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered port industries". The right hon. Gentleman criticised the various criteria in the Bill as ambiguous and uncertain.
      He did not specify to which criteria he was referring. Did he mean the criteria to be taken into account in determining the scope of the proposed new scheme, or the objects of the scheme, or the procedure for classification under Clauses 7 and 8? I recall that these were matters—if that is what he meant—on which there was an enormous amount of debate in Committee. Criticisms were
      506
      expressed from both sides of the Committee to say that perhaps the criteria laid down were too inflexible and rigid. The right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind about what he wants in the Bill.
      A set of such firm and clearly defined criteria would have no effect other than imposing a rigidity over the whole system. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to acknowledge that there needs to be sufficient flexibility to take account of the varying situations and the different kinds of problems which arise in different areas as well as willingness to operate a different approach which will respond to those needs?
      Here I am echoing the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston who saw the advantage of all these new arrangements being in the hands of those who have experience of the problems which arise in this industry in order to allow some scope for the exercise of judgment by those individuals. I hope that the House is not suggesting that we should not leave an adequate rôle for the judgment of those familiar with the industry.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: Surely when the Minister discusses those involved in the industry making use of their judgment he must recognise that the Bill involves other industries which are not currently within the dock work scheme. The case for an inquiry surely becomes stronger since the Bill embodies industries such as distribution, warehousing and so on which do not currently come within dock work.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and made a creditable contribution to its work. I hope that he would be the last to overlook the provisions that are in the Bill for representations and the time during which representations may be made. There are also obligations both on the Board and on my right hon. Friend to take account of those representations. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in response to Opposition suggestions in Committee we strengthened those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get some satisfaction from that.
      The right hon. Member for Lowestoft argued that the affirmative resolutions are no substitute for an inquiry and that

      507
      the inquiry procedure would give an opportunity for interested parties to make representations and would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take account of views expressed when preparing the scheme or any extensions to it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to draw a parallel with motorway inquiries. I should have thought that the provision for these representations to be made to the Secretary of State would at least satisfy him that there would be an opportunity for interested parties to make representations and for my right hon. Friend to take them into account.
      We have added to that the provision to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred—the superimposing of the ultimate decision of Parliament. I should have thought that he was the last person to suggest that hon. Members were not responsive to and aware of the public interest and the sectional interests involved.
      Mr. Prior: If they were, they would not be supporting this Bill.
      Mr. Walker: That surprises me. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged in Committee and elsewhere that he has expressed the views of sectional interests, as he is doing tonight. It is up to him and other hon. Members to seek to persuade the House that those interests are not being adequately considered or safeguarded.
      When the right hon. Gentleman draws a parallel with motorway inquiries, he overlooks entirely the fact that, unlike a motorway inquiry, which stops at the Secretary of State's desk and in which no one publicly knows why he disagrees with the inspector, there will be an ultimate stage, here and in another place. Issues will be thoroughly debated and the Secretary of State will be required to give the reasons for his decision and to say what representations have been made and what factors have led him to his conclusions.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had few friends and listed its enemies, including the newspapers. If that is true, it is a tribute to the campaign of misrepresentation and distortion over a long period, encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Once the Bill is on the statute book, some of us will face a major task in
      508
      dispelling some of the mythology built up by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and presenting the truth, not only to the dockers but to the other interests involved.
      Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Of course we have done our best to expose the shocking character of the Bill. Our debates over many months have shown that it has surprisingly few friends, even among Labour Members.
      Although the public inquiry system is by no means perfect and cannot guarantee a fair and reasonable decision, it is at least some safeguard against the increasing power of the Executive and the increasing tendency for matters of public interest to be settled by small groups in the Civil Service and the Government. It is essential to retain the system initiated in 1946, and no case has been made againt it. The Minister's suggestion that it is cumbersome and the suggestion in another place that it is time-consuming and unnecessary are quite unacceptable. By abolishing public inquiries, they are saying that the Minister and the civil servants know best.
      I have been shocked by what Ministers have said about public inquiry findings being ignored. My constituency has suffered from road building, and what worries my constituents most is that Ministers can ignore those findings. But how much worse it would be if there were no inquiry at all. The Government are seeking to push on one side the public inquiry concept in relation to the dock labour scheme.
      8.15 p.m.
      If they followed the logic of their argument, it would not be long before they would be trying to do away with public inquiries about roads, planning applications or many other matters. This is a slippery slope and we should resist being pushed down it. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) agrees about this aspect of the importance of public inquiries.
      Mr. Spearing: I disagree.
      Mr. Hayhoe: He disagrees. Presumably he is in favour of having some public inquiries, but not into dock work.
      The Government have also urgued that the affirmative procedure is a valid sub-

      509
      stitute for the old system of public inquiry followed by the negative procedure. The Minister said that this would afford proper public scrutiny. Considering the cavalier way in which the Government have been treating Parliament, it is asking a good deal to expect us to believe that a one-and-a-half hour debate is sufficient to expose the truth of a complex situation.
      The present Leader of the House is treating Parliament in a most oppressive fashion. He was an awful Secretary of State for Employment and he is now well on the way to being one of the most oppressive Leaders of the House. Sometimes one has a tinge of regret that Ted Short has gone. I could make no greater condemnation that that.
      We should also recognise how the virtue of loyalty has been debased into near-absolute subservience by the so-called Labour moderates. Many Labour Members in their hearts and in their private conversations do not like this Bill. We know what Labour Peers, distinguished members of former Labour Governments, have said about the Bill. I am astonished that not one Labour Mem-
      ber is prepared to vote for the continuation of public inquiries. Not one will join their former colleague, Lord George-Brown, in making this significant change in what he rightly described as the "Jack Jones (Special Responsibility) Bill". Not one Labour moderate will buck the party Whip and vote his true feelings by supporting the amendments. As a result, the power of the Executive increases.
      My support for continuing the inquiry system stems partly from my real concern about this trend in lessening the power and influence of Parliament and increasing that of the Executive. This has been contributed to in great part by the present docile behaviour of the so-called Labour moderates. By any standards, this is a shocking Bill, utterly irrelevant to the problems of the moment. It will make matters worse rather than better. At least these amendments will improve the Bill and I hope that the Government's motion will be defeated.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:
      The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 309.

      Division No. 389.]

      AYES

      [8.20 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cartwright, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Allaun, Frank

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Edge, Geoff

      Anderson, Donald

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Archer, Peter

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Ashley, Jack

      Coleman, Donald

      English, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Ennals, David

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Conlan, Bernard

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Corbett, Robin

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cowans, Harry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bates, Alf

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Bean, R. E.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cronin, John

      Flannery, Martin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cryer, Bob

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Boardman, H.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Ford, Ben

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Forrester, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Davidson, Arthur

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

      Bradley, Tom

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Deakins, Eric

      Ginsburg, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Golding, John

      Buchanan, Richard

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Gould, Bryan

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Gourlay, Harry

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Dempsey, James

      Graham, Ted

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Doig, Peter

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Campbell, Ian

      Dormand, J. D.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cant, R. B.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dunn, James A.

      Hardy, Peter

      Carter, Ray

      Dunnett, Jack

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mahon, Simon

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Hatton, Frank

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Marks, Kenneth

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Marquand, David

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Hooley, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Horam, John

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Sillars, James

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

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Silverman, Julius

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Meacher, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Huckfield, Les

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Small, William

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mendelson, John

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Snape, Peter

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hunter, Adam

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Molloy, William

      Stoddart, David

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Moonman, Eric

      Stott, Roger

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Strang, Gavin

      Janner, Greville

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Moyle, Roland

      Swain, Thomas

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      John, Brynmor

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Newens, Stanley

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Noble, Mike

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ogden, Eric

      Tierney, Sydney

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Judd, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Tomlinson, John

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tomney, Frank

      Kelley, Richard

      Ovenden, John

      Torney, Tom

      Kerr, Russell

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Urwin, T. W.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Padley, Walter

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Lambie, David

      Park, George

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

      Lamborn, Harry

      Parker, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lamond, James

      Parry, Robert

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ward, Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pendry, Tom

      Watkins, David

      Lee, John

      Perry, Ernest

      Watkinson, John

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Weetch, Ken

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Weitzman, David

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Prescott, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Price, William (Rugby)

      While, James (Pollock)

      Litterick, Tom

      Radice, Giles

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Whitlock, William

      Loyden, Eddie

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Luard, Evan

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      McElhone, Frank

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Roper, John

      Woodall, Alec

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Rose, Paul S.

      Woof, Robert

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Ryman, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sandelson, Neville

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Madden, Max

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Magee, Bryan

      Selby, Harry

      Mr. James Hamilton

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Blaker, Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Body, Richard

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Alison, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Carson, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Channon, Paul

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Churchill, W. S.

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Brittan, Leon

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Banks, Robert

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beith, A. J.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Clegg, Walter

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cockcroft, John

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Benyon, W.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Cope, John

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Cordle, John H.

      Biffen, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Cormack, Patrick

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Corrie, John

      512

      513

      Costain, A. P.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Crawford, Douglas

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

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Critchley, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Crouch, David

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Crowder, F. P.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Jopling, Michael

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Reid, George

      Dunlop, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Durant, Tony

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Elliott, Sir William

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Emery, Peter

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Eyre Reginald

      Lamont, Norman

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lane, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Farr, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fell, Anthony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lawson, Nigel

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lloyd, Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Loveridge, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Forman, Nigel

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fox, Marcus

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      McCusker, H.

      Shepherd, Colin

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      Fry Peter

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sims, Roger

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Gilmour Rt. Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Madel, David

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Speed, Keith

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Males, Michael

      Spence, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sproat, Iain

      Gorst, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanley, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Gray, Hamish

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isle)

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stokes, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Grist, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Tapsell, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Hall, Sir John

      Monro, Hector

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret

      Hannam, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Thompson, George

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mudd, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Airey

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Nelson, Anthony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Henderson, Douglas

      Neubert, Michael

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Heseltine, Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Normanton, Tom

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Noll, John

      Wakeham, John

      Hodgson, Robin

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Holland, Philip

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Osborn, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Wall, Patrick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Walters, Dennis

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Watt, Hamish

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Pardoe, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wells, John

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Penhaligon, David

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hurd, Douglas

      Percival, Ian

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      514

      515

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cast my vote for the Bill as it left the House of Commons. I vote for the Ayes, so the Ayes have it.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 4, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert
      "but the whole of any area so designated must be comprised within a definable dock area."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 15, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 39, 41, 44 and 55.
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The batch of amendments that we are about to debate deals with the issue of the cargo-handling zone. The combined effect of the amendments is to delete the provision for the cargo-handling zone and all the consequential provisions, including that for the extension of the zone, and to substitute a provision that " definable dock areas " may not extend beyond half a mile from harbours or harbour land as defined in Section 57—
      Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that many hon. Members do not wish to hear the Minister, but, speaking for myself, I do.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Will any right hon. and hon. Members who do not desire to hear the moving of the amendment kindly withdraw from the Chamber quietly?
      Mr. Booth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was explaining that the effect of the combined amendments was to substitute a provision that " definable dock areas " may not extend beyond half a mile from harbours or harbour land as defined in Section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964, and may not apply to small harbours as defined in Lords Amendment No. 13, or by subsequent changes made by affirmative resolution order under Amendment No. 14. I take it that in this case some of the objections which
      516
      were voiced to an affirmative procedure will not be redeployed.
      These amendments would seek to substitute for the cargo-handling zone this much more restrictive concept of a "definable dock area", and would mean that work could be subject to examination and survey for classification purposes with a view to being brought into the new dock scheme only if it were undertaken within half a mile of a harbour or harbour land, providing that the harbour was not a small harbour as defined in Amendment No. 13.
      Our first objection to the proposition in these amendments is that the proposed distance of half a mile is far too short. I do not think that anybody—in the light of what has been said about the changes that have taken place with the introduction of new technology and new handling methods in the industry—would suggest that modern dock work stops at 880 yards from a harbour as defined in Section 57 of the Harbours Act.
      The Bristow Report of 1970 proposed that work of the sort accepted as dockers' work should be done by registered dock workers if it were done up to five miles from the waterside. The employers involved in this consideration actually agreed in this conclusion. I know that it has been argued, when I have previously quoted the Bristow Report in support of my contention as to the five-mile limit, that Bristow was concerned only with London. But, having re-studied the Bristow Report, I am of the view that the same sort of examination, had it been applied to Merseyside or Clydeside, would have been bound, on the geographical considerations, to come to very much the same conclusions.
      Whether others share that view with me or not, it cannot be denied that, in several places other than London, dock scheme work is, as of now, being carried out as much more considerable distances than half a mile from the harbour area. In fact, at the Aintree groupage terminal in Liverpool, which is over four miles from the waterfront, registered dock workers are employed, and the present Dock Labour Scheme is applied to the work they perform.

      517
      There are many other places well over half a mile away from the docks where work is done which effectively replaces work formerly done by registered dock workers. Therefore the limit must clearly be more than half a mile, and the five miles suggested by Bristow seems to us to be right, bearing in mind that this was the limit of the survey procedure of Clause 8 of the Bill.
      I turn next to the idea of a zone as opposed to a specified distance from the harbour or harbour land. It would, in my view, be quite wrong to limit the area within which work can be classified to an area a given distance from harbours or harbour land, even if we had agreement about an appropriate distance, and I do not contend that we have that. The exact limits of "harbours" and "harbour land" at any harbour may not always be known without doubt at any time. The information is not generally accessible and would leave employers and employees in very considerable doubt about whether their work could be surveyed by the Board. The mean high-water mark—which is the datum used in the Bill—at any place can always be determined from an ordnance survey map.
      The limits of harbour land will change from time to time, because "harbour land" is defined in the 1964 Act as
      "land adjacent to a harbour and occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of activities there carried on ".
      That, obviously, is an area which can vary, not because of the scope of particular decisions of this House but simply because the harbour authority might choose to add another acre or 20 acres to its existing holdings. By doing that, it would change the area of harbour land to which the new concept suggested in the Lords amendment would apply.
      Sir David Renton: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on the definition he has given us, the Palace of Westminster would be "harbour land"?
      Mr. Booth: I was quoting the definition in the 1964 Act. That is the one which is the subject of this amendment. I do not argue that there is any significance in the fact that it covers the Houses of Parliament. The definition in the Bill does the same, in that we have tidal water
      518
      flowing past the Terrace. That is not a difference between the Bill as it stands and the amendment. Both would cover the Houses of Parliament and both would enable activities within our purview to be surveyed for classification if there were any dock work being carried on here. That is not a difference between us.
      A "harbour" is defined by reference to Section 57 of the Harbours Act, and this means
      "any harbour whether natural or artificial, and any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway navigated by sea-going ships".
      Here we come to the essential difference between this Lords amendment and the original proposition contained in the Bill. Sea-going ships can travel as far as Nottingham up an inland waterway, which means that Nottingham would become an area which could be defined for the purpose, whereas in the Bill it is only those places which are within five miles of a major inland waterway, which is precisely defined in the Bill, or five miles from the high-tide mark which are subject to the survey. So that there is a sense in which this amendment could bring into survey areas which could not be surveyed under the terms of the Bill as it stands.
      But I am more concerned about the proposition to exclude the small ports or harbours which are referred to in the amendment. In some ways, this is an even more difficult proposition to accept. I think that we can argue with some logic about choosing between one geographical definition and another, and we can have a very proper difference of opinion about whether four miles, five miles or six miles is right. But it is very different to do what the amendment does in respect of the small ports and seek to set up a definition which is related not to geographical area but to matters such as the maximum size of ship which can be accommodated, the amount of dock work done in the port, or other criteria such as the depth of the navigable channel, without any reference to the sort of criteria that we use in the Bill which are much more closely related to proper considerations of what should be registered dock work One of the tests applied in the Lords amendment concerns the period within which ships can enter a port. The effect wouldbe almost ludicrous in many cases.

      519
      The Bill already contains adequate and satisfactory procedures to deal with small harbours. It covers the small harbour question more effectively than the criteria contained in Lords Amendment No. 13. Clauses 7 and 8 already provide for the Board to take account of all relevant considerations and in particular whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that that is relevant when considering whether work should be classified.
      8.45 p.m.
      The Government's general position on small ports—which has been stated repeatedly—is that the absolute exclusion of particular places, either by name or by reference to some standard criteria of the kind proposed in the amendment, is not a sensible way to proceed because there is such a wide variety of factors which could be relevant. The Bill does not require classification of the work of a port if that port is too small to warrant arrangements for a permanent labour force or if there are other relevant considerations.
      I recognise that there are a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited for the dock work regulation scheme. I would not lay before the House a Bill which would have the effect of requiring every small port to be included in the scheme if those factors did not apply. That is agreed by many who have spoken on the issue. They believe that the factors in the Bill, particularly that requiring the efficient performance of a permanent labour force, should not apply to a number of small ports.
      Criteria of the kind proposed in the amendment would lead to arbitrary distinctions between ports. For example, in Amendment No. 13, paragraph 2D(a) refers to average hours worked on loading and unloading cargo to and from ships. Under that criteria the Port of London and many other scheme ports could be excluded because many of the dock workers work only a short time in a year on ships. They spend the rest of their time working on the quay
      520
      or in warehouses and the average time worked would be less than the 28 hours a week allowed—allowing for four weeks holiday. On the other hand, the criteria would include a port where one man worked for 40 hours a week for only 33 weeks in the year.
      If one tries to apply that rigidly, one makes a nonsense of the definition of small ports and one excludes from the scheme places which, on any objective test by people with any knowledge of the industry, must obviously be ports which fall within any scheme to decasualise dock working.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I have listened with great care to the Minister's words. He has repeated what he told the House earlier—that it is not the Government's intention to include large numbers of very small ports. Nevertheless, does he accept that it would be a great burden on these ports and harbours and those who work in them to have to make returns within three months, as I understand it, to the local board and put their case? Why should they have to go through that procedure? Why can he not exclude them now?
      Mr. Booth: The ports which are engaged in loading and unloading vessels will have to make a return to the Board. The basic reason for that, which I commend to the House, is that a proper distinction should be drawn in legislation between loading and unloading vessels and other forms of dock work. On the question of loading and unloading vessels, a fairly straightforward case can be gleaned from the basic facts relating to the quantities, the times, and a number of other issues. That does not apply to much other dock work. Therefore, the Bill properly draws a distinction.
      In the case of many small ports the tonnage factor alone would rule out any prima facie assumption that they require a permanent dock labour force to perform the work efficiently. The requirement to make that submission is not an unduly arduous one. It is useful in that it isolates loading and unloading from the much wider area of cargo handling with which the Bill is concerned.
      The requirement also has the advantage of imposing a much tighter time scale. The returns have to be in within a

      521
      set time of the Bill becoming an Act. The more detailed and complex consideration of reviewing other types of dock work is better handled in a different way.
      I take the hon. Gentleman's point that in some areas there are those who will say that the place at which they work is obviously not a port and that they will feel it rather unreasonable even to have to return the basic information about the cargo they load and unload. However, it is better that that aspect should be isolated than that they should come under the survey at large.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: The Secretary of State makes it all sound so simple from the theoretical angle. Dungeness is in my constituency. It is or it is not a port. I assume that it is not. However, because it will make up the coastline and build coastal defences it will have ships unloading sand and ballast, probably over a number of years. Does that qualify it for the description of a port? There could be quite a large tonnage, but of only one commodity, being unloaded for one specific purpose. Does that mean that the five-mile rule will apply?
      Mr. Booth: Loading for a particular construction site is not dealt with under that part of the Bill. I was addressing myself to the question of a small port. As I understand it, separate provision is made in one of the schedules to cover the unloading of materials for particular construction sites.
      I was dealing with the distinction between Clauses 7, 8 and 9. This is valuable, because in practice we can distinguish between loading and unloading vessels and other forms of cargo handling. It is useful that the people involved in that should know the extent and the time scale so that they know where they stand, leaving the more complex issue of the survey of other cargo-handling work in the zone to be dealt with under a separate clause.
      I hope that the House will accept that some of the criteria advanced in this set of Lords amendments in place of the cargo-handling zone concept, whatever other merits they have have, would result in an intolerable situation in many ports and harbours. They would bring into areas of survey those which the Bill would seek to exclude and take out of the scheme
      522
      places which everybody who has looked at cargo handling and the whole problem up to now has agreed to be suitable for a dock work regulation scheme. Therefore, I hope that the House will support us in disagreeing with the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: As the Secretary of State said, we have now come to the most important and serious group of amendments, going to the heart of the Bill. The piquancy of the debate is made all the sharper by the fact that we have just had a tied vote.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins).
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) was the Labour Member who was missing. I do not know what kept the right hon Gentleman out of the Division Lobby. Perhaps it was the still, quiet voice of moderate conscience, or a rather good first-growth claret. Whatever it is, I hope that the reasons will still apply next time and that perhaps one of his colleagues will also be missing.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wants to receive answers to his letters.
      Mr. Baker: These are domestic difficulties. Before I deal with the arguments I should remind the House that, as I frequently said in Committee, I am a director of Geest, a company involved in cargo handling.
      I have said that we have come to the essence of the Bill, which is the corridor and the small ports. In my view, and I think in the view of all those who have been dealing with the Bill, certainly of their Lordships, this is the most important set of amendments. We have opposed from the very start the whole concept of a corridor in dealing with the problems of the dock industry. We have accepted that it is an industry with a unique and difficult problem, an industry which has been subjected to the most rapid technological change. In 1945 there were about 100,000 registered dockers. Today there are about 30,000, and it is generally recognised that about 2,000 of them are

      523
      probably redundant in the sense that there is no regular employment for them.
      The first seat for which I fought in 1964 was a dockland constituency, Poplar. Even then it had declined as a dock work area, but it has since declined even more. The decline is not due to the nefarious activities of the cold-storage industry or to businesses building warehouses for the breaking up of cargoes inland. There has been such an enormous rundown because of technological change.
      The simple main reason is containerisation and the continuing and expanding use of roll-on/roll-off ferries. It is estimated by the employers and unions that by 1980 the work force needed will probably be down to about 25,000. That is because of the containerisation of the South African and New Zealand trade, not because of employers building cold stores back in the hinterland well away from the docks.
      We must recognise the reasons. Only in that way will a constructive policy be formulated for dealing with the problems of dockland. Those problems will not be dealt with by this Bill and its piecemeal approach. One cannot separate dockers in the dock areas from the port installations. The investment in men has to go with the investment in resources, and so the Bill looks at only one side of the coin.
      9.0 p.m.
      It is profoundly wrong to try to meet the problems of great technological change by giving dockers the legal right to claim other men's jobs. I believe that the proposals worked out by Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington in 1972 were basically on the right lines in that they recognised that there was a substantial surplus of dockers particularly in London, to a small extent in Liverpool, and to some extent in Hull and other ports. As a result the Jones-Aldington proposals, as they became known, provided for substantial extra redundancy payments to surplus dockers. That resulted in a rundown of between 8,000 and 9,000 men in the dock industry.
      I believe that a scheme of that nature is needed now to deal with the problem. That problem will not go away; nor will it be solved by giving the dockers the legal right to claim other men's jobs.
      524
      The essence of the Bill is the corridor. We have consistently pointed out how absurd it is to have a corridor running around the coastline of Britain, England and Wales and up the tidal rivers—
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: The hon. Member said that he was talking about Great Britain, England and Wales. He must therefore mean that Great Britain by definition means Scotland.
      Mr. Baker: I am quite sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, but it is an absurd suggestion.
      It is wrong to have such a corridor round the coastline. In Scotland the corridor will be so wide that it will include most of the islands and will manage to join the conurbations of Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is absurd. I know that I carry the Scottish National Members with me on that point.
      The rest of the country suffers, too. The corridor takes in that well-known port of Taunton and the harbours of the New Forest. It laps around the outskirts of Doncaster racecourse. It goes halfway through London Airport. It is an absolute monstrosity and an absurdity. We have pointed out many time that drawing lines in this way, in a sort of latter-day colonial exercise, is not the way to deal with a major industrial problem.
      I believe therefore that their Lordships were right to restrict the corridor to half a mile. The Secretary of State said that half a mile was too short, but he has drawn the figure of five miles out of the air. He thinks that one and a half miles is too short, but he has no idea because he rests his case upon the extraordinary Bristow Report of 1970.
      That report, upon which the dust should be allowed to accumulate, has betn dug up to justify the Bill. But it dealt specifically and exclusively with London—it was commissioned as a result of the London dock strike—and it is disingenuous to say that it should apply equally to Hull or Liverpool. The report recommended a solution for London and for London alone.
      The right hon. Gentleman then spent some time dealing with small harbours. He said that the definitions, on the advice he has received, would include ports which are not small harbours or

      525
      parts of ports which are small harbous. The legal advice we have received is that the definition does not bear that interpretation. If it does, no doubt their Lordships will have another opportunity of tightening their definition.
      The purpose of the amendment on small harbours is to exclude small harbours. We recognise, as do their Lordships, that the effect of the Bill on small harbours will be catastrophic. They render a vital service to the local communities, but their trade is sporadic, irregular in operation and small in volume. Therefore, flexible arrangements are necessary.
      Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I think it should be recognised that the Bill is not wholeheartedly supported by all Labour Members. We shall wander through the Lobby, as is our way, in a reluctant posture.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We noticed.
      Mr. Lomas: I do not want the Scottish nationalists to intervene.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I dare say the hon. Gentleman does not.
      Mr. Lomas: I say to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that if I had been in charge of the House, I should have scrubbed the Bill, because I do not think it will do much good.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: You are telling me.
      Mr. Lomas: I take the view that it the Conservatives, or others on the Opposition Benches, would only be a little more responsible in their approach to these matters, some arrangement could have been arrived at between them and the usual channels—namely, the Whips Office.
      Mr. Baker: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courage. Here is a Member who is opposed to the Bill. He finds it distasteful and he has the courage to get up and say so, but when we divide this evening he will troop through the Lobby and support the Government Whips.
      He should have the courage of his convictions. If he believes that the Bill is bad, he should vote against it. He has his own conscience to answer, his own union to answer and his own constituents to
      526
      answer. It is exceedingly cowardly for anyone to get up in the Chamber and say "I disagree, but I shall be craven and go along with the Whips". The House always respects Members who get up and say " I disagree and then show their disagreement in the Lobby.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not use the expression "cowardly". It is an unparliamentary expression.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) used the expression in a general sense. He said "cowardly" of Members. He never particularised.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must be allowed to decide. I am sure that it the remark has been misconstrued, it will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Baker: If I used it generally, it had better stand in the record. If I used it personally, I unreservedly withdraw it.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice? In view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), does that not bind him in his subsequent vote?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not arise at this moment.
      Mr. Lomas: Perhaps I should make it clear that in my 12 years in the House of Commons, even during the days of the European debate when we had a six-line Whip, Tory, Labour and Liberal, I voted according to my conscience. In fact, I voted for Europe. I shall continue to vote according to my conscience tonight. I shall wait with some anticipation to hear what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone has to say about the Bill.
      Mr. Baker: I shall try to persuade the hon. Gentleman to vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends or to abstain.
      I do not believe that the Bill addresses itself to the problems of the docks. It will have harmful effects on the cargo-handling industry. Its various provisions will produce endless opportunity for trade union disputes and disputes within unions. We have said this time and time again and our view has been extremely clear.

      527
      We believe that to impose a system of permanent employment in small harbours, which would require the payment of a labour force for five days a week whether or not there was work available, will mean a substantial increase in costs if, on the odd days when a ship is in harbour, the present speed of ship turn-round is maintained.
      This is a particular problem for many of the small ports in Scotland and the islands on the West Coast of Scotland. The Scottish islands and isolated communities of the Scottish Highlands, which are served by the small ports in that region, are in a particularly vulnerable position as their ports are virtually their lifeline. The dock workers in the major ports cannot claim that those ports have attracted traffic from the larger ports. Not even the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) can make that claim.
      The Secretary of State for Employment today and on Monday afternoon in the guillotine debate the Secretary of State for Social Services made great play of the argument that the Bill was essential. Perhaps I may also address these remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas). Essential for whom? Is it essential for the National Union of Railwaymen? No because that union has been excluded from the Bill by the exclusion of British Rail's docks and ports.
      Is it essential for the National Freight Corporation? No. This, the biggest body handling the most cargo in the country, has been excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Is it essential for the drivers' section of the Transport and General Workers Union? No, because I understand that the Government will accept an amendment excluding driving in dock areas.
      Is it essential for the General and Municipal Workers Union? No, because much of its case has been met by the veto cut-off in the year 1967.
      Is it essential for the Labour Party? No, it is not even essential for the Labour Party, because it was not in its manifesto for either February or October 1974. Therefore, this is not a commitment which the Government must meet to
      528
      finish their programme. It was not in their programme when they went to the country in February and October 1974.
      Is it essential for the economy? Would it create one more job? No. Will it enable goods to move more quickly either to or from the ports? No.
      Will it regenerate the wasted dockland of London? No, of course not. Indeed, since the Bill has been in their Lordships' House, Frank Cousins has produced the Second Report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee. That is an important report for the dead areas of the East End of London, which are decaying further daily. That report does not even mention the Bill. It does not mention the corridor. It does not say that the corridor is the salvation of East London.
      It comes up with much better constructive proposals—in fact, to increase payments to the surplus dockers in London and to encourage investment in that dying area. What investment will be encouraged when everyone knows that the corridor is killing investment? Who will build warehouses or cold stores or any business handling goods in the five-mile corridor? No one. That is the reality. Therefore, it is not even essential for London.
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a need to examine with care the question of corridors. We discussed this matter in Committee at great length. I have some difficulty in understanding the objectives of the amendment when I see what Lord Sandford said in the other place on Third Reading on 8th November. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider his words. The noble Lord said:
      "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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th November 1976; Vol. 377, c. 43.]
      I have interpreted those words to mean that the definition of the half mile around a dock area will be dependent upon the scheme as it is developed. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should take from Parliament the defining of the corridor, whatever it might be, and leave it in the hands of the Board to devise the scheme?
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Member was on the Committee and he knows that he is making a false point. In fact, the definition of five miles is fairly precise, as the definition of half a mile is precise. The only one thing which is certain about this Bill is the way the line of the corridor runs.
      The Secretary of State has said that there are many other hurdles over which the local docks boards will have to get in their examination and reclassification of premises. They have a wide degree of discretion. We are not suggesting that power should be taken from this House. We are trying to simplify this Bill and make it less damaging.
      The Government conceived and gave birth to this Bill in order to satisfy one particular interest. But we want things to be done in the interests of the general public and not just of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Bill will hand over responsibilities for the future to a tiny, tightly-knit and perhaps questionably directed section of the community. Those are not my words. They were spoken by a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in another place. This Bill is friendless. It is the shabbiest Bill of a very shabby Session.
      I was absolutely staggered to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston in our debate last Monday. The hon. Member spoke many times in Committee upstairs and I admit that he speaks for the dockers' interests better and more eloquently than anyone in this House. He has made his interests absolutely clear from the word go. On Monday, he spoke of the possible and growing likelihood of a clash between the Lords and the Commons. He said,
      "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."—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 72.]
      As always, the hon. Member was frank and open. But I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees with that statement. I ask him to reflect on it, and when he winds up this debate to say whether he agrees with it, or whether he thinks that it is surpremely irresponsible as I do. I hope that the Secre-
      530
      tary of State will dissociate himself from that statement.
      This Bill is irrelevant. It is absurd that when the country is going through a great economic crisis, we should be wasting our time debating a measure of this sort, which will do nothing to make us richer or stronger. It will not create jobs, nor will it make us more efficient. It has nothing to do with national recovery, and will result only in endless opportunities for dispute between unions. It is unnecessary, and therefore should not pass. These clauses which we are debating are crucial, and I believe that the House would be well advised to agree with the Lords.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The suggestion, made from time to time, that this Bill is shabby and ill-considered is highly emotive and interesting to listen to—occasionally. However, at this stage, after 140 hours of consideration, we must get down to dealing with the Bill in such a way as to get it working, within reasonable time, to the advantage of the ports and harbours industry.
      It occurs to me that their Lordships were in a dilemma about the half-mile definition, and it is no good the House of Commons asserting, on the one hand, the problem of the five-mile limit without on the other, accepting that there were terrific problems of a kind which their Lordships recognised about the half-mile definition. If we were to agree to the amendment considerable damage would be done to dock work relationships, bearing in mind that part of dock work activity is in what might be called recognisable and self-evident dock work areas. Some people are already working four or five miles away from known port areas. Therefore it would be futile to accept the amendment and find ourselves, on that one count alone, presented with all the problems that I have briefly described.
      The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that the purpose of the amendment was not to take away from the House of Commons the authority that it has to define an area for which the proposed Board can work out a dock scheme. Lord Sandford said in the other place—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was always my understanding that one could not quote

      531
      in the House of Commons what was said in the House of Lords unless one quoted what had been said by a Minister there. I am not trying to get at anyone in particular, but I should like to know the rule. It was my impression, at least until recently, that one could quote a Minister in the other place but not one of their Lordships who was not a Minister. May we be told the position?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is slightly equivocal, because it is broadly correct that it has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but either there is a rule or there is not. This matter has been raised many times, and it was always my understanding that one could quote in the Commons what a Minister in the Lords had said, but one could not quote one of their Lordships who did not have a ministerial appointment. I am not being pedantic or awkward. This is a vital matter. We can sometimes get into difficulties. I am not getting at my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), because the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) quoted Lord George-Brown.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fact, "Erskine May" says:
      "The daily publication of the debates in Parliament offers a strong temptation to disregard this rule."
      Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Is not the true position that when it comes to quoting speeches in the current Session one can quote ministerial speeches verbatim, but if one wishes to quote the speeches of other than Ministers in the other place one should paraphrase them?
      Mr. Douglas Henderson: Would not this be a case of an extract from Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire"?
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) intervened. There are historic reasons for the practice that is adopted. I should expect the right hon. and learned Gentle-
      532
      man, as a good House of Commons man, to understand that this is not a silly issue but one of vital importance.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is correct in his reasons for it. In its original form—this is from the 19th Edition of "Erskine May", at page 424—it was:
      "to guard against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed."
      That is the point.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not want to get at Lord George-Brown and I do not want to stretch the rules. I now know that I would be banned from doing that. That is all.
      Mr. Crawford: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are living through the last days of Pompeii. Could we please forget the niceties of the rules and get on with the debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely for the Chair to decide whether the House has been satisfied with the rulings which the Chair has given, which I hope perhaps the House now is.
      Mr. Leadbitter: Now that we have got rid of that important matter we might be able to get on with the Bill. I hope that those who observe the proceedings of this House will understand that often hon. Members would be better preoccupied with the business of the House than with historical anachronisms.
      If I may paraphrase what was said in another place—taken from the Official Report, of course—and seeking not to incriminate anyone, no matter who he is or how he got to the other place, I would suggest that I might be allowed to come back to this important point. I do not think that there is any difference on either side of the House in terms in examining this thorny problem of the corridor and the half-mile limit. I may have a great deal to say about the five-mile corridor, but I shall not be so dishonest as to indicate that I feel so strongly about it that I will consider whether I shall not vote.
      I find that here in the House of Commons, as we found in Standing Committee, we have a serious problem. We can accept without recrimination that there is no perfection about any kind of solution to such a problem which comes before us.

      533
      In other words, we have to consider both the five-mile corridor and the half-mile area around a definable port area. Both present the House with major problems and I seek to develop part of those problems further because I feel that they have grave consequences for everyone. It will need a great deal of patience in the months to come. No doubt there will be a great deal of heartache. Later hon. Gentlemen may say, "I told you so. You were wrong". But that is the history of the House of Commons and the history of democracy.
      We have a situation where the noble Lord in the other place thinking about the matter with great care, had to confess that they had overlooked that the same consideration applied to the definition or designation of these dock areas as applied to the definition and classification of dock work. In other words, one had to provide in the Bill for two stages in each category. In the way in which Schedule 3 listed what might and might not be classified as dock work, other processes in the Bill—culminating in classification orders in Clause 11, now Clause 13—specified in point of policy and in particular cases that what were the things that could be classified were in fact to be classified. That is what the noble Lord said.
      In other words, it was expressed in the other place that what had to be classified had to be determined in accordance with Schedule 3 and, therefore, it was quite clear that there had to be a second stage of determination when the scheme eventually came before the House of Commons for Parliament to decide upon the scheme.
      Therefore the noble Lord related that particular kind of development to the nature of the definition of dock work area, namely, that it should be left to the board to determine and define the dock area in the scheme so that classification orders can come to the House of Commons. Would it be sensible to give the Board rather than this House the responsibility of defining dock areas or of classifying dock work without a definition of dock areas?
      9.30 p.m.
      On Third Reading in another place, these words were used:
      "But again, as with classification orders in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme
      534
      and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th November 1976; Vol. 377, c. 43.]
      The hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that the amendment would not take power from the House of Commons, but that quotation shows that the argument is that, because it is difficult to define a dock area, the responsibility should be given to the Board. If that is the purport of the amendment, the outcome will be worse than the controversial determination of the corridor.
      I concede that there will be problems about the corridor, but the idea is supported by those directly affected, who do dock work and have been deprived of it by the removal of industries from the dock area. That is a fundamental reason for at least two decades of bad industrial relations in the docks. Increasing insecurity and the reduction of the labour force from 340,000 to 92,000 in a few years created that problem.
      If we have to choose between an amendment giving the responsibility for definition to the Board, and the five-mile scheme, with all its difficulties, we should surely choose that course to which every union on the TUC Ports Committee gives its wholehearted support.
      Mr. Crawford: Not every one.
      Mr. Leadbitter: There is no question about my flexibility. Every group in a democracy contains people who do not agree with the general view, but I repeat that the TUC Ports Committee and all the unions affected were in total agreement.
      Mr. Crawford: The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had the wholehearted support of the trade union movement. The Transport and General Workers' Union in Perth is opposed to the Bill.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I have conceded that there can be no perfection in any situation. The House will vote tonight one way or the other and it is the responsibility of those who are in disagreement with the result to accept the democratic vote. When a vote is taken and a principle accepted, every good trade unionist will accept that decision and uphold the rule of law.

      535
      This matter has been thoroughly debated in the House. The spokesman in another place had grave doubts about the amendment and could not define what he sought to do in it. I do not intend to go into the history of the docks. It would be too long a story. But the more we know about the history, the more we realise the clarity and sense of the Bill. The House must not be allowed to jump the gun.
      The Bill is in two parts. One part lays down the statutory requirements and provides for flexible democratic representation. I do not see a great deal coming from the Bill inside two years, because the old scheme goes back to 1967 and we are a few years late in updating it and bringing it into line with the modernisation in the docks.
      The other part of the Bill is the scheme. That is where the modifying influences will come in to provide the kind of security of employment enjoyed by estate agents, solicitors and doctors and many other groups. There is nothing wrong with a Bill that seeks to provide security of employment for the people who handle the materials which create the wealth of the nation.
      In this revolutionary process there is an admission that we cannot get perfect answers where there has been a bad history of industrial relations. The Bill will bring confidence to the industry and if it is handled with patience by the other side, as we have handled it with the trade union movement, it will be successful.
      If the five-mile corridor raises problems, are those problems sufficiently large to justify replacing that provision by an amendment upon which the House cannot decide a definable area and upon which the other place had doubts? Are we to pass the buck to the National Dock Labour Board and ask it, not the House of Commons, to define an area before getting on with the classification of work? If we do that, instead of waiting two years for answers we shall wait five years, and that will test the patience of the working people too much.
      Sir David Renton: If the arguments put by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) were to become of general application, the country and its labour forces would find themselves in a
      536
      very remarkable situation. I want to make an analogy between dock workers, or at any rate those for whom the hon. Gentleman was speaking, and farm workers.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: And lawyers?
      Sir D. Renton: We can apply it to any section the hon. Gentleman would like. I hope that he will hear me out.
      The Government's proposal is that because certain technological changes have been affecting certain dock workers, they and their sons—this introduces an hereditary principle—should be given the opportunity of going into work already being done by other workers. In farming, too, there have been great technological changes, and we now have many fewer farm workers. Is the hon. Member for Hartlepool prepared to argue that therefore farm workers who find themselves displaced, perhaps through lack of skill in the new technologies, should be found jobs in other areas of work, some not akin to farm production—let us say, canning factories—and that their sons should be found jobs there, too? That would be a preposterous situation.
      That the Government should try to extend the hereditary principle in this way is quite remarkable. I know that they extended it for tenant farmers' sons, and that some years ago the hereditary peerage was turned into a closed shop. Fair enough! But for the hon. Gentleman to argue in principle as he did is not within the realms of reality.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree about three propositions which are strictly relevant to these amendments, which are crucial. Acts of Parliament should, first, be necessary in the general public interest; secondly, they should he intrinsically clear and workable; thirdly, they should do justice to all the people affected by them—and in this case I mean not only dock workers and their sons, but the people whose jobs might be lost. The clause which the Lords suggest should be altered does not pass those tests, and the Government should be grateful to another place for getting them off the hook that Mr. Jack Jones got them on to, because that is the simple reality of the situation.
      The truth is, as has been said on both sides of the House, that the workers in

      537
      the country are very much divided about the Bill, including some dock workers and including members of the T & GWU. This is one of those occasions when the Lords are on the side of the workers and the workers are on the side of the Lords. [Laughter.] Before the hon. Members laugh, they had better listen to what the chief shop steward at the largest cold store in Europe, which is in my constituency, wrote to me last Friday. His letter said:
      "Once again we are obliged to prevail upon you to support us in our campaign with regard to the Dock Work Bill.
      Contrary to suggestions made in the local Press letters, we sought your support in the earlier stages and continue to do so."
      They did indeed seek my support, and I gave it to them. I shall not bore the House by reading out the long speech that I made on Report in support of those workers.
      The letter was written when the intention to use the guillotine had been announced, and it goes on to say:
      "We are deeply concerned with the possibilities of the operating of the guillotine and the consequent lack of time it leaves for correspondence."
      We know now, that, of course, alas, the guillotine motion was carried. The senior shop steward—this is my justification for having risen, Mr. Deputy Speaker—concludes by saying:
      "Therefore, we must take this opportunity to ask you to give your wholehearted support to the amendments made by the Lords which would exclude Peterborough and Salvesens from being included in the Bill."
      9.45 p.m.
      I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) in his place. I told him that in the course of my speech I intended to refer to his constituency—which adjoins mine, I am happy to say—and that I would be referring to the hon. Gentleman, to his part on this Bill, and to his position in his constituency.
      The hon. Gentleman has had similar representations from those same shop stewards representing the workers and their factory. He has been asked, as I understand it, to take the sort of line that I have taken against the Bill. He has declined to do so. He has voted for the Bill consistently. The hon. Gentleman is in another party, and I say to him with deep respect, but without being fulsome, that as a constituency neighbour I have
      538
      respected in general the way in which he has handled our boundary problems and our common interests for our constituents. But I say to him that his votes and everybody else's on this group of amendments will be a supreme test of political integrity and courage.
      Mr. Michael Ward: Is it not incorrect to say that Christian Salvesen is included in the Bill, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said? Surely it is quite clearly excluded by the Bill, and it would only be possible to include it if there were a most elaborate and complicated public examination procedure undertaken for it to be included.
      Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that, despite the fact that I have invited my constituents who work at this plant to make representations to me, in the nine or 10 months since the Bill, was published, I have had only one letter from the chief shop steward to whom he has referred? The Peterborough trades council has unanimously supported the view that I have taken on the Bill and the view of all the trade unions which nationally support the Bill.
      Sir D. Renton: No constituent of mine has to write me more than one letter to get my help if I consider that that help should be given. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of the Bill on that particular factory and upon his constituency and mine. There is a geographical doubt about the distances involved, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has dragged me into the boring process of having to repeat something that I mentioned on Second Reading. I hope I shall be forgiven for repeating that I wrote to the Minister asking him to clarify this position. The Minister quite rightly pointed out to me in a letter:
      "There is a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the five-mile cargo-handling zone by Order. Any such Order would, however, be subject to approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament. This is conceived as being very much a reserve power."
      I grant that point. The letter continues:
      "There is certainly no present intention to make early use of it."
      Obviously, that did not satisfy my constituents. The threat was left hanging over their heads.

      539
      But the Lords have removed that threat entirely, because they have completely removed from Clause 4 the badly drafted, wide reaching and, I think, vicious provisions of subsections (3) to (7).
      I take it, therefore, that no one can reasonably dispute after what I have said that the Lords are on the side of the workers and that the workers are on the side of the Lords in this matter.
      I ask the House to bear in mind that the Government seem to be legislating in what appears to me, not without some experience, to be entirely the wrong manner. We ought to be proud of the way in which we legislate. Certainly we should not confine ourselves to legal niceties in our approach to the task but there is no point in indulging in legal nastiness either, and that is what these subsections of Clause 4 did. They introduced the strangest legal fictions.
      For example, subsection (4), which the Lords say should be left out, reads:
      "For purposes of this section 'the sea' includes any area submerged at mean high water and … also includes, so far as the tide flows at mean high water, an estuary or arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river".
      Until I read that subsection, I had no idea that my constituency was on the sea. I had always thought that it was 40 miles inland. However, the River Great Ouse is tidal up to the boundary of my constituency, to Earith, where there is the great sluice which divides the salt-water section from the fresh-water section of the river; and five miles from that sluice takes us to the little country town of St. Ives.
      After I spoke about this matter in the House before, I had representations from workers at St. Ives saying "Thank goodness you made that point. We do not want a lot of dockers coming into St. Ives and taking the work from us"—[Laughter.] It is all very well for Government supporters to laugh, but St. Ives is a very pleasant place—
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Taking jobs away where there are too few jobs already. What is funny about that?
      Sir D. Renton: It also has a very good golf course, which would suit the dockers and their sons. So this is not a laughing matter.
      540
      The Lords have put all this right. They have driven some sense into the Bill. They have removed the legal fictions—what I call the legal nastiness.
      The worst nastiness of all, in my opinion, occurred in Clause 4(6), which enabled the Secretary of State by order, no doubt backed by the Whips, to make any part of Great Britain, in the Bill as originally drafted, into "a cargo-handling zone". Rightly, the Lords have got rid of that expression "cargo-handling zone" altogether. It is a most unsuitable expression, especially in the circumstances. In its place they have put the expression "definable dock area". That is a bit more certain.
      They have also explained exactly how it should be defined, and not ungenerously. After all, if we say an area within half a mile of any of our docks, that gives the dockers opportunities for doing work which no one has contemplated their doing so far in the handling of cargo.
      I know that many Government supporters have serious conscientious doubts about the original drafting of the Bill. I implore them to consider whether it would not be much more in the interests of workers and less divisive within the Labour movement, for which the Secretary of State tries to do his best, if he were to let the Lords get him off the hook.
      If we accept the proposition that whenever there is technological change there should be not a natural but an artificial adjustment introduced by compulsive laws passed by both Houses, we would bring Parliament into great contempt. The credibility of Parliament, I regret to say as one of the older Members of the House, is sometimes much in question. If we pass measures such as Clause 4 as it was before the Lords amended it, that credibility will rapidly disappear. I suggest that this is a crucial test of the credibility of the legislative method in our parliamentary democracy.
      With deep sincerity, I ask the Secretary of State—even at this late stage and bearing in mind the mixed feelings that we know so many of his supporters have—to reconsider the matter. In the House of Lords there are men who are undoubtedly wise and they are not all Tories. On this occasion the working

      541
      Tory peers were in the minority among those who voted. They were dependent upon the Liberal peers for support and sometimes the Tories supported the Liberals. Both parties were supported by men of no party, august people sitting on the Cross-Benches.In such circumstances it would be utterly wrong to seek refuge in the cheap party jibe that the Lords have flouted the majority in the Commons. They have done nothing of the kind. The Lords have done a lot to try to save the reputation of Parliament. I implore the Secretary of State to think again.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) declared an interest as a director of Geest. I declare an interest in that I represent—and have done for longer than any other hon. Member—a dock area. I have represented that dock area for the past 32 years. I am also the only hon. Member who for between 30 and 40 years has been a fully paid up member of three trade unions, from which I get no subvention whatsoever, no grant, nothing at all. I therefore speak without being tied to anybody other than my constituents.
      The Bill arises from an incident which took place in my constituency. Some hon. Members will remember the Chobbam Farm incident at the time of the Chobham strikes. On that occasion the Official Solicitor, of whom few of us had heard, was dug up to rescue the then Government from the difficulties and problems they had created by the arrest of five dockers. I declare an interest in and a knowledge of this subject.
      In my constituency there are two or three large warehouse freezing depots, including one of the biggest in Europe. That was why I challenged the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to name his warehouse. I wondered whether the warehouse in his constituency was larger than that in mine.
      10.0 p.m.
      Sir David Renton: It is the Christian Salvesen depot on the Woodstone industrial estate near Peterborough.
      Mr. Lewis: Mine is Frigoscandia, which is Norwegian or Swedish. It has a large area of the old Temple Mill railway depot which is now given over to
      542
      freight services. All this is material to the issue. I have the docks and the dock workers. I have Chobham Farm where incidents which were prophesied have actually happened. I have freight warehouses and freezing depots and I have members in each of the unions concerned.
      Originally there was an argument, as Temple Mill was a railway depot and the membership was National Union of Railwaymen, about whether that union should be responsible. That was resolved and the Transport and General Workers' Union got the membership within the warehousing and packaging and the freezing depot. Then we had the Chobham Farm affair.
      As a lifetime friend of the dockers I know their history. I fought and suffered with them. I remember the days of the rats and all the rest of it. I know how they were hired and fired. I know that by hard work and trade union organisation they dragged themselves up from the gutter and established themselves. I shall not attack them.
      Most powerful organisations and most powerful people—whether they be in the House of Lords, whether they be lawyers or political parties—feel their power and hold on to it. This applies to the Whips on this side and to the Tory Whips, to the lawyers on this side and to the Tory lawyers. The dockers have found their power and, rightly, they want to hold on to it, just as the Whips do, as the Tory Party does and as the Labour Party does. I do not blame them.
      This matter must be looked at fairly and properly to ensure, if the dockers are to use their muscle and endeavour, that they use it in a fair, proper and reasonable way. If they do that, I am all for them. If they seek to use it to improve their hours, wages and working conditions, I am all for them.
      I have seen the shop stewards and the workers at both places—the dockers, and the workers at Frigoscandia and like places. The Minister knows that there are grave doubts and worries on the part of members of the Transport and General Workers' Union who work in these places. We cannot shut our eyes to that. They are members of the same union, although in different branches.
      Mr. Crawford: I made a similar point in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about members of the Transport and General Workers' Union having grave doubts about the Bill. Members of that union in Perth have extremely grave doubts about it.
      Mr. Lewis: I agree. I was speaking about members of the TGWU in my area, and not only the shop stewards. They are men who work for a 100 per cent. trade union firm, a very good firm which gives everything in the way of trade union conditions. I can say nothing but the best about the firm. But the workers themselves had doubts. I told them "You must take it up with your branch, which is different from that of the dockers." They have not obtained satisfaction.
      I am not afraid of voting against the Government or abstaining on this or any other question if I wish. I have doubts myself. I agree that the five-mile limit is ludicrous and creates many problems. But I cannot see that the alternative of half a mile is any good either.
      Will the five-mile limit be extended, and will bad action be taken against workers in the docks and warehousing industry? Will there be a chance of Mr. X, with 40 years' membership of the TGWU, 40 years as an active trade unionist in a depot, then finding a dock worker shop steward with only 10 or 12 years in the union telling him "Look, brother, you must now leave your branch and come in with the dock scheme even though you may not want to do so"? I want to be sure that such a person is safeguarded.
      Will there be a stretching and stretching of the principle of the Bill? Suppose the workers in Fleet Street say that they want to operate a five-mile limit and that all work connected with printing, even that of the girl serving the tea, shall come under the printing union? Where do we draw the line? There could be a similar process throughout the country. Let us take the miners, for example. God bless them. They are entitled to the best that they can get. Nothing is too good for them. But what happens if they say that within five miles of a pit all work connected with it shall be classified as miners' work and all the workers concerned shall be members of the NUM?
      Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend is being misled by Opposition Members who argued this case on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I am sure that my hon. Friend advances his argument with much sincerity, but it is obvious that he does not understand the true position. It is not the five-mile limit that determines whether certain work is dock work. It must stand up to rigorous examination. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) spoke about the various tests. It is misleading to suggest that the only test for classification as dock work is the five-mile limit.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not understand a word of that intervention. Is there any way in which it could be explained to the House? I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who uttered it, understood it himself.
      Mr. Speaker: There are many accents in this House. I wish that I had one myself.
      Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady, who comes from Scotland, ought to know that I come from Scotland Road. That is probably why I cannot understand her and she cannot understand me.
      Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I may put it in the Cockney vernacular and tell the hon. Lady that if she will take a ball of chalk down the frog and toad to have a butcher's hook, everyone will be happier. If she wants that translated I shall do so later.
      Let me return to the Bill. The definition and designation of dock work is set out in it. Where there is inter-union rivalry, and even inter-membership rivalry, the strongest tend to get their way over the weakest. The principle of the corridor could spread to other areas, especially if it worked successfully, although I have my doubts about that. Other unions might want to get in on the act. For example, the miners might insist that all work that could by any stretch of the imagination be connected with the pits should within a five-mile area be the work of miners. It could extend to the loading and unloading of coal trains, for example.

      545
      I want a guarantee from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that no man or woman who has been doing the job satisfactorily and in a way which complies with the trade union rules and regulations will be removed from that job to make room for a docker. That has happened, as it did in the case of the Chobham Farm depot where constituents of mine were affected. Once such a person had left the job, if the dockers wanted it and could establish an entitlement to it, I would be happy. But I want to safeguard workers who have held jobs, whether for only a year or for 20 years. If I can have that guarantee I shall be happy to support the Government because to me a half mile is the same in this context as two miles or five miles.
      Mr. Crawford: I wish to apologise first to the hon. Member from Scotland Road for my accent and to the Secretary of State for having missed the opening minutes of his speech.
      I declare the total opposition of my party to the Government on the amendment. The Bill will lead to the centralisation in London of decision making which will affect business in Scotland. That is total and utter anathema to my party.
      I must declare a constituency interest. My constituency contained two ancient boroughs—Blairgowrie and Perth—which were swept away by the Conservative Party's local government reorganisation. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) I have in my constituency a Christian Salvesen depot. It is a very successful depot. There is another such depot in Inverness which employs constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). I realise that that is not totally within the confines of the amendment so I shall confine my brief remarks to the port of Perth. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made great play of the small ports in Scotland and I am grateful to him for those remarks. I shall address my brief remarks to the Minister in the form of several questions.
      10.15 p.m.
      The Minister will be aware that Perth was the ancient capital of Scotland. I speak for myself and not for my party when I say that I should like Perth to be
      546
      the seat of the future Parliament of Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friends have other ideas about that. The Minister will also be aware that Perth is a port and that ships—perhaps not very large vessels—load and unload at Perth. Unfortunately it is a tidal port. It is open for only half the year, approximately, because at times the ships can get in and at other times they cannot.
      From that point of view Perth is an important port for the surrounding agricultural industry, including East Perthshire and West Perthshire. T am sorry that my colleague the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is not in the Chamber. The hon. and learned Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter.
      The Minister will be aware that Perth is the centre for a large agricultural area. A large part of the hinterland could suffer if Perth, along with other smaller ports in Scotland, comes under this scheme.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire mentioned St. Ives. I have a fairly close knowledge of what happens in East Anglia, including St. Ives and other East Anglian ports.
      Sir David Renton: It is not a port.
      Mr. Crawford: But there are ports in East Anglia that come roughly within the definition of Perth. I am well aware that the problems of East Anglia are not totally dissimilar from ports in parts of Scotland.
      Sir David Renton: St. Ives is not a port in reality, but if the Bill were passed, as the Government are hoping, it would be an imaginary port.
      Mr. Crawford: That is the precise point that I was trying to take up.
      I ask the Minister two categoric and straightforward questions. First, is the port of Perth exempt from the terms of the Bill? Secondly, in his summing up will the Minister name the ports in Scotland, the small ports, that are exempt under the terms of the Bill?
      Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) will be unhappy with the reply that he receives, because none of the

      547
      ports is exempt from the terms of the Bill.
      I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I only wish that he had made it earlier in the Session and that he had rather more influence with Ministers. Possibly had they listened to him we might not now be faced with such an appalling situation during the last hours of the Session—namely, having to argue about a measure that should never have been going on the statute book.
      I have always been under the impression that the Bill was drafted to deal with the situation in London. I think that that was indicated by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. That is why so many Members have so much objection to the Bill. We object because it has been applied to the rest of the United Kingdom. I respect what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I wish that he would think again about how he intends to vote. The difference between half a mile and five miles means a great deal of trouble for many people in areas five miles from London, taking in Dagenham, who are very concerned about what will happen.
      The Minister has deal with the Bill extremely fairly. I know that he will be glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those who are already in unions will not be forced to change over until they leave their job. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get that assurance. However, I plead with him not to take that as a reason for supporting the Government tonight. He would do the country a service if he were to abstain.
      The same goes for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), whose intervention I very much welcome. The hon. Gentleman had great courage to make it. I have not been in the House for very long, but I know that many Members on both sides of the House have gone into the Lobby on occasions with grave doubts about whether they should be there. I have done that on one or two occasions. It is not a cowardly act. The hon. Gentleman spoke from the heart. I hope that he will seriously consider how he should vote tonight.
      I support Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 12 deals with
      548
      the half-mile to five-mile corridor. I cannot believe that the members of the Bristow Committee appreciated what they were recommending when they talked about a five-mile corridor from the mean level at high tide. They could not have meant to include places such as St. Ives, Newark or even near to York. It is a pity that the Bill has been based on the Bristow Committee's recommendations.
      The Secretary of State and his predecessor, now the Leader of the House, said that the Government did not intend to include some of the smaller ports in this measure, but that they would all have to go through the process set out in the Bill—namely, that, within three months of local dock boards being set up, they would have to make their returns and argue whether they wished to be included, and that the local dock boards would make their decisions. Presumably they are to make trips to the different ports.
      Why we should go to all this expense when we have an economic crisis on our hands I do not know. Presumably the local dock boards will make exhaustive investigations. People will be forced to plead their cases at a time when they ought to be concentrating on getting on with their business and exporting. They will have to fill in God knows how many forms. Ultimately a recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State, and I assume that many months later—I cannot imagine that the Isle of Wight would be included—a decision will be made.
      should go because it will do us no good long. It would have been better had the Government accepted the Lords amendment dealing with the small ports. If they found it defective—we had an assurance from the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that he had legal advice that it was all right and properly drafted—they could put something in which was acceptable to them. I suggest that the small ports ought to be kept out of the Bill. This part is a nonsense.
      Great play has been made of the position of the House of Lords in regard to this Bill. I think that of all the measures which we should defeat before the Session ends, this should be one. I believe that this is the worst of the lot and that it should go because it will do us no good

      549
      at all. It would have been better to have left matters as they were.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke with great knowledge of the port of Liverpool. But I think that he will accept that custom there has been honoured because things are working very well. I wonder whether he really wants this legislation. Those remarks apply to other ports, such as Southampton.
      If the Government win the Division and this question goes back to the Lords, I suggest that their Lordships will be within their rights to put it back. I have no doubt that the country would be on the side of the Lords. [Interruption.] I challenge the Government to put it to a referendum. I know who would win.
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has given what we must accept is a Liberal definition of democracy—that when this elected Chamber makes a decision the completely undemocratic anachronistic House of Lords, where there is no democracy, but an inbuilt majority of Tory Peers who always agree with the Cory Party, should be able to reverse it. Is that what he understands to he democracy?
      Mr. Ross: I think that on this occasion their Lordships are speaking for the nation. We have heard Labour Members express grave doubts about the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that several of his former colleagues, who are now in the other place, went into the Lobby against the Government on this measure.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: I represent a constituency which contains the port of Avonmouth. I have had many talks with the dockers and those working in cold stores and associated jobs close to the ports. I want to expose some of the myths which have been created in the debate today and by Aims of Industry, the Tory Party and employers generally about this legislation. I do not know of any other piece of legislation which has been so distorted by the Tory Press, the employers and Aims of Industry and their allies.
      The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made the point that there has been a rapid rate of technological change in the docks industry. There has been containerisation and roll-on/roll-off traffic. No one would dispute that. But it is also being suggested that this technological change is wholly and solely the reason why there are fewer job opportunities for dockers. That is incorrect, indeed nonsense. The real situation is that over a long period of time the dockers and some responsible employers have built up a dock labour scheme, and that scheme places obligations on employers to give rights and responsibilities to dockers, as well as decent conditions of employment, training and pensions. Most important of all, has injected an element of industrial democracy into the industry. There were certain cold-store firms and multinationals which were not willing to face up to those obligations, so they moved out of the scheme areas and built their cold stores and warehouses elsewhere. They were not prepared to give the same security of employment, rates of pay, and worker involvement as firms in the National Dock Labour Scheme. There are the jobs we are talking about—jobs which were deliberately moved out of dockland areas in order to exploit much lower level of pay, and so on.
      The second myth I shall dispel is that we are dealing with a powerful trade union—the Transport and General Workers' Union—which is imposing this piece of legislation on the Government and everyone else. At the same time, we are told that over the last 10 years the number of dockers has been halved. Yet they are supposed to have a powerful trade union representing them. Heaven
      552
      help them if they had a weak trade union there would be no dockers left. It is nonsense to create this image of a great, powerful trade union.
      The next myth is that thousands of dockers will descend down on jobs all over the country from Perth to Doncaster, to Camborne, to Birmingham and so on. Yet there are only 30,000 dockers now. I assume that Conservatives will admit that a certain number of dockers will be required to unload all the food and the semi-manufactured and manufactured imports even if they are not loading exports. What number of these 30,000 are we talking about? How many will descend en masse on the places I have mentioned and steal jobs from other trade union members?
      Mr. Crawford: The only point I was making—I have made it repeatedly—is that the Transport and General Workers' Union in Perth is opposed to the Bill.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Thomas: That point has been answered adequately. I doubt if we could have any piece of legislation which affected a group of workers and have 100 per cent. of them in favour of it. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) that many of the doubts which he spoke of and the vote which went against in Perth was because of the way in which the object of the Bill has been distorted by Aims of Industry, employers, the Tory Press and the Tory Party.
      The assumption has been made, and hammered home by Members of the Tory Party and their allies, that if someone has a job within five miles of the corridor there is a docker ready to take his job away from him tomorrow. The BBC put on a "Tonight" programme—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows this—in which a reporter said to a burly lorry driver "When a docker comes and takes your job, what will you do?" The lorry driver replied in no uncertain terms what he would do if that were to happen. The legislation does not provide for dockers to take over people's jobs in that manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston has made the point over and over again,

      553
      but it seems that it has to be made once more.
      The five-mile limit is the first preliminary step—[Interruption.] That may cause some laughter, but had it been left to me I should have started from the premise that what is classifiable as dock work should be done by dockers. I should not have given a damn whether it was in Birmingham or anywhere else. If it was classifiable as dock work, it would have come into the scheme.
      The first question is whether the work is within the five-mile limit. The next question is whether it is covered by a detailed definition of classified dock work as defined in the legislation. Most of the examples that we have been given by Tory Members are not covered. We are talking about a tiny handful of people. There are only 30,000 dockers, and about 25,000 or 27,000 of them or some higher figure will still be required to unload and load cargoes in the normal way. We are talking about a situation in which dockers will be able to move into jobs if vacancies arise. There is no question of kicking anyone out of a job. No one will take a job from anyone, and anyone who says otherwise distorts the purpose of the Bill.
      Reference was made to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that the dockers may take industrial action. I think that my hon. Friend has every right to make that kind of statement. Knowing as he does the frustration suffered by the dockers over the decades, it is legitimate for him to say that if an unelected group of people defy the will of this elected Chamber the dockers may take industrial action. Aircraft workers have said to me that if the Tory Party and the House of Lords hold up the Aircraft Bill any longer they will take industrial action. There is nothing unusual about that. It required the dockers to take action under the Industrial Relations Act to bring the Tories to their senses.
      My right hon. Friend was right to mention the Chobham Farm situation. We were told by the media and the Tory Press that a powerful union was taking on a small employer, but then we found that the Vesty Group was one of the biggest multinational companies in the world. That was the real situation, but that was not what the Tories were saying.
      554
      The main attack against the Bill arises from the fact that the Dock Labour Scheme, apart from dealing with conditions and providing security of employment, provides a certain amount of industrial democracy for the workers who are covered by it. Industrial democracy frightens the Tories to death, and the employers too. That is what worries them, and that is why they have mounted their attack against the Bill.
      I agree that the House should have spent time on these amendments, not because they are important, as the Front Bench of the Tory Party has said, but because in essence they are wrecking amendments. If we accept amendments of this kind and restrict the distance to half-a-mile and leave out all the small ports, we may as well rip up this piece of legislation. The Tories know that, and so does the House of Lords.
      The House of Lords is not the watchdog of the constitution. It is the Tory Party's poodle, and it is high time that we put that poodle quietly to sleep.
      Mr. Richard Luce: It was interesting that hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) used certain reasons for justifying the introduction of the Bill. They used the reason that the dockers have had an insecure past in the years since the war. That is absolutely true. They used the reason that industrial relations in the docks have been extremely poor. That is also true. They used the reason that there has been a serious rundown in that industry. That is perfectly true. They are perfectly justified in making those statements.
      What is totally unbelievable is that hon. Gentlemen opposite should use those as reasons for giving the dockers privileges which are unsurpassed in almost any other walk of life. Were we to follow their argument through, it should also apply to workers in the steel industry and in agriculture. Indeed, some hon. Members with marginal seats are in an insecure situation. Perhaps we should pass a Bill to give them privileges unsurpassed in other walks of life. It is unbelievable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should use this argument as a justification for the Bill.
      I would pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and

      555
      the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who both made speeches of enormous courage. To my mind, they are seeking the truth of the situation that faces the country with regard to the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West told the House that he has a good reputation for making up his own mind about the direction in which he will vote. He has proved that once this week already. He produced his own reason for the way in which he voted earlier this week. It was for him to judge whether that was important or not. If he felt that the reason then for voting against his own party was important, I would suggest that the reason he should produce now for voting against his own party is even more important. I hope that lie will show courage and do just that.
      The only issue on which I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) was when he implied that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West had not shown courage. I think that it does show courage to stand up and say that the party system is so strong today and the pressure put on by the Whips is so strong that he is reluctant to go against them. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman opened his mind to the House about the importance of the clauses that we are debating. I hope that he, too, will have the courage of his convictions and vote for the amendment.
      I represent a constituency which contains the important non-scheme port of Shoreham. I want to say why this group of amendments is essential to the future of that port, and why, if they are not passed, it will be serious not only for that port but for the country as a whole. This port has a great reputation. It is efficient and has attracted a great deal of trade, particularly in wine and timber, from the scheme ports over the last decade.
      The first reason why Shoreham has flourished despite our economic difficulties is the contribution of the dockers themselves and the management. Equally important, it is a non-scheme port. The Bill will spoil all that. It is an insult to the dockers because it implies that they need unsurpassed manning privileges which they know they do not need.
      556
      I have not had one representation from a Shoreham docker that the Bill is essential to his future. I have sought the views of dockers while walking around the port, and many have said that the Bill is an embarrassment to them. The dockers of Shoreham do not want the privileges of guaranteed minimum earnings, guaranteed jobs for life, the redefinition of dock jobs and the extension of the limits, because it hurts their pride.
      The Bill will strain dockers' relations in the port with lorry drivers, warehousemen and tally clerks. It will give them a monopoly which, as Labour peers have said, is not a good thing in a democracy, where we need to disperse power as much as possible. Particularly in a port like Shoreham, which has a fine industrial relations record, the Bill is likely to lead to deteriorating industrial relations. It will introduce a third party, the NDLB, into the relationship between the dockers and the management. It will make for more impersonal relationships and will harm industrial relations.
      Mr. George Grant: The hon. Member is telling us of his knowledge of Shoreham, but I am not so sure. Does he realise that throughout the country the Bill has the blessing of the TUC?
      Mr. Luce: This gets more and more revealing. The hon. Member has confirmed where power lies now in this country. What is uppermost in his mind is that the TUC says that this should be done—and it will be done. That is what is wrong with the country at present.
      Shoreham's present competitive charges will rise, because the Bill will ossify manning and encourage overmanning. It will make for the inflexible use of labour. Private employers in the port already provide an excellent service but the levy will impose an extra burden on them and therefore, indirectly, it could have a serious effect on the port.
      Lastly, the Bill will stifle competition in a port which has a marvellous reputation. The result will be higher prices, less competition, less investment and worse industrial relations. It will do harm to the people of Shoreham and the country and it is a great insult to the dockers of Shoreham. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) has no right to claim that he speaks for the dockers of

      557
      Shoreham. He has the right to speak for his constituency but no right to express a monopoly of interest in mine.
      It is shameful that the people of the country and the House of Lords are on one side and the elected Chamber is on the other. The House's arrogant disregard of the national interest can be rectified if the Government will concede the amendments before us.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) dealt adequately with the reasons for the concern of dock workers about job opportunities. In analysising the reasons for the decline of employment in the dock industry, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that it was not exclusively the result of new technology, but he attributed most of the blame to new technology. He also referred to the Port of London and the tears that were shed by Opposition Members at the tragedy of the London docks.
      Having worked in the docks for 29 years, I have some understanding of what has happened in London, Merseyside and the other major ports, and Opposition Members also know the reasons for the decline in the industry. Liverpool is living evidence of how a traditional port can be transformed into a modern port, given the necessary investment, thus enabling work which is traditional to the area to remain there.
      The major docks began to decline because the employers, instead of developing traditional ports and modernising them, sucked every ounce of profits out of them, deserted them and built new ports in greener fields, with no traditional dock workers and no National Dock Labour Board. That was the motivation behind the employers of Shoreham, Felixstowe and similar ports. Under Tory Governments, employers left obsolesence in the North-East and North-West and fled to greener pastures, leaving social misery behind them.
      That is why dock workers were justified in getting an agreement from employers not to leave the traditional port areas but, if they did, to continue to employ registered dock workers. Those people broke faith with the dock workers, and the dock workers began to look
      558
      beyond the dock gates to see what was happening.
      The work being done at Chobham Farm had previously been done by registered dock workers in the Port of London. The employers wanted to smash the National Dock Labour Board, and Conservative Members have made clear that that is their intention as well. Let us be honest about the motive behind the opposition to the Bill. It is the smashing of the Board because, for the first time, the Board gives security in the industry. That is the blatantly obvious reason why the Opposition want to see an end to the Bill. That is why they have introduced such distortions of the truth.
      Hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee should read some of the things said by the Opposition there. For example, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), dealing with the question of classification of work, said:
      "Now cargo is packed in aeroplanes. Really, the thought of the dockers executing minor repairs to aeroplanes makes one fear for one's safety. I can imagine the sweating passengers being told that there was half an hour's delay while minor repairs were executed, thinking of the dockers having a go at the altimeter or trying to clear the automatic pilot with their sledge hammers down on the tarmac.
      That is the sort of nonsense we had to listen to from hon. Members opposite who were alleged to know something about the docks industry and the Bill. The fact is that this is a modest reform and that they never treated it seriously from the start. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury went on:
      What is there to stop the dockers taking over the jobs of air hostesses …?—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25th March 1976; c. 559.]
      Even that was said in a serious manner. But he went even further by suggesting that dockers could take over jockeyships at certain racecourses.
      The five-mile test is not the only test and not always the most important in this context. Hon. Members opposite have bemoaned the surplus of dock labour in London and on Merseyside. That arose because employers left the traditional ports and developed such places as Felixstowe. They deliberately set out to smash the dockers' organisations which had been built up over the years.

      559
      There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that work not being performed by registered dock workers remains in the hands of those doing it at present, but fears to the contrary have been engendered in the minds of those workers by the Tory Party and the Press which supports it.
      Nearly 2,000 dockers in London and between 2,500 and 3,000 in Liverpool left the register, followed, in the last few months, by another 1,500. If that does not convince the Opposition that there is no resistance to the technological changes in the docks, changing the requirements of the labour force, nothing will. The dockers have accepted that technological changes mean a smaller labour force.
      The attack on the dockers has been motivated by the fact that the Opposition want to see an end to the National Dock Labour Board and to have virtually no protection for the dockers. But the Government are taking account in the Bill of the changes that have come about. The Government recognise that they cannot continue to accept the principles which obtained 30 years ago, or even in 1967, when there was a revision of the scheme. There has to be recognition that dock workers have lost their warehousing and cold-storage work to the container bases which began to flourish around the areas of the docks. This loss has been conservatively estimated as between 12½ and 15 per cent. of total cargoes handled.
      What do people expect the dock workers to do when they lose their work in that way? We are not talking about goods which can be delivered from the place of manufacture without the dockers touching them. We are talking now about the centres which were set up to take the place of the normal receivers of cargoes. We are talking of the filling of containers away from the docks, as opposed to doing that work in the docks. That is one of the reasons why the employment opportunities in the dock industry have been reduced so dramatically.
      The conditions prevailing inside the docks were far superior to those of the fly-by-night, cowboy outfits which set themselves up around the docks. At one time containers were being filled in prison yards for as little as 7s. 6d. per week. That was where the industry was going
      560
      The dock workers realised, therefore, that unless there was legislation to provide a definition of dock work and to do what is set out in the Bill, there would be no future for their industry and no employment in the future.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) speaks with passion and knows what he is talking about, but it does not follow that the House should necessarily agree with what he has to say. As a spokesman for the dockers, he has performed in the House tonight, as he has performed many times in Committee, the invaluable service of making quite clear to everybody the purposes of the Bill and what its effect will be.
      The debate so far has shown that a substantial number of Labour Members are unhappy and uncertain about the consequences and intentions of the Bill. It therefore behoves us on the Conservative side to be careful, in our choice of words and in our use of arguments, not to exaggerate or make the kinds of wild claims to which the hon. Member was resorting at some moments in his speech.
      The Bill will not, of course, put in jeopardy every single job within that enormous cargo-handling zone. None the less, moderate men and women in the Labour Party should surely reflect very carefully on the inexorable processes which have brought the Bill before the House at this time. They should reflect very carefully on the mechanism whereby a minority element within one single union has been able to commit the entire Labour movement to a Bill which sets out to protect the interests of that one minority.
      Having reflected on that inexorable process, they should then, I suggest, go on to consider very carefully how the Bill and the apparatus it sets up will work in practice. Will not the very pressures which have brought the Bill before the Commons ensure that the Board operates almost exclusively for the benefit of that section of the community which put the Bill before the House?
      Mr. Leslie Spriggs: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when my right hon. Friend spoke earlier on this matter, he would have heard him refer to the many amendments which had been

      561
      accepted by the trade union concerned and, indeed, by trade unions throughout the country which are involved in cold storage, and so on. In view of that, surely it cannot be said that they take the kind of view that the hon. Gentleman alleges.
      11.0 p.m.
      Sir A. Meyer: I readily agree that the National Union of Railwaymen was able to exert a countervailing pressure in order to protect the interests of its members, but I dispute the ability of the great mass of trade unionists to look after their interests as the NUR has been able to do.
      I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should at all times have to be upholding the general interest against the Government. It is the Government, surely, who are trustees of the general interest. Yet, in this matter, they have constituted themselves the sole arbiters. If the Government will not uphold the general interest, it becomes almost impossibly difficult for moderates within the Labour Party and the unions to do so. Never was this demonstrated more convincingly than in the embarrassment with which Mr. Tom Jackson was obliged to go along with the action of members of his Union of Post Office Workers, which he knew to be illegal, precisely because he knew that if he stood up for the general interest and the law of the land he could not be sure of the Minister's backing. How right he was.
      I hope that the Government will consider carefully before they finally insist on the rejection of the Lords amendment, which is designed to ensure that a substantial number of small ports throughout the country remain unaffected by the Bill's provisions. If these small ports were operated in a way that exploited their workers and paid them very low wages for their work or subjected them to poor conditions, that would be a matter for legitimate concern, but I suggest that that would be dealt with by well-established labour relations channels or by invoking the now substantial body of legislation governing working conditions. Certainly it would not be necessary or useful to invoke the cumbersome machinery of the Bill in order to protect the interests of the workers in the small ports.
      But it is not to protect the interests of workers in the small ports that they are
      562
      to be brought within the Bill, despite the efforts of the other place to keep them out of it. What is more, it is no good the Government saying that the other place is unrepresentative. I think that that argument has been exploded convincingly. [Interruption.] I did not notice Government supporters laughing so loudly when the electors of Walsall, North and Workington demonstrated their attitude in support of the ideas which the House of Lords was unholding and against the self-appointed guardians of the public weal. This Bill is intended to eliminate the small ports because they take work away from the scheme ports, and it has been the consistent aim of the hon. Member for Garston to remind us that this is what the Bill is about.
      In terms of my own constituency, the tiny port of Mostyn must be shut down because it takes away the odd ship from the great port of Liverpool. People go to Mostyn in preference to Liverpool not because it is more conveniently situated—because it is not—not because it is better equipped—because it is not—and not because it is necessarily cheaper. The reason is that shippers know that they get their ships dealt with better at Mostyn than they do at Liverpool.
      In Committee I argued as fiercely as I could the case for Mostyn being allowed to continue because of the vital importance of it and other small ports along the coast. They are vital to the hinterland which they serve. In standing up for them we are not only standing up for the jobs of those who work in them—although workers may fondly imagine that if their jobs are taken away they will take other jobs from other workers—but are arguing for the many hundreds of other jobs which depend on our small ports. They represent a key element in our economy. Since the Committee stage, the employment prospects in my constituency have gravely deteriorated and the importance of preserving these jobs is greater than ever.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said, nobody seriously believes that the Bill will create a single extra job. The best that can be claimed is that it will encourage a game of General Post in which A takes B's job and B takes C's job. It will be a case of hunt the slipper and lose it.

      563
      The amendment seeks to limit the damage which the Bill can do. The distance of half a mile is not one which I would have chosen. It is far more important to define the cargo-handling zone in terms of existing ports than to try to reduce the distance. The most nonsensical part of the Bill is that nearly the whole of the United Kingdom is included in the cargo-handling zone.
      Mr. Spearing: Did the hon. Member say that almost all the United Kingdom will be included in the cargo-handling zone? If he did, he should reconsider.
      Sir A. Meyer: I cannot wave a map in the Chamber as hon. Members did in Committee but, bearing in mind the vast tracts of the country which are to be included in the cargo-handling zone and the extra powers of the Minister under the Bill, I am right to say that the whole of the Kingdom could be classed as a cargo-handling zone.
      The pressure of a minority of the minority has been able to force the Labour Party into supporting that concept. The whole country will be covered by the cargo-handling zone. I hope that the Government will at least give an assurance that they will provide a proper definition of the cargo-handling zone.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I refer to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which concern the new definable dock areas. In the Lords' suggestion lies a ray of hope for the way in which the Bill will operate. Hours were spent in Committee trying to explain that the Government intended to extend and classify as dock work areas of industry such as distribution and warehousing which are not traditionally dock work. That is of great concern to the nation.
      It will not do to say merely that, because of the dreadful and hazardous history of dock work in traditional docks, it is now necessary to start to re-classify chunks of the industrial sector of the economy outside as susceptible to being classified as dock work. I do not exaggerate and say that every job in every cold store and every warehouse will be so classified, but it has been pointed out that the Government are involved in establishing an elaborate means test to ensure that those depots will be so
      564
      classified if the Secretary of State directs. This system is being established to support the continuation of the register and of the 30,000 members thereon for whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is so eloquent and persistent a spokesman.
      It is now likely that areas of British industry, and, in particular, distribution, will be classified as dock work. When the miners were faced with the inevitable closure of numerous pits, there was not on behalf of that industry the same view expressed by the National Union of Mineworkers—that jobs in areas around the pits or near the pits should be re-classified as miners' work.
      This is a peculiarity attached to this legislation. It is a preservation order, so to speak. It is an expression of the belief that the dinosaur image which the docks have traditionally had but which they no longer deserve should be preserved and carried through into other aspects of distribution. This is selling the dockers short in relation to the reputation that they enjoy.
      We on this side do not say that there should be no future for the registered and well-organised dock worker. We as an importing and an exporting country recognise the essential rôle that dockers play in the national economy, but we are bound to ask the Government: why is it necessary to preserve this register in this way, so that other sectors of the industrial process which have no traditional link with dock work will be classified as such? Why cannot dockers, if they seek employment in other sectors of industrial life, join the appropriate union and company and take the appropriate job? Why must they come in and bring with them the peculiarities that pertain to dock work when they say, reasonably, as the work is reducing at the ports "We seek alternative employment and a more secure future"? Surely the correct view has always been, and must remain, that if we are to be viable and efficient in running our economy we must pay due regard to the fact that working conditions and practices must change. Nowhere is this more obvious than when transferring dock work to distribution depots and parts of cold-storage depots.
      I ask the Secretary of State to direct his attention to two statements. The first

      565
      is a statement made on Second Reading by his predecessor as Secretary of State for employment:
      "As a result of…discussions we have agreed…that long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not he classified as dock work".—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 267.]
      I contrast that statement with that made by Lord Jacques, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place:
      "The Government's view is, however, that cold storage work away from the immediate dock area and not now integrated with the loading and unloading of ships needs to be classifiable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th November 1976; Vol. 376, c. 1608.]
      Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Why has the guarantee given by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) when he was Secretary of State for Employment been set aside by the noble Lord leading for the Government in another place? What are the changes which have come about which have led to this guarantee being thrown away? The Secretary of State will remember that I referred to the cold-storage industry at some length in Committee as vital not only to our national survival in terms of food supply but to the development of many aspects of distribution and storage It is not in large measure associated with traditional dock work. It is not associated with the refrigerated cargo industry, which was so often a part of natural dock employment. It developed as a separate attribute of food manufacture and distribution, located in many inland areas which now come within the proposed cargo-handling zone. I ask for a clear explanation from the Secretary of State. Why should he believe that the guarantee offered by his predecessor should no longer be offered at the House of Lords Report stage?
      11.15 p.m.
      In this series of amendments we have the core of the case. Another place has suggested a new way of defining the cargo-handling zone. To relate it specifically to historical dock work is a much more satisfactory way of describing what the docker really seeks. He has every right to be proud of his craft. He seeks something where that craft can have a secure future. The "definable dock"
      566
      is much to be preferred to the cargo-handling concept. It would almost certainly remove many of the areas of real disagreement felt by the warehousing and distribution sectors of the economy over the proposals in the Bill to make sure that the dockers, who have supported the country very well for many years, working under difficult circumstances, should have a secure future.
      What this House cannot accept is that the preservation of 30,000 jobs in exactly the same way as they have always been carried on is more important than the development of new industry, with new methods and new technology to contribute to our economic growth. To do anything which sacrificed the prospect of economic growth would be a damning indictment of the Government.
      Mr. David Price: I do not see why the Secretary of State cannot accept subsection (2D) of Lords Amendment No. 13, the definition of "small harbour". The right hon. Gentleman told us a number of times in Committee that in practice the small harbours would be excluded. The definitions used in Committee produced rather larger harbours than those produced by the definition in the amendment. I do not believe that in terms of the protection of employment, for which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Leyden) has been arguing throughout the consideration of the Bill, it would give anything away to concede this definition. It would be an enormous relief to people in the remote fringe areas of the country, particularly in the islands and Cornwall. I do not believe that they will be brought in. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's implicit undertaking in Committee that they will not. Therefore, lie would give nothing away by accepting the amendment.
      We argued the five-mile zone as against the half-mile zone in Committee. I personally have been consistently against a geographical definition. I preferred to rest on the broader definitions in Clauses 6 to 12. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I found common cause in this, and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) seemed to have the same idea. The moment one starts defining geographical limits one finds the non-senses that have come up throughout the passage of the Bill.
      Mr. Spearing: I do not think that we agreed on the question of the five-mile zone. What I think we agreed on was that the difficulty about the Bill was that if it was to work properly it was impossible to provide definitions which, legally applied, would not produce nonsenses. To that extent the hon. Gentleman and I were in accord in Committee.
      Mr. Price: That matter raises wider issues. As I said in the debate on an earlier amendment, if we had had a Select Committee to consider the question when the Bill was in the form of a White Paper the hon. Gentleman and I and many other hon. Members would have been much closer together. The scheme was presented to us as a fait accompli. One of the distressing aspects is the extent to which the Government have not been prepared to modify it during its passage through both Houses.
      The concept of the five-mile zone was produced in the report of the Bristow Committee, which was specifically charged to deal with the problems of the Port of London, and no other port.
      The other important point about the Bristow report was that it dealt with employers and unions involved in the industry. It did not deal with any of the other activities which might be brought within the Bill. It was made clear in that report that evidence was not taken from any of the other interests. When the Minister in the other place persisted in treating the Bristow report as a sort of Bible, therefore, he was wrong.
      The report said
      "We reached the unanimous conclusion early in our deliberations that, while we must obviously take into account if we were to make any useful and realistic recommendation that many interests not represented on the Committee would be affected and ought to have their views considered, for us as a Committee to attempt to hear them and evaluate their objections to the proposals we mean to recommend would make it impossible for us to put forward any agreed recommendations whatever within the foreseeable future."
      The members of the committee realised that they could not make such a recommendation; so, rather than look at the subject intelligently and sensibly, they preferred not to look at it at all. Therefore, to use the report as a justification for the five-mile zone is to rest the dockers' corridor upon a faulty base.
      568
      Let me remind Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Garston, that since the Bill was given a Third Reading the report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee has been issued. It contains extremely important recommendations. The committee recommended that the Government should resume responsibility for some of the costs of the surplus manpower within the port. The committee came to the conclusion that the PLA and the employers were in danger of pricing themselves out of the market because of the burden of carrying this surplus labour. Labour Members should bear that in mind.
      Mr. Iain Sproat: I wish to deal with the question of the small ports. How infinitely depressing it is for us all to have sat through the many long hours in the Committee and to have read what the other place said about the Bill only to find that the Government have not moved an inch in their attitude to the small ports.
      They still display the stupid obstinacy with which they started the Bill off. Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), admitted that the Bill was produced not in response to the will of the nation but because it is the will of the TUC. That demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the Bill and the country.
      There are more than 120 small ports in Scotland. I can give three examples to show how ludicrous it is to apply the principles of the Bill to them. In Committee the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that we should all realise that what was good for London was not necessarily good for anyone else in the United Kingdom. He was right. It is clear that the Bill, which was largely based on the needs of London, is grotesquely absurd in its application to the small ports of Scotland.
      Take the case of Montrose. The port estimates that the Bill will add between £75,000 and £80,000 a year to its costs. It will be priced out of business. The 60 dockers in Montrose do not agree with Labour Members who say that the dockers in the small ports agree with the Bill. The men from Montrose came to the House and made clear their total opposition. Those men will lose their jobs and the port will be closed.

      569
      Let us consider the port of Perth—
      Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Montrose, will he give us some idea of how the extra expenditure is to be allocated?
      Mr. Sproat: Of the 63 dockers who work at Montrose, 30 are regular and 33 are part-time. Under the scheme they would all have to be regular and, therefore, the wages bill would increase. That is the simple reason. Why should the men who wish to work part-time be forbidden from that employment by the Government?
      Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing rose—
      Mr. Sproat: No, I must get on.
      Another example is the small port of Stornoway. All the goods that come into the Western Isles have to come by sea. We know that the Bill will increase costs. It will increase the cost of living for everyone on the islands. Why should their cost of living be increased to accommodate the ideological obstinacies of the Government? I ask the Government to give a categorical assurance that the small ports of Scotland, which have nothing to do with the principles upon which the Government appear to base the Bill, will not be included in the Government's plans.
      Mr. Booth: I have listened with great care to ascertain whether a case would be deployed in support of the Lords amendments. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that this group of amendments took us to the crux of the Bill. If I may paraphrase him, he said that it took us to the very centre point and that the corridor concept is all wrong. I do not think it matters very much whether we talk about a definable dock area or a cargo-handling zone, because the issue at stake is quite clear, although only one Opposition Member touched upon it while completely rejecting the idea of having any geographical test.
      Whether it is called a corridor, a cargo-handling zone or a definable dock area, the issue is the same. All that is before us in the amendments is whether we choose one sort of corridor or another. That is the issue before us on any of the tests put before the House.
      570
      I contend that the cargo-handling zone in the Bill has a great deal in its favour. A great deal can be said for it that cannot be put forward for the amendment. Let us use some of the tests put to us by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that whatever else the legislation must be if it is to win the support of the House, it must be clear. However, he was not clear about the effect of the amendment. He was not clear about the area that would be covered, along with a great many Opposition Members. They do not seem to realise that it would drive corridors across the map of Great Britain one mile wide based upon the centres of rivers and navigable canals and waterways that are so defined for the purposes of another Act.
      The objections that have been raised have been applied only to the Bill and not to the amendments. Hon. Members may take the view that one type of area corridor or width that is based upon one type of waterway as opposed to a high-tide mark is better than another. I should have been happy to listen to arguments advanced to support the superiority of one area of survey as opposed to another, but that has not been done. It has been said that the proposition contained in the Bill is a ludicrous limitation to put on an area of survey and that another one put forward by another place is totally acceptable. Even if one could leave that aside—does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
      Sir John Rodgers: Yes. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept it?
      Mr. Booth: No, I certainly do not.
      11.30 p.m.
      Sir John Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the House of Lords' propositions was acceptable. Now he says that it is not.
      Mr. Booth: I did not say that the House of Lords' proposition was acceptable. The hon. Gentleman did not hear me aright. I said that one part of the House of Lords' proposition, in so far as one could apply the criticism of a corridor approach to it, was just as much

      571
      a corridor approach as the Government's approach.
      But there is another objection to the House of Lords' proposition which cannot be applied to the Government's relating to the small ports. It seems surprising that hon. Gentlemen have not taken the trouble to read it, having expressed concern about the small ports. As a criticism of the Bill, they have said that the Government are taking power to extend the cargo-handling zone. Has any Opposition Member made a single reference to the fact that if we agree with these Lords amendments the Government will have power to lay an order to change the effective definition of the small ports?
      The proposed subsection (2D)(a) defines a small port by the number of hours worked. Lords Amendment No. 14 would enable the Secretary of State by order to change the number of hours.
      Subsection (2D)(b) defines a small port—this is one of the alternatives—by the gross registered tonnage of the vessels which can go in and be accommodated at mean high water. Lords Amendment No. 14 would give the Secretary of State power to change that tonnage.
      In answer to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), I say that, while I cannot run round the coast of Scotland tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have not only physical limitations but obligations to this House. I am sure that the prospect would be more pleasing if I were attempting to do that than looking in this direction at the moment.
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire asked me to name ports which would be exempt. In all fairness, I cannot do that on the Lords' proposition, for the reasons which I have already given—namely, that it allows for the limits of the small ports to be changed—any more than I can on the proposition in the Bill.
      Mr. Prior: That is a weak argument.
      Mr. Crawford Mr. Crawford rose—
      Mr. Booth: I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), from a seated position, said that it was a weak argu-
      572
      ment to say that the Lords' proposition allows the definition of small ports to be changed.
      Mr. Crawford Mr. Crawford rose—
      Mr. Booth: The House must surely accept that if one of the objections to the definition of the cargo-handling zone is that it can subsequently be changed by order, it is equally an objection to the Lords' proposition for defining small ports if it can subsequently be changed by order.
      Mr. Crawford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Secretary of State, who is de jure the author of the Bill, cannot name the small ports in Scotland which are exempt from the scheme, which is a very sad state of affairs, how can we in Scotland decide whether he knows anything about the Bill?
      Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman must study the terms of the Bill. He will see that the tests which determine whether a port will be covered by the Bill are set out there, and the procedure is set out as well.
      I cannot name the ports as of now because the Bill is not designed to deal only with the immediate situation. It is meant to serve us in the future as well. As a port may change in the future, so it may, by the definition of the Bill, be subjected to survey, and possibly brought within the scope of the scheme.
      It is not possible to say, on the basis of either the Lords amendment or the Bill, that any one small port will, for all time, be inside or outside the scheme. This is understood by all those who have studied the Bill from the outset.
      Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned "for all time". It would help us to know the number of small ports excluded from the Bill, given the Lords amendments as they are now, and not given the additional safeguard that a small port can be expanded at a future date. How many small ports are excluded from the Bill as it is drawn up in subsections (2A), (2B), (2C) and (2D).
      Mr. Booth: It is not possible to answer. [Interruption.] We are not being asked tonight only to reject or accept Lords Amendment No. 13. The proposition to

      573
      which I must address myself is that Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be passed together. If we were to do that, the definition of a small port could and would be changed by order.
      Mr. Leon Brittan: Of course it can be changed by order, but the order has not been passed, and until such an order is passed the definition in the Lords amendments is perfectly clear. The Secretary of State should be able to say what the position would be.
      Mr. Booth: If that is the basis on which the hon. Gentleman is making his assertion, I could, by exactly the same test, say that the Bill is perfectly clear also.
      Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By my calculations there are six Ministers and suchlike on the Government Front Bench, and eight officials and suchlike in the Official Box. Why cannot these gentlemen give the Secretary of State the bit of simple help he needs to answer us?
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman know too well that he is exploiting the phrase "on a point of order".
      Mr. Wells Mr. Wells rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman not hear what I said? I shall repeat it. He has been here long enough to know that he is exploiting the phrase "On a point of order".
      Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Booth: If I may respond to the last point made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who asked me to consider the hypothetical proposition that we have Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 before us, and that the Bill does not contain any provisions for changing the cargo-handling zone, my answer is that in that case the Bill is infinitely clearer than the Lords Amendment. In the Lords amendment the area which we are forced to consider for the purposes of the survey test can be changed, and it is so unclear that it has been misunderstood by all the hon. Members opposite who have spoken.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: There are 23 dockers in Stornoway, and they are all members of the Transport
      574
      and General Workers' Union. They tell me that if the Bill goes through their employment will come to an end. We have the highest transport costs in the United Kingdom, and the highest cost of living. Is Stornoway to be exempted, or is the employment of those men to come to an end?
      Mr. Booth: The basis of the Bill is such that there is no automatic geographical location that is exempt or included within the Bill. That has been the case from the outset.
      I now turn my attention to the question of costs.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a short adjournment while the Minister gets some information?
      Mr. Speaker: I think that the House is getting a bit too excited.
      Mr. Booth: Perhaps it will help hon. Members who have not taken the trouble to study the previous debates on the Bill if I remind them that we have considered at some considerable length the merits or demerits of reconstructing the Bill in a way that would lay down for the life of an Act of Parliament which precise geographical areas, ports, and so on, are to be covered by the scheme and which are not, and that we as a House have rejected that proposition in favour of what we consider to be a more flexible and appropriate instrument to use when dealing with an industry that is changing rapidly because of the introduction of new technologies.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows the Bill inside out. Can he confirm my understanding that any small port that finds itself excluded may, none the less, later be included without the need for fresh legislation, or, conversely, that any port now included may find itself subsequently excluded without the need for fresh legislation? Is that the case?
      Mr. Booth: That is certainly the case. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might find that highly amusing, but those who even begin to understand the changes that take place in dock work and in the cargo-handling industry will see that it

      575
      makes a great deal more sense to recognise that these changes may make it appropriate or inappropriate for the scheme to apply in an area, and they might also understand why we have constructed the Bill in this way.
      A question was asked about the costs of operating the scheme. It has again been alleged that the cost of the scheme is one of the principal objections to it. This issue was raised for the first time, if I recall correctly, by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft on Second Reading, when he said:
      "We all know that costs will rise enormously. The British Importers Confederation says that the figure will be as high as £150 million."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 280.]
      That figure has been widely quoted. I have examined the basis for the figure, and, in view of the repetition of the argument that a major objection to the scheme is that it will bring about additional costs, the House may like to know that the figure is totally fallacious.
      It was fallacious because statistically what was used to achieve that figure was totally inaccurate. What the British Importers Confederation did was to include in the low-cost non-scheme ports a number of small scheme ports. The confederation therefore got its figures completely wrong. Among the ports included as low-cost non-scheme ports were Ipswich, Sheerness and Rochester—all scheme ports. That made the figure completely wrong.
      If one divided the figure of £150 million by the number employed in the ports which are proper non-scheme ports one would be adding £100,000 a year to the wages of the workers concerned or, alternatively, increasing the labour force in those ports twenty-fold. Any hon. Gentleman who makes these assertions about the enormous cost of the scheme should check his figures more carefully and certainly not listen to some of the misleading propaganda which has been advanced in opposition to the Bill.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the Minister. He has mentioned Sheerness and Rochester. He must be aware that the Medway and the Severn are the only two tidal rivers, besides the Thames, which
      576
      are specifically mentioned in Magna Carta. He must also be aware that Sheerness and Rochester are both located on the Medway. He will, therefore, be aware that the Medway, as a tidal river, reaches Maidstone. Is he aware that one of the most important elements in my constituency is the import of paper wood pulp? Wood pulp comes to Maidstone and Aylesford through Sheerness and Rochester in barges loaded off the side. Is the Minister really saying that with the inclusion of Sheerness and Rochester we are to suffer dock workers in the paper mills of Mid-Kent?
      Mr. Booth: Most hon. Members attach their attention to legislation which is slightly more recent than Magna Carta when making comparisons with the purpose of the dock work scheme.
      I do not necessarily accuse the hon. Gentleman of that particular sense of perspective, but on the basis of the tidal waters datum for determining the cargo-handling zone, of course it is the case that the factors which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are only appropriate in the survey in so far as all other tests apply. Therefore, I do not think anyone is likely to suggest, from a serious reading of the Bill, that the work of paper workers in paper mills can by any stretch of the imagination be turned into dock work by the provisions in the Bill.
      Sir John Hall: The Secretary of State has poured scorn on the estimate of £150 million as the additional cost, but has not told the House what the figure is in his estimation. Has he himself made an estimate of the additional cost?
      Mr. Booth: I examined at length in Committee the relative positions of scheme and non-scheme ports. I cannot call the figures to mind at this stage. Perhaps if the hon. Member had come into the Chamber earlier and displayed some interest in the debate, we might have had the figures available by now, but since he did not I have not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) raised a point which was also raised by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, but in a rather different way. The latter addressed the House as he has done several times before. He said that the Bill gave

      577
      dockers a legal right to claim other men's jobs. That is part of the malicious propaganda campaign waged against the Bill by its opponents—the suggestion that an extension of the scheme will lead to existing employees losing their jobs and being replaced by registered dock workers.
      There may have been some scope for misunderstanding long before we began to enact this measure. But before we did so, my predecessor answered a parliamentary Question so as to make it perfectly clear that that was not the case. The issue was raised again on Second Reading, when my predecessor again made it clear that if there was any doubt about whether or not jobs would be put in jeopardy, we would table in Committee any amendments necessary to safeguard the position. That we have done.
      Let the House consider how seriously we can now take the hon. Member for St. Marylebone when he says that the Bill will give dockers a legal right to take other men's jobs. In Committee, he and his Front Bench colleagues made similar suggestions, saying that the people who needed protection were not dockers but others whose jobs were in jeopardy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I take it that that is endorsed. At least there is no disagreement on that. But not one of the 230 Lords amendments has been concerned with giving additional protection to other workers. So anyone who says that they were concerned about protection for other workers is not borne out in his claim that the House of Lords is representing the country and serving the interests of those workers.
      I repeat again tonight what I have said many times before, for the benefit of those whose view of the Bill might still be influenced by the skilful and misleading propaganda put out by groups like Aims of Freedom and Enterprise. Any workers employed in jobs which might be brought within the scheme will remain in their jobs and will retain all existing statutory rights, including protection against unfair dismissal, or will have those rights further improved by becoming fully-registered dock workers.
      That is the position: we have sought throughout these debates to ensure protection. The amendments before us do not contain any proposition that would improve the Bill, and I therefore hope that the House will reject them.
      Mr. Brittan: During our three-and-a-half hour debate there have been several extremely cogent and powerful speeches from my hon. Friends in support of the amendments. Without disrespect to my hon. Friends, by far the most powerful speech—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that when an hon. Member is addressing the House he should do so without turning his back on you?
      Mr. Brittan: That just confirms my view that, although my hon. Friends made several powerful speeches in support of the amendments, by far the most powerful speech in favour of them came from the Secretary of State. He did not substantiate anything he said. He told us that on Second Reading his right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State estimated the cost of the scheme at £150 million. Now, after the debates in Committee and on Report, for the first time he tells us that the basis of calculation of that figure is wrong. We cannot challenge it here and now, but we can have our doubts and express them when the right hon. Gentleman is unable to put forward an alternative figure. How can we have any confidence in him? How can we avoid asking whether that calculation made by his Government and his Department is any more accurate than is the Treasury calculation of the public borrowing requirement for next year?
      We have had a long debate, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern about small ports and the corridor. There has been no filibustering—and here I speak as much for Government supporters as for my hon. Friends. The fact that we have debated one group of amendments seriously for three-and-a-half hours illustrates that there was no possible justification for imposing a timetable motion.
      Criticisms of the House of Lords have been made by Government supporters. It is clear from the debates and the seriousness of the issues raised that the House of Lords, far from defying the constitution, has implemented it and done its job in passing the amendments.
      Everything that has been said confirms the Opposition's view that the extension of the dock labour scheme to small ports would disastrously threaten their survival

      579
      and confer no compensating benefits. As for the cargo-handling zone, its width is irrational, its extent is excessive and its effect would give a small section of a powerful union a wholly unjustifiable stranglehold on the nation's food supplies.
      The Minister said that acceptance of the amendments would replace one type of corridor for another, and he complained that the amendments were not clear. He omitted to take into account that we do not support the idea of a corridor at all, nor do we support the Bill. What we do support is the attempt made by their Lordships to reduce the ill effects of the Bill. Given material of this kind, as harmful as it is, of course the results even of these amendments are bound to continue to be harmful, but not one-tenth as harmful as the original proposals.
      12 midnight.
      If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see a difference in effect between a zone which goes for five miles all round the country and a zone which only goes for half a mile extending from the ports, and only from the ports, he is incapable of understanding his own Bill. There is an enormous difference.
      The right hon. Gentleman says that the five-mile zone is really only one of the tests, that many others have to be applied and that the small ports might escape But he will not be pinned down on that statement. It is merely an impression he seeks to give that the small ports will escape. When he wrote to Captain Joyner, Chairman of the Small Ports Consultative Committee, he was more candid. He said:
      "It would be misleading if I did not make it clear that the Government remains firmly of the opinion, expressed in paragraph 23 of the Consultative Document "Dock Works" that the Scheme should apply wherever significant third party loading and unloading opera. Lions are carried out. I recognise that the extension of the Scheme would cause problems for some non-Scheme ports, but on an overall view we believe that it could give rise to difficulties both now and in the future if the Scheme were not extended to virtually all third party loading and unloading."
      That is the measure of the lack of protection that the Bill gives.
      580
      Now the right hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that the small ports have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, he is incapable of giving the smallest justification to those representing the small ports for taking a crumb of comfort to their constituencies. That is the reality of the situation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) issued an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the point raised in the guillotine debate by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who said:
      "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…—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 72.]
      What is that but a threat of industrial action if the constitution of the country is carried out? My hon. Friend invited the right hon. Gentleman to denounce that statement and make clear that he opposes such threats. The right hon. Gentleman did not spare the House all sorts of detail, but he spared it the barest of answers to that simplest of questions. He has not denounced that threat.
      The Lords amendments do not achieve everything that we wish to see. The only way of doing that would be by not having the Bill at all. But they do provide a measure of protection to the small ports and against a threat which exists, the extent of which we do not know but which exists deliberately because of the way the right hon. Gentleman has framed his Bill.
      The most pernicious part of it all in many ways is the provision in Clause 4(6) that
      "The Secretary of State may by order extend…the cargo-handling zone, either by substituting for the distance specified…a greater distance, or by directing that some specified additional area of Great Britain be treated as part of the zone."
      What that means is that the whole of the country is under threat. The House of Lords has not removed that threat. It has reduced it. We should support it in its work.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 310.

      Division No. 390.]

      AYES

      [12.05 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Edge, Geoff

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Allaun, Frank

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lee, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Archer, Peter

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Armstrong, Ernest

      English, Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Ashley, Jack

      Ennals, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Litterick, Tom

      Atkinson, Norman

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Luard, Evan

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bates, Alf

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Bean, R. E.

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Flannery, Martin

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McElhone, Frank

      Bishop, E. S.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Boardman, H.

      Forrester, John

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

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

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Freeson, Reginald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Bradley, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Madden, Max

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Magee, Bryan

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      George, Bruce

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mahon, Simon

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Buchan, Norman

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Buchanan, Richard

      Gould, Bryan

      Marquand, David

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Ian

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Cant, R. B.

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hardy, Peter

      Mendelson, John

      Carter, Ray

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cartwright, John

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hatton, Frank

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Molloy, William

      Cohen, Stanley

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Moonman, Eric

      Coleman, Donald

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Horam, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Concannon, J. D.

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Moyle, Roland

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Huckfield, Les

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Cowans, Harry

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Newens, Stanley

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Noble, Mike

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hunter, Adam

      Ogden, Eric

      Cronin, John

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Ovenden, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Janner, Greville

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Padley, Walter

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Palmer, Arthur

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Park, George

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Parker, John

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      John, Brynmor

      Parry, Robert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Johnson, Waller (Derby S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Perry, Ernest

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Judd, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Dempsey, James

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Doig, Peter

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kerr, Russell

      Radice, Giles

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Richardson, Miss Joe

      Dunn, James A.

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lamond, James

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Eadie, Alex

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      583

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Watkins, David

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkinson, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Weetch, Ken

      Rooker, J. W.

      Stoddart, David

      Weitzman, David

      Roper, John

      Stott, Roger

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rose, Paul B.

      Strang, Gavin

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      White, James (Pollok)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ryman, John

      Swain, Thomas

      Whitlock, William

      Sandelson, Neville

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Selby, Harry

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tierney, Sydney

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Tinn, James

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Tomlinson, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tomney, Frank

      Woodall, Alec

      Sillars, James

      Torney, Tom

      Woof, Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Small, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Snape, Peter

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ward, Michael

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Aitken, Jonathan

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Henderson, Douglas

      Alison, Michael

      Dunlop, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Durant, Tony

      Hicks, Robert

      Arnold, Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hodgson, Robin

      Awdry, Daniel

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Holland, Philip

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Baker, Kenneth

      Emery, Peter

      Hordern, Peter

      Banks, Robert

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beith, A. J.

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Benyon, W.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Biffen, John

      Farr, John

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Hurd, Douglas

      Blaker, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Body, Richard

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      James, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Jessel, Toby

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Forman, Nigel

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fox, Marcus

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Brittan, Leon

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Jopling Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Freud, Clement

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Kilfedder, James

      Buck, Antony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Budgen, Nick

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Burden, F. A.

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Carlisle, Mark

      Goodhew, Victor

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Carson, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Knox, David

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gorst, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Channon, Paul

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Lane, David

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Gray, Hamish

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grieve, Percy

      Lawson, Nigel

      Clegg, Walter

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Cockcroft, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Grist, Ian

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Cope, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Lloyd, Ian

      Cordle, John H.

      Hall, Sir John

      Loveridge, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Luce, Richard

      Costain, A. P.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      MacCormick, Iain

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hannam, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      McCusker, H.

      Crouch, David

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hastings, Stephen

      MacGregor, John

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hawkins, Paul

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hayhoe, Barney

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      584

      585

      Madel, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Marten, Neil

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Mates, Michael

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mather, Carol

      Raison, Timothy

      Stokes, John

      Maude, Angus

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Reid, George

      Tebbit, Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mills, Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Thompson, George

      Moate, Roger

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Molyneaux, James

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Monro, Hector

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Trotter, Neville

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Morgan, Geraint

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Viggers, Peter

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Wakeham, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mudd, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Neave, Airey

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wall, Patrick

      Nelson, Anthony

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Walters, Dennis

      Neubert, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Newton, Tony

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Watt, Hamish

      Normanton, Tom

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Nott, John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Wells, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Shersby, Michael

      Welsh, Andrew

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Silvester, Fred

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Osborn, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Pardoe, John

      Speed, Keith

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Spence, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Penhaligon, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Percival, Ian

      Sproat, Iain

      Mr. John Currie and

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Stanley, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 4, line 12, at end, insert—
      "(2A) A definable dock area shall comprise any place in Great Britain which is within half a mile (in a direct line) of a harbour to which this Act applies or of the nearest harbour land adjacent to such a harbour.
      (2B) For the purposes of this section, "harbour" and "harbour land" have the meanings
      assigned to them by section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964."
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth.]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 311.

      Division No. 391.]

      AYES

      [12.21 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Conlan, Bernard

      Allaun, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Anderson, Donald

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Corbett, Robin

      Archer, Peter

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cowans, Harry

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Buchan, Norman

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ashley, Jack

      Buchanan, Richard

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Atkinson, Norman

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Cronin, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Ian

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Bates, Alf

      Cant, R. B.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Bean, R. E.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Carter, Ray

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cartwright, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Boardman, H.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cohen, Stanley

      Deakins, Eric

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bradley, Tom

      Concannon, J. D.

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      587

      Dempsey, James

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Radice, Giles

      Doig, Peter

      Kelley, Richard

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kerr, Russell

      Richardson, Miss Joe

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Dunn, James A.

      Lambie, David

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lamborn, Harry

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lamond, James

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Eadie, Alex

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Edge, Geoff

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lee, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Roper, John

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Rose, Paul B.

      English, Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Ennals, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Ryman, John

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Litterick, Tom

      Sandelson, Neville

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Selby, Harry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Luard, Evan

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Filch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Flannery, Martin

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sillars, James

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Silverman, Julius

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Forrester, John

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Small, William

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

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

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Snape, Peter

      Freeson, Reginald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Madden, Max

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Magee, Bryan

      Stallard, A. W.

      George, Bruce

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mahon, Simon

      Stott, Roger

      Ginsburg, David

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Strang, Gavin

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Gould, Bryan

      Marquand, David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Swain, Thomas

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mendelson, John

      Tierney, Sydney

      Hardy, Peter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tinn, James

      Harper, Joseph

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Tomlinson, John

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Tomney, Frank

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Torney, Tom

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hatton, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Moonman, Eric

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ward, Michael

      Horam, John

      Moyle, Roland

      Watkins, David

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

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Watkinson, John

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Weetch, Ken

      Huckfield, Les

      Newens, Stanley

      Weitzman, David

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Noble, Mike

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oakes, Gordon

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ogden, Eric

      White, James (Pollock)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hunter, Adam

      Orbach, Maurice

      Whitlock, William

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Ovenden, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Padley, Walter

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Janner, Greville

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Park, George

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Parker, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Woodall, Alec

      John, Brynmor

      Pendry, Tom

      Woof, Robert

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Perry, Ernest

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Mr. Joseph Ashton and

      Judd, Frank

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Mr. David Stoddart

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Alison, Michael

      Arnold, Tom

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      588

      589

      Awdry, Daniel

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mates, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Banks, Robert

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Berth, A. J.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Benyon, W.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Biffen, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Blaker, Peter

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Body, Richard

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moate, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hall, Sir John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan, Geraint

      Brittan, Leon

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mudd, David

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Neave, Airey

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nelson, Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Neubert, Michael

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Henderson, Douglas

      Newton, Tony

      Burden, F. A.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hicks, Robert

      Nott, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Carson, John

      Hodgson, Robin

      Oppenheim, Mrs Salty

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Holland, Philip

      Osborn, John

      Channon, Paul

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pardoe, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cockcroft, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Penhaligon, David

      Cope, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Percival, Ian

      Cordle, John H.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Corrie, John

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Costain, A. P.

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

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Jessel, Toby

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Crawford, Douglas

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Critchley, Julian

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Crouch, David

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jopling Michael

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Reid, George

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Dunlop, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Durant, Tony

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Elliott, Sir William

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Emery, Peter

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lane, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fell, Anthony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Forman, Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fox, Marcus

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shersby, Michael

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      McCusker, H.

      Sims, Roger

      Freud, Clement

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fry, Peter

      MacGregor, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Speed, Keith

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chatham)

      Madel, David

      Spence, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      590

      591

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Watt, Hamish

      Sproat, Iain

      Thompson, George

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wells, John

      Stanley, John

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Welsh, Andrew

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Trotter, Neville

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Stokes, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wakeham, John

      Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Younger, Hon George

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wall, Patrick

      Mr. Fred Silvester and

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Walters, Dennis

      Mr. Carol Mather

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a situation in which we have the Government defeated twice on a major piece of legislation—
      Mr. Thomas Swain Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East) rose—
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Do you recollect, Mr. Speaker, with your wide knowledge of precedents, whether it is in accordance with the precedents of the House that the Prime Minister should not be on the Treasury Bench on such an occasion?
      Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 4, line 12, at end insert—
      "(2C) A definable dock area shall not include any small harbour or any place within half a mile (in a direct line) of a small harbour, being a place which is not also within a similar distance of a harbour to which this Act applies.
      (2D) In subsection (2C) above "small harbour" means a harbour or wharf—

      (a) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended 3rd December 1975 by a person in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships did not exceed (on being averaged with the hours so worked by other pesons so engaged during that period) 1,350; or

      (b) which cannot, at mean high water, accommodate ships of a gross registered tonnage more than 1,000 tons; or

      (c) where the labour foce is employed substantially on a permanent basis and where the terms and conditions of service are no less favourable than the national terms laid down for ports affiliated to the National Joint Council; and for the purposes of this subsection "cargo" and "ship" mean the same as in Schedule 3 to this Act."

      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 310.

      Division No. 392.]

      AYES

      [12.37 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Allaun, Frank

      Campbell, Ian

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Anderson, Donald

      Canavan, Dennis

      Deakins, Eric

      Archer, Peter

      Cant, R. B.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Carmichael, Neil

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ashley, Jack

      Carter, Ray

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Ashton, Joe

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dempsey, James

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cartwright, John

      Doig, Peter

      Atkinson, Norman

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Dormand, J. D.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Dunn, James A.

      Bates, Alf

      Coleman, Donald

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bean, R. E.

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Concannon, J. D.

      Eadie, Alex

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Edge, Geoff

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Corbett, Robin

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cowans, Harry

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Boardman, H.

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      English, Michael

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Ennals, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cronin, John

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bradley, Tom

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cryer, Bob

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Buchan, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davidson, Arthur

      Flannery, Martin

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Luard, Evan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Ford, Ben

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Roper, John

      Forrester, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

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

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rowlands, Ted

      Freeson, Reginald

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Ryman, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Sedgemore, Brian

      George, Bruce

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Selby, Harry

      Gilbert, Dr John

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Golding, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Gould, Bryan

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv WE)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Graham, Ted

      Madden, Max

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Magee, Bryan

      Sillars, James

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Silverman, Julius

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mahon, Simon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Small, William

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hardy, Peter

      Marquand, David

      Snape, Peter

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hatton, Frank

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Meacher, Michael

      Stoddart, David

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mendelson, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Hooley, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Horam, John

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

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

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Swain, Thomas

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Huckfield, Les

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Molloy, William

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Hunter, Adam

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tinn, James

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Moyle, Roland

      Tomlinson, John

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tomney, Frank

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Torney, Tom

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Newens, Stanley

      Urwin, T. W.

      Janner, Greville

      Noble, Mike

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      John, Brynmor

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Ward, Michael

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Ovenden, John

      Watkins, David

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Watkinson, John

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Padley, Walter

      Weetch, Ken

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Weitzman, David

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Park, George

      Wellbeloved, James

      Judd, Frank

      Parker, John

      White, James (Pollok)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Parry, Robert

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Kelley, Richard

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Whitlock, William

      Kerr, Russell

      Pendry, Tom

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Perry, Ernest

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Lambie, David

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Lee, John

      Radice, Giles

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Woodall, Alec

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Richardson, Miss Joe

      Woof, Robert

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Lamond, James

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Litterick, Tom

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Mr. Frank R. White

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Beith, A. J.

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Alison, Michael

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Arnold, Tom

      Biffen, John

      Brittan, Leon

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Blaker, Peter

      Brotherton, Michael

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Body, Richard

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Banks, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      594

      595

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nelson, Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Neubert, Michael

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Henderson, Douglas

      Newton, Tony

      Burden, F. A.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hicks, Robert

      Nott, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Carson, John

      Hodgson, Robin

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Holland, Philip

      Osborn, John

      Channon, Paul

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pardoe, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cockcroft, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Penhaligon, David

      Cope, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Percival, Ian

      Cordle, John H.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Corrie, John

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Costain, A. P.

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

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Jessel, Toby

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Crawford, Douglas

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Critchley, Julian

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Crouch, David

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jopling Michael

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Reid, George

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Dunlop, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Durant, Tony

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Elliott, Sir William

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Emery, Peter

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lane, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fell, Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lloyd, Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Loveridge, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Forman, Nigel

      MacCormick, Iain

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fox, Marcus

      McCusker, H.

      Shersby, Michael

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Silvester, Fred

      Freud, Clement

      MacGregor, John

      Sims, Roger

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Madel, David

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Speed, Keith

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marten, Neil

      Spence, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mather, Carol

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Sproat, Iain

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanley, John

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter

      Stokes, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hall, Sir John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan, Geraint

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Thompson, George

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Trotter, Neville

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mudd, David

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hawkins, Paul

      Neave, Airey

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      596

      597

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Watt, Hamish

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Wakeham, John

      Wells, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Walker-Smith, Rt Han Sir Derek

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Wall, Patrick

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. W. Benyon.

      Walters, Dennis

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, my vote is guided by precedent, and I vote with the Ayes.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: It now being six hours after the commencement of the proceedings it is my duty under the Order which the House made on 8th November to put forthwith the necessary motions in respect of Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 52, to which there are Government amendments. These motions are, in each case, first, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, and, secondly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 52, as amended, agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I now call the Minister formally to move in succession any motions to disagree with the remaining Lords amendments. I am explaining the position to the Minister and the House so that the House knows exactly what it is doing.
      Lords Amendment No. 14 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 4, line 13, to leave out subsections (3) to (7).
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 310.

      Division No. 393.]

      AYES

      [12.55 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Allaun, Frank

      Corbett, Robin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Anderson, Donald

      Cowans, Harry

      Ford, Ben

      Archer, Peter

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Forrester, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Ashley, Jack

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Cronin, John

      Freeson, Reginald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cryer, Bob

      George, Bruce

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Ginsburg, David

      Bates, Alt

      Dalyell, Tam

      Golding, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Gould, Bryan

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Graham, Ted

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Deakins, Eric

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boardman, H.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hardy, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Harper, Joseph

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dempsey, James

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bradley, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hatton, Frank

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dunn, James A.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunnett, Jack

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Buchanan, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hooley, Frank

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Eadie, Alex

      Horam, John

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Edge, Geoff

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

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Campbell, Ian

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Huckfield, Les

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Cant, R. B.

      English, Michael

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ennals, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Carter, Ray

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Hunter, Adam

      Cartwright, John

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Janner, Greville

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Fill, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Concannon, J. D.

      Flannery, Martin

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      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

      Thorne, 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, Tom

      Urwin, T. W.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Perry, Ernest

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Luard, Evan

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Prentice, RI 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 Joe

      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 Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Roper, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Mahon, Simon

      Rose, Paul B.

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mallalieu, J.P.W.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Marquand, David

      Ryman, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Marshall, Jim

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodall, Alec

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Selby, Harry

      Woof, Robert

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Meacher, Michael

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mendelson, John

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Mikardo, Ian

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mr. Donald Coleman

      Miller, Dr M. S.

      Sillars, James

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Costain, A. P.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brotherton, Michael

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Alison, Michael

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Critchley, Julian

      Arnold, Tom

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Crouch, David

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Buck, Antony

      Crowder, F. P.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Budgen, Nick

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Burden, F. A.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Beith, A. J.

      Carlisle, Mark

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Carson, John

      Dunlop, John

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Durant, Tony

      Benyon, W.

      Channon, Paul

      Dykes, Hugh

      Biffen, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Blaker, Peter

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Body, Richard

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Emery, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clegg, Walter

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cockcroft, John

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Cope, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Cordle, John H.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Farr, John

      Brittan, Leon

      Corrie, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lane, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rippon, RI Hon Geoffrey

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lawson, Nigel

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Forman, Nigel

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Fox, Marcus

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Freud, Clement

      Loveridge, John

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fry, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      MacCormick, Iain

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      McCusker, H.

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      MacGregor, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shersby, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Madel, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sims, Roger

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Marten, Neil

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mates, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Gray, Hamish

      Maude, Angus

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Grieve, Percy

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Speed, Keith

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mawby, Ray

      Spence, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Grist, Ian

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Grylls, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sproat, Iain

      Hall, Sir John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mills, Peter

      Stanley, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Molyneaux, James

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Monro, Hector

      Stokes, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hawkins, Paul

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morgan, Geraint

      Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Tebbit, Norman

      Henderson, Douglas

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hicks, Robert

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Holland, Philip

      Neave, Airey

      Thompson, George

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Hordern, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Newton, Tony

      Trotter, Neville

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hodgson, Robin

      Nott, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Viggers, Peter

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Osborn, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Wakeham, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      James, David

      Pardoe, John

      Wall, Patrick

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

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Walters, Dennis

      Jessel, Toby

      Penhaligon, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Percival, Ian

      Watt, Hamish

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Wells, John

      Jopling Michael

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Welsh, Andrew

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Pym, RI Hon Francis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Raison, Timothy

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Kilfedder, James

      Rathbone, Tim

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Younger, Hon George

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Reid, George

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Knox, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Speaker: The House understands that my vote is guided by precedent. My vote is for the Ayes.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 disagreed to.

    Schedule 2

      MATTERS FOR NEW DOCK LABOUR SCHEME
      Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 24, line 37, leave out from "workers" to end of line 40 and insert—
      "(a) provison for training and welfare in so far as provision does not exist apart from the Scheme;
      (b) the administration of any severance in accordance with the terms of any national
      agreement of the National Joint Council or other relevant joint industrial negotiating body."
      Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 310.

      Division No.394.]

      AYES

      [1.15 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Allaun, Frank

      Dempsey, James

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Anderson, Donald

      Doig, Peter

      Janner, Greville

      Archer, Peter

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Ashley, Jack

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Dunn, James A.

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dunnett, Jack

      John, Brynmor

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Edge, Geoff

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Bates, Alf

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Bean, R. E.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Judd, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      English, Michael

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ennals, David

      Kelley, Richard

      Bishop, E. S.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Kerr, Russell

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Boardman, H.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Booth, RI Hon Albert

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lambie, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lamborn, Harry

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lamond, James

      Bradley, Tom

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

      Flannery, Martin

      Lee, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Buchan, Norman

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ford, Ben

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Forrester, John

      Lipton, Marcus

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Litterick, Tom

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

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

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Campbell, Ian

      Freeson, Reginald

      Loyden, Eddie

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Luard, Evan

      Cant, R. B.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Carmichael, Neil

      George, Bruce

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Carter, Ray

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ginsburg, David

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cartwright, John

      Golding, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Gould, Bryan

      McElhone, Frank

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Gourlay, Harry

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Graham, Ted

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Coleman, Donald

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Grocott, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hardy, Peter

      Madden, Max

      Corbett, Robin

      Harper, Joseph

      Magee, Bryan

      Cowans, Harry

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mahon, Simon

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hatton, Frank

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cronin, John

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Marquand, David

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Healey, RI Hon Denis

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hooley, Frank

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Horam, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Davidson, Arthur

      Huckfield, Les

      Mendelson, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hunter, Adam

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Molloy, William

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Moonman, Eric

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tomlinson, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Roper, John

      Tomney, Frank

      Moyle, Roland

      Rose, Paul B.

      Torney, Tom

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Rowlands, Ted

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Newens, Stanley

      Ryman, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Noble, Mike

      Sandelson, Neville

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

      Oakes, Gordon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Ogden, Eric

      Selby, Harry

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Ward, Michael

      Orbach, Maurice

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Watkins, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Watkinson, John

      Ovenden, John

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Weetch, Ken

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Weitzman, David

      Padley, Walter

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Palmer, Arthur

      Sillars, James

      While, Frank R. (Bury)

      Park, George

      Silverman, Julius

      White, James (Pollock)

      Parker, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Parry, Robert

      Small, William

      Whitlock, William

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Pendry, Tom

      Spearing, Nigel

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Perry, Ernest

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Prescott, John

      Stoddart, David

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Stott, Roger

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Radice, Giles

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Woodall, Alec

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Swain, Thomas

      Woof, Robert

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mr. Peter Snape and

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Mr. Joseph Ashton.

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Tinn, James

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cope, John

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Alison, Michael

      Cordle, John H.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Arnold, Tom

      Corrie, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Costain, A. P.

      Gorst, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Crawford, Douglas

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Critchley, Julian

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Banks, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Gray, Hamish

      Beith, A. J.

      Crowder, F. P.

      Grieve, Percy

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Benyon, W.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Grist, fan

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Grylls, Michael

      Biffen, John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hall, Sir John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dunlop, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Blaker, Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Body, Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hannam, John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Emery, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Brittan, Leon

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Henderson, Douglas

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Farr, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fell, Anthony

      Hicks, Robert

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Buck, Antony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Hodgson, Robin

      Budgen, Nick

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Holland, Philip

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Burden, F. A.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hordern, Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Forman, Nigel

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Carson, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Channon, Paul

      Freud, Clement

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fry, Peter

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Clegg, Walter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      James, David

      Cockcroft, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Morgan, Geraint

      Silvester, Fred

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Sims, Roger

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Jopling, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Mudd, David

      Speed, Keith

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Neave, Airey

      Spence, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Nelson, Anthony

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Kilfedder, James

      Newton, Tony

      Sproat, Iain

      Kimball, Marcus

      Normanton, Tom

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Nott, John

      Stanley, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Osborn, John

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Knox, David

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Stokes, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Lane, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Tapsell, Peter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Penhaligon, David

      Tebbit, Norman

      Lawson, Nigel

      Percival, Ian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Thomas, Rt Hop. (Hendon S)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Loveridge, John

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, George

      Luce, Richard

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Raison, Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      MacCormick, Iain

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      McCusker, H.

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      MacGregor, John

      Reid, George

      Viggers, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Wakenham, John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Madel, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walker Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Marten, Neil

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wall, Patrick

      Mates, Michael

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Walters, Dennis

      Mather, Carol

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Maude, Angus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Watt, Hamish

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mawby, Ray

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wells, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mills, Peter

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Moate, Roger

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Molyneaux, James

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Younger, Hon George

      Monro, Hector

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Mr. John Pardoe and

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Cyril Smith.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 51 and 53 to 58 disagreed to.
      1.30 a.m.
      Mr. Speaker: I now require to put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining amendments.
      Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
      Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government have now been defeated on a major piece of their legislative programme. There is obviously no majority in the House and no authority for the Government to pro-
      608
      ceed with the Bill. The correct course must surely be that the Government now drop the Bill. I call upon the Secretary of State to announce that he will drop the Bill and that he will make a statement to that effect immediately.
      Mr. Booth: The House has carried two of the amendments sent to it by their Lordships.
      I propose now to move,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments:
      That Mr. Booth, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Prior and Mr. Harold Walker be members of the Committee:
      That Three be the quorum of the Committee:
      That they withdraw immediately.
      Mr. Speaker: I have had a manuscript amendment handed to me, to add after the last name of the proposed members of the Committee "Mr. Stephen Ross".
      Motion made, and Question,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to.
      Motion made and Question proposed.
      That Mr. Booth, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Prior and Mr. Harold Walker be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Mr. Speaker: I now put the manuscript amendment.
      Amendment proposed: After "Walker" insert "Mr. Stephen Ross". —[Mr. Beith.]
      Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 311.

      Division No. 395.]

      AYES

      [1.36 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Alison, Michael

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Emery, Peter

      Hurd, Douglas

      Arnold, Tom

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Eyre, Reginald

      James, David

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

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

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Jessel, Toby

      Banks, Robert

      Farr, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fell, Anthony

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Jopling, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Biffen, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Kilfedder, James

      Body, Richard

      Fox, Marcus

      Kimball, Marcus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Freud, Clement

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fry, Peter

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Knox, David

      Brittan, Leon

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Lamont, Norman

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Lane, David

      Brotherton, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Goodhart, Philip

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Lawson, Nigel

      Buck, Antony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Budgen, Nick

      Gorst, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Burden, F. A.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Loveridge, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gray, Hamish

      Luce, Richard

      Carson, John

      Grieve, Percy

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Griffiths, Eldon

      MacCormick, Iain

      Channon, Paul

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      McCrindle, Robert

      Churchill, W. S.

      Grist, Ian

      McCusker, H.

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Grylls, Michael

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hall, Sir John

      MacGregor, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farmham)

      Clegg, Walter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McNair-Wlison, M. (Newbury)

      Cockcroft, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hannam, John

      Madel, David

      Cope, John

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Cordle, John H.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Marten, Neil

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mates, Michael

      Corrie, John

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mather, Carol

      Costain, A. P.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Maude, Angus

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Crawford, Douglas

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Mawby, Ray

      Critchley, Julian

      Henderson, Douglas

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Crouch, David

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hicks, Robert

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hodqson, Robin

      Mills, Peter

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Holland, Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hordern, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Dunlop, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, James

      Durant, Tony

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Monro, Hector

      Dykes, Hugh

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Tebbit, Norman

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Mudd, David

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thompson, George

      Neave, Airey

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Neubert, Michael

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Trotter, Neville

      Newton, Tony

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Normanlon, Tom

      Sainsbury, Tim

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Nott, John

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Onslow, Cranley

      Scott, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Osborn, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Wakenham, John

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Walker Bt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Wall, Patrick

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Silvester, Fred

      Walters, Dennis

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Sims, Roger

      Warren, Kenneth

      Penhaligon, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Watt, Hamish

      Percival, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Wells, John

      Pink, R. Bonder

      Speed, Keith

      Welsh, Andrew

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Spence, John

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Sproat, Iain

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Raison, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stanley, John

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Younger, Hon George

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Reid, George

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Stokes, John

      Mr. John Pardoe and

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mr. Cyril Smith.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tapsell, Peter

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cohen, Stanley

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Allaun, Frank

      Coleman, Donald

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Anderson, Donald

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Archer, Peter

      Concannon, J. D.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Ashley, Jack

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cowans, Harry

      Flannery, Martin

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cronin, John

      Ford, Ben

      Bates, Alf

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Forrester, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cryer, Bob

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

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davidson, Arthur

      George, Bruce

      Boardman, H.

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ginsburg, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Golding, John

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Gould, Bryan

      Bradley, Tom

      Deakins, Eric

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dempsey, James

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Buchan, Norman

      Doig, Peter

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hardy, Peter

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Harper, Joseph

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dunn, James A.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Campbell, Ian

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hatton, Frank

      Cant, R. B.

      Eadie, Alex

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Carmichael, Neil

      Edge, Geoff

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Carter, Ray

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hooley, Frank

      Cartwright, John

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Horam, John

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      English, Michael

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

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Ennals, David

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Huckfield, Les

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      612

      613

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Meacher, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hunter, Adam

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Sillars, James

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Mendelson, John

      Silverman, Julius

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Small, William

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Janner, Greville

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Molloy, William

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Moonman, Eric

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Stoddart, David

      John, Brynmor

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stott, Roger

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Strang, Gavin

      Johnson, Waller (Derby S)

      Moyle, Roland

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Swain, Thomas

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Newens, Stanley

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Judd, Frank

      Noble, Mike

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Oakes, Gordon

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Kelley, Richard

      Ogden, Eric

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Kerr, Russell

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Orbach, Maurice

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kinnock, Neil

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tinn, James

      Lambie, David

      Ovenden, John

      Tomlinson, John

      Lamborn, Harry

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Tomney, Frank

      Lamond, James

      Padley, Walter

      Torney, Tom

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Urwin, T. W.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Park, George

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Lee, John

      Parker, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Parry, Robert

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

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Perry, Ernest

      Ward, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Watkins, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Watkinson, John

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Prescott, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Loyden, Eddie

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Weitzman, David

      Luard, Evan

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Radice, Giles

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      White, James (Pollock)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Whitehead, Phillip

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Whitlock, William

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McElhone, Frank

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      MacLennan, Robert

      Hooker, J. W.

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Roper, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Madden, Max

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Woodall, Alec

      Magee, Bryan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woof, Robert

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Ryman, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mahon, Simon

      Sandelson, Neville

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marks, Kenneth

      Selby, Harry

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Marquand, David

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Mr. Peter Snape.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Main Question put forthwith and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question,
      That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Put, forthwith pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to.
      Committee to withdraw immediately.

    EDUCATION BILL
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.— [Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
    Put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day and, agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That Dr. Boyson, Miss Margaret Jackson, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. Frank R. White and Mrs. Shirley Williams be members of the Committee.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
    Mr. Speaker: I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
    Amendment proposed: After "That", insert "Mr. Alan Beith ".—[Mr. Peyton.]
    Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 308.

    Division No. 396.]

    AYES

    [1.52 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Farr, John

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Fell, Anthony

    Kirk, Sir Peter

    Alison, Michael

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Arnold, Tom

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Knox, David

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lane, David

    Baker, Kenneth

    Forman, Nigel

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Banks, Robert

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Latham, Michael (Mellon)

    Beith, A. J.

    Fox, Marcus

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Lawson, Nigel

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Freud, Clement

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Benyon, W.

    Fry, Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lloyd, Ian

    Biffen, John

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Loveridge, John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Luce, Richard

    Blaker, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Body, Richard

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    MacCormick, Iain

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McCrindle, Robert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    McCusker, H.

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Goodhew, Victor

    MacGregor, John

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Gorst, John

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Brittan, Leon

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Madel, David

    Brotherton, Michael

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Gray, Hamish

    Marten, Neil

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Grieve, Percy

    Mates, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Mather, Carol

    Buck, Antony

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Maude, Angus

    Budgen, Nick

    Grist, Ian

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Grylls, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Burden, F. A.

    Hall, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Carson, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Hannam, John

    Mills, Peter

    Channon, Paul

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Molyneaux, James

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Monro, Hector

    Clegg, Walter

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Cockcroft, John

    Heseltine, Michael

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Hicks, Robert

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Cope, John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morgan, Geraint

    Cordle, John H.

    Hodgson, Robin

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Cormack, Patrick

    Holland, Philip

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Corrie, John

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Costain, A. P.

    Hordern, Peter

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Cowans, Harry

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mudd, David

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Neave, Airey

    Crawford, Douglas

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Critchley, Julian

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Neubert, Michael

    Crouch, David

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Newton, Tony

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Normanton, Tom

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Nott, John

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Onslow, Cranley

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Drayson, Burnaby

    James, David

    Osborn, John

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Dunlop, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Durant, Tony

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Pardoe, John

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Jopling, Michael

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Elliott, Sir William

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Emery, Peter

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Penhaligon, David

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Percival, Ian

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kilfedder, James

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Kimball, Marcus

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Silvester, Fred

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Raison, Timothy

    Sims, Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Rathbone, Tim

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Viggers, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Speed, Keith

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Spence, John

    Wakenham, John

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Sproat, Iain

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wall, Patrick

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Stanley, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Watt, Hamish

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wells, John

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Stokes, John

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Scott, Nicholas

    Tebbit, Norman

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

    Younger, Hon George

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Shepherd, Colin

    Thompson, George

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

    Shersby, Michael

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Mr. Michael Roberts.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Allaun, Frank

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Anderson, Donald

    Cryer, Bob

    Grocott, Bruce

    Archer, Peter

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Ashley, Jack

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hardy, Peter

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Harper, Joseph

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Deakins, Eric

    Hatton, Frank

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Bates, Alf

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Bean, R. E.

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Dempsey, James

    Hooley, Frank

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Doig, Peter

    Horam, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dormand, J. D.

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

    Bishop, E. S.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Huckfield, Les

    Boardman, H.

    Dunn, James A.

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Eadie, Alex

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Bradley, Tom

    Edge, Geoff

    Hunter, Adam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    English, Michael

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Buchan, Norman

    Ennals, David

    Janner, Greville

    Buchanan, Richard

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Campbell, Ian

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Faulds, Andrew

    John, Brynmor

    Cant, R. B.

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Carter, Ray

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Flannery, Martin

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Cartwright, John

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Judd, Frank

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

    Ford, Ben

    Kelley, Richard

    Cohen, Stanley

    Forrester, John

    Kerr, Russell

    Coleman, Donald

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

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

    Kinnock, Neil

    Concannon, J. D.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lambie, David

    Conlan, Bernard

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Lamond, James

    Corbett, Robin

    George, Bruce

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Cowans, Harry

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Ginsburg, David

    Lee, John

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Golding, John

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Gould, Bryan

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Cronin, John

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

    618

    619

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stallard, A. W.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Orbach, Maurice

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Litterick, Tom

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Stoddart, David

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Ovenden, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Loyden, Eddie

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Luard, Evan

    Padley, Walter

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Swain, Thomas

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Park, George

    Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Parker, John

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Parry, Robert

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    McElhone, Frank

    Pendry, Tom

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Perry, Ernest

    Tierney, Sydney

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Tinn, James

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Tomlinson, John

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Prescott, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Maclennan, Robert

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Torney, Tom

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Urwin, T. W.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Radice, Giles

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Madden, Max

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Magee, Bryan

    Richardson, Miss Jo

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

    Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mahon, Simon

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Ward, Michael

    Marks, Kenneth

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Watkins, David

    Marquand, David

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Watkinson, John

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Weetch, Ken

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Weitzman, David

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Rooker, J. W.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Roper, John

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Meacher, Michael

    Rose, Paul B.

    White, James (Pollock)

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Mendelson, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    Whitlock, William

    Mikardo, Ian

    Ryman, John

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Sandelson, Neville

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

    Selby, Harry

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Molloy, William

    Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Moonman, Eric

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Woodall, Alec

    Moyle, Roland

    Sillars, James

    Woof, Robert

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Silverman, Julius

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Skinner, Dennis

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Newens, Stanley

    Small, William

    Noble, Mike

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Oakes, Gordon

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Ted Graham and

    Ogden, Eric

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Mr. Peter Snape.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put forthwith and agreed to.
    That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.],
    put forthwith pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to.
    Committee to withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

NAVAL AIRCRAFT YARD, WROUGHTON
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
2.6 a.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: The decisions of the House tonight have shown to a considerable extent the relevance of the comments that I propose to make, for the simple reasons that those decisions forecast the demise of this Government and the arrival in the not too distant future of another Government, who will be committed above all to the defence of this country. It is in relation to defence with regard to a particular base in this country that I wish to speak.
I would first give credit to the action group made up of representatives of trade unions at the Royal Naval Aircraft

621
Yard at Wroughton in Wiltshire. In recent weeks the Royal Naval Aircraft Yard must have been a thorn in the flesh of the Under-Secretary for the Navy, as well as the Ministry of Defence. I make no apology for this, since the currently proposed closure of that yard involves the jobs of some 250 men, many of them highly skilled but in an area of high unemployment.
Only last month the unemployment rate was 6·6 per cent. in the Swindon area, which includes Wroughton. It is because of that in particular that the action group in the aircraft yard has been so active. On the other hand, I would thank the Under-Secretary for having seen my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and myself at the beginning of August and for listening so carefully to our remarks about the aircraft yard. Even so, he cannot have heard all our remarks, or fully understood them. If he had, the proposal to close Wroughton would by now have been dropped. This brief debate provides a chance to repeat some of the points and to make others.
That said, it is a commonly held view, with which I have great sympathy, that the closure proposal stems not from logic or from a well-argued case or from the defence needs of the country, but simply from an edict of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because he knows that, in our present economic situation, when cuts in public expenditure are a necessity, he must make cuts in defence solely to mollify his left-wing. It is about time that that Soviet of left-wingers realised that by insisting on defence cuts they are adding directly to unemployment in different parts of the country.
Because of this, or for other reasons perhaps, an arbitrary decision was taken to close Wroughton. Without warning and with no prior consultation, on 15th February this year, suddenly out of the blue, employees at Wroughton were informed of the closure. The announcement was made only three days after another statement by the superintendent of the aircraft yard which predicted a rosy future for the yard.
That is a staggering way for the Ministry of Defence to behave. It is appalling when the current political masters of the Ministry of Defence are Labour politi-
622
cians who constantly preach consultation and who pride themselves on good trade union relations. The employees of Wroughton were simply faced with a fait accompli.
The behaviour of the Navy in respect of this yard appears even worse when contrasted with that of the Army in a similar situation which also arose in my constituency. Again in February of this year, the Army undertook a review of Army logistic restructuring in the United Kingdom. Among other bases involved was the Central Vehicle Depot at Ludger-shall, which is just in Wiltshire, albeit near Andover.
But no arbitrary decision was taken in that case. Far from it. The Army published a consultative memorandum whose purpose was
"to provide a basis for the Department's initial consultations with its departmental, staff and trade union sides".
The memorandum suggested the closure of the depot, but consultations were held. The unions were able to disprove the case on which the suggested closure was based, the suggestion was dropped and the depot remains in existence.
I do not know whether the outcome of a similar exercise at Wroughton would have been the same but, whatever the outcome, justice would have been seen to be done and the justification for the Navy's decision would have been tested through the consultative process. It is no defence now for the Ministry of Defence to claim that the former Under-Secretary visited Wroughton, as he did so only after the arbitrary decision had been made.
What is the Navy's justification for the closure proposal? First, it is that it will save money and, second, that the tasks performed there can be done by existing staff and installations, thereby adding an overall financial saving. I do not intend to bandy figures with the Under-Secretary across the Floor of the House. Common ground between the official and staff sides can be established only by detailed discussion around a table. Suffice it to say that every figure produced by the official side since the closure decision was made has been questioned and doubted, and no satisfactory reaction from the official side has there been. Furthermore, the staff side is of the opinion that figures are being produced almost at random merely

623
to justify the arbitrary decision and without a basis in fact.
Worse than that, the Wroughton staff believe that, far from saving money, the closure will add to defence costs while reducing the efficiency of the naval yard repair organisation, which at Wroughton has not only a naval rôle but a tri-Ser-vice role. One staff estimate is that the closure of Wroughton would mean an increased cost to the Ministry of Defence of £50,000, while the Ministry of Defence estimates a saving of £979,000. In comparing estimated costs we must bear in mind that we have insufficient information.
The alternative site for the Wroughton work is Fleetlands. In passing—I regret that it is necessary to say this—Fleet-lands is in or adjacent to the constituency of the former Under-Secretary of State for the Navy, and that, rightly or wrongly, has added still more suspicion to the whole affair.
My information is that Fleetlands, far from being able to cope with its new responsibilities on the basis of its present staff, will require 120 more fitters—not 40, which was the original figure mentioned during the summer. In addition, I have today been told that the capital cost of resiting the aircraft storage requirement from Wroughton to near Fleet-lands will be nearly double the original estimate. I cannot vouch for my figures, but it is clear that there is great confusion.
That confusion was made worse when the Ministry of Defence, in reply to a memorandum written by the action group at Wroughton about the closure of the yard, referred casually to the sale of land without giving any estimate of the sum expected to be realised from the sale. The possibility of sale raises other questions.
I am informed by one of the planning authorities involved—this is purely opinion—that in all likelihoods the sale of the land could be only on the basis of agricultural use. In other words, the land would have to revert to its original use. If so, the Ministry of Defence could easily incur huge expense in removing hangars and ripping up runways. What estimate has been made of that cost, and has it been included in the Ministry of Defence calculation?
624
I hope that I have said enough to emphasise the fog and confusion which exist about the proposal to close the aircraft yard. The uncertainties are many more than time allows me to describe. The questions in the minds of Wroughton employees still remain unanswered. What is the economic justification? What is the strategic justification? Is it right to centralise the repair work of naval and other Service aircraft? Why were there no consultations? Was regard paid to local employees' prospects in the Swindon area? Are the skills at Wroughton available at Fleetlands? What is proposed for the Wroughton site in future? These are only some of the many questions which need to be answered.
What is to be done? I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a fair duty to take back the decision to close the yard and to set up a public inquiry. Only then can all the facts be known. Only then can the Secretary of State be certain whether he is saving money or spending more. Only then can the Chancellor of the Exchequer know whether he is getting a good or a bad deal. Only then can this matter be judged against the country's defence needs. Only then can justice be seen to be done. If there is a public inquiry, I believe that the facts will speak so strongly that closure of the yard will not take place.
Mr. Daniel Awdry: I associate myself with the excellent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). Many of the employees who work at Wroughton live in and around my constituency. They feel, as the Minister knows, angry and re sentful of the way in which this decision was reached.
In view of the shortage of time, I want to emphasise only one serious aspect, that of prior consultation. It is a little surprising that the Ministry has made this mistake in the light of an earlier experience a few years ago at Copenacre naval depot, in my constituency.
There was then a decision taken with little discussion, but a public inquiry was held, chaired by the Bishop of Bristol. The facts were then fully discussed, and in the end the proposed closure was cancelled. People there felt that justice had been done and that they had seen it being done. There should be a public inquiry

625
in this case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he proposes to hold one.
2.23 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): It is entirely right that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) should have proposed this subject for our debate this evening. The closure of any Government establishment with any consequent loss of jobs is not a matter that can be treated lightly, especially at the present time. I can assure the House that the Government did not take the decision to close Wroughton lightly. I hope that the House will understand the reasons why we decided as we did, and why there could be no alternative in present circumstances.
It may be helpful to explain first Wroughton's rôle in the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, NARO. As well as the yard at Wroughton, there is a major aircraft yard at Fleetlands, near Gosport, an aircraft workshop at Perth, and a smaller facility which is part of the naval depot at Copenacre. The principal task of the organisation is the repair and servicing of helicopters for all three Services. The RAF has similar responsibilities for fixed-wing aircraft.
The Royal Navy began to assume a tri-Service responsibility for helicopters in 1972. The facilities then placed at the disposal of the Navy were those assessed to be required for a task which would build up very considerably over the 1970s. The capacity made available would have been sufficient to cope with that task. But since then the Government have undertaken a thorough defence review. There have been changes in the plans of all three Services. Moreover, we have had to make further reductions in our planned defence budget.
What was to be the effect of these various changes? We were bound to look most closely at all our support facilities. We had to ensure that we were getting value for money. That is a vital objective, as I am sure the whole House would agree. Whether the repair of helicopters is carried out in defence facilities or in outside industry—and the task is shared with industry—we must see that we get value for money.
626
We therefore made a careful examination of the future helicopter repair requirements for all three Services. It became apparent that we should soon have considerable surplus capacity in the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation. To remove the surplus capacity, we could have made reductions in our planned staff numbers at the various establishments. But our facilities would then have been under-used. The overheads would have made this solution uneconomical.
Alternatively, we could have diverted repair work planned for industry back to Service facilities. But we believe it is right that the aircraft industry should continue to receive its agreed share of the work. Besides, without major capital investment, Wroughton would not have been able to take on the work currently done by industry.
We concluded that the only course was to close Wroughton. Wroughton's repair task can be completely absorbed at Fleet-lands by 1979. Our forecast work load for Fleetlands for 1977–78—before Wroughton closes—compared with 1979–80 shows that Fleetlands' task will increase by only about 5 per cent. With the considerably reduced helicopter storage task now forecast, it will also be possible to store the necessary aircraft in the vicinity of Fleetlands.
The Services' operational capability will not be impaired by the closure of Wroughton. Moreover, the closure of an establishment, rather than a reduction in staff spread throughout the NARO, will produce greater savings to the defence budget.
The hon. Member for Devizes has scorned the financial savings that we expect to achieve from Wroughton's closure. I can confirm that it is our estimate that there will be a net annual saving to defence Votes in recurrent costs of about £1 million when Wroughton is finally closed. I can assure the House that the Navy can use that £1 million.
I appreciate that the closure of Wroughton is bound to be a painful process for the staff. I have listened with some sympathy to what the hon. Member for Devizes has said about the lack of consultation before the decision was announced, because I appreciate how vital consultation is. I would merely say

627
that earlier this year we had at short notice to draw up plans for achieving further savings on the defence budget. We saw no alternative to the closure of several establishments, of which Wroughton was one.
Although we were unable to consult before the decision, we have at least given notice of our intentions well in advance. We expect to complete the transfer of the aircraft repair task by 1979, although storage facilities could be needed for a period after that. Over the last few months the Ministry of Defence has been very willing to listen to the representations of the staff associations and trade unions. The Wroughton staff produced this summer a well argued report against closure and I have it here. I also have the reply of the Ministry of Defence. We took the representations of the staff and their own considered case very seriously, as can be seen in the note that I have now in my possession. I believe that that note reflected a full and sympathetic reply. I am therefore rather taken aback, to say the least, to hear the suggestion from the hon. Member for Devizes that we have not been prepared to listen to Wroughton's case.
I also have here a list of exchanges between my predecessor, and the previous Secretary of State, as well as myself, with the hon. Gentleman and with other local champions of the Wroughton case. I am looking at the list and I pick out names such as that of Mr. Vic Finlayson. There are also the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry.) The hon. Gentleman must know this, and cannot really be serious in his insistence that there has been a lack of consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Navy, visited Wroughton to explain personally to the work force why the Government had taken the difficult decision to close the yard. Both my predecessor and I have on several occasions corresponded on the closure of Wroughton with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Chippenham. What is more, we have both had discussions with all three hon. Members in the Department and here in this House.
628
In September, Wroughton staff representatives, together with the departmental staff and trade union sides, attended a meeting with the Chief of Fleet Support to discuss the closure. The Wroughton staff representatives have been offered a further meeting with my officials to discuss the background to the decision, together with the run-down plans. I hope what I have said sets the record straight on the question of consultation since February. We could not have had more in the time available, given the constraints to which were subject.
We are more than willing to discuss the arrangements for the run-down of Wroughton with the staff representatives. The closure of the yard will take place in stages, So far as possible, we shall try to avoid actual redundancies. Mobile staff—mainly professional and technical officers—will be offered transfers to other posts in the normal way. We have also offered aircraft fitters the opportunity to transfer to Fleetlands. We shall make every effort to offer alternative employment wherever possible. In these ways we shall do our utmost to ease the impact of the yard's closure.
As I said earlier, the closure of a defence establishment cannot be treated lightly. It is obviously important that the Services should have the facilities that they need, whether in a defence establishment or in industry, to ensure that helicopters are repaired and maintained in an efficient and timely fashion. Having served in the Fleet Air Arm myself and more recently seen some of NARO's work, I am well aware how important these support facilities are. I am satisfied that we have facilities that meet the Services' needs and will continue to do so after Wroughton has been closed.
But there is another aspect to this debate. As a defence Minister I also have a duty to see that the resources which the nation can devote to defence are spent wisely and economically. The Opposition may take a different view from the Government on the size of the defence budget, but they must surely accept, particularly when they call for further cuts in public spending, that, whatever the level of defence expenditure, the Services' requirements must be met as economically as possible. The Opposition cannot criticise us for sensible measures of

629
rationalisation, and the closure of Wroughton is essentially a measure of rationalisation.
Of course, it is true that the further defence cuts we have made, as part of our reductions in public spending, will affect jobs. We are very much aware of the consequencies. But we cannot justify the retention of establishments and staff for whom we cannot provide full work.
If we were not to take measures such as the closure of the aircraft yard at
630
Wroughton, we should have to take other measures that might put the Services' operational capability at risk. I am sure we have made the right choice. We now have to implement our decisions. I can assure the House not only that we shall be aiming to achieve the necessary savings in public expenditure, but that we shall also be giving all the help we can to the staff concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Three o'clock a.m.

TRANSPORT
  Lorry Routes (Signposting)
  Lorry Routes (Signposting)
  M40
  M40
  Road Fund Licences (Renewal Notices)
  Road Fund Licences (Renewal Notices)
  Roads (Circular 8/76)
  Roads (Circular 8/76)
  M25 (Cowley and West Drayton)
  M25 (Cowley and West Drayton)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Frozen Foodstuffs
  Frozen Foodstuffs
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
ENVIRONMENT
  No. 1 Carlton Gardens
  No. 1 Carlton Gardens
  Minister of State for Sport and Recreation
  Minister of State for Sport and Recreation
  Planning Blight (Compensation)
  Planning Blight (Compensation)
  Housing (Working Parties)
  Housing (Working Parties)
  Hillingdon (Compulsory Purchases)
  Hillingdon (Compulsory Purchases)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Malton Bypass
  Malton Bypass
  Bread Subsidy (Irish Republic)
  Bread Subsidy (Irish Republic)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions (Public Sector)
  Pensions (Public Sector)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Transkei
  Transkei
  Washington
  Washington
  Passports (Rhodesians)
  Passports (Rhodesians)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Passports
  Passports
  LEGAL AID (DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS)
  LEGAL AID (DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS)
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
  EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES
  EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Arbroath Infirmary
  Arbroath Infirmary
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
  Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
  Probation Orders
  Probation Orders
  Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)
  Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)
  Shetland Islands
  Shetland Islands
  Parliamentary Elections
  Parliamentary Elections
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Community Councils (Glasgow)
  Community Councils (Glasgow)
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  Kidney Donor Cards
  Kidney Donor Cards
  Meat Trade
  Meat Trade
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Larkhall (Industrial Development)
  Larkhall (Industrial Development)
  Raspberries
  Raspberries
  Oil-Related Debris (Compensation Claims)
  Oil-Related Debris (Compensation Claims)
  Gas-related Industry (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Gas-related Industry (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Red Deer
  Red Deer
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Housing (Constructional Defects)
  Housing (Constructional Defects)
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Civilian Employees
  Civilian Employees
  Logistics
  Logistics
  REME Fording Trials Branch
  REME Fording Trials Branch
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Muggings (Newham)
  Muggings (Newham)
  Crowd Control
  Crowd Control
  Newcastle, Central (Parliamentary Constituency)
  Newcastle, Central (Parliamentary Constituency)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Child Allowances and Benefit
  Child Allowances and Benefit
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Mr. N. R. Mason
  Mr. N. R. Mason
  £1 Notes
  £1 Notes
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Chilean Students
  Chilean Students
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
EMPLOYMENT
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Training (Scotland)
  Training (Scotland)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Derelict Land (Grants)
  Derelict Land (Grants)
INDUSTRY
  "Business Monitor" Sales
  "Business Monitor" Sales
  Steel (Offshore Oil)
  Steel (Offshore Oil)
  Petrochemical Industry
  Petrochemical Industry
TRADE
  Shipping (North Atlantic)
  Shipping (North Atlantic)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Shirts
  Shirts
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  Company Documents (Filing)
  Company Documents (Filing)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Manchester Royal Infirmary
  Manchester Royal Infirmary
  Orthotists
  Orthotists
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Orthotic Appliances
  Orthotic Appliances
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
  Medical Consultancies
  Medical Consultancies
  Mr. William Harrison Junior
  Mr. William Harrison Junior
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists

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

CONTRACEPTIVE PILL: WORKING GROUP'S REPORT
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, 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 propose to implement the recommendation of the Working Party to give wider powers of prescribing the contraceptive pill despite the fact that this is opposed by most medical organisations.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Joint Working Group on Oral Contraceptives has now reported to four bodies, three of which set it up. These four bodies will now be considering the report and will be conveying their conclusions independently to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It would be inappropriate for the Government to take any action on these recommendations meanwhile. The Government will consult professional organisations in due course in the normal way.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, will he bear in mind that, if these proposals are accepted, thousands of people without any knowledge of the side effects of these potent drugs will be permitted to give innocent and ignorant young girls advice, and does he think that that is desirable?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government are aware that this report does raise a number of matters which will have to be considered very very
330
carefully. That is not in dispute and I would say to my noble friend that I hope that she, as a member of a professional organisation, will make her views known to that organisation.
Lady RUTHVEN of FREELAND: My Lords, before he sits down may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the views expressed by community health councils, women's organisations and other organisations and by individuals, both medical and lay, showed substantial support for allowing suitably trained State Registered Nurses, midwives and health visitors to prescribe oral contraceptives and whether he is also aware that the consumer view is that the wider powers recommended by the Working Party should help to overcome some of the difficulties that women experience in going to a doctor or a family planning clinic for contraceptive help?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Baroness has said and it rather reinforced what I said a moment or two ago—there are many sides to this particular matter that will have to be considered.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister also take into account the vast expense that will be involved in training these medical workers, social workers and chemists in order to be suitable people to sell the pill over the counter or to give them to young girls; and would he consider that this should be a priority at this time of our economic situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is a matter that will have to be assessed in terms of money, but it is obviously a matter that will have to be considered very carefully.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that medical opinion on this issue is divided and that the recommendations of the Working Group are strongly supported both by the Royal College of Physicians and by the National Association of Family Planning Doctors?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is because of that that I was able to say that the Government will be consulting the professional organisations before expressing any view on the report.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the financial view expressed by the noble Baroness opposite is rather irrelevant, because the money that is spent on training nurses and midwives to give the pill will be more than saved by the amount of maternity benefit that will not have to be paid out?

MOZAMBIQUE: AID ALLOCATION
2.41 p.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much of the £15 million of aid allocated to Mozambique has so far been provided and what arrangements are being made to monitor the manner in which it is spent.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I informed the House yesterday, in answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, a loan agreement for £5 million has been signed. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development stated on 14th June that the Government of Mozambique will be required to certify the end use of each order before disbursements of aid funds are authorised. British officials will be permitted to inspect goods and documents.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, can she give an assurance that all information will be avialable? Surely, Mozambique is not a country that has the same resources for accounting and so on as some other countries and it will be difficult to obtain this information. Will the noble Baroness bear that in mind when the investigation takes place?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords; of course we are very conscious of that and I know that the noble Marquess will be glad to hear that British officials may personally inspect goods and documents on arrival and that
332
the Government of Mozambique has agreed to provide information whenever reasonably asked for.
Baroness ELLES: May I ask the Minister on what criteria these projects are to be based?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes my Lords, it is entirely for developmental assistance.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks of British officials inspecting goods and end uses, which is a fairly long-term job. Can she say whether she anticipates British officials being permanently in Mozambique for this purpose and, if so, how many and who will pay their fares and their subsistence?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have an Embassy in Maputo and there are very competent officials there. I could not possibly answer how much it would cost, but I am sure that there will not be any need for special air fares.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, since the details of the monitoring arrangements in Mozambique indicate a cosy intimacy with the Government accounting in Mozambique, is the noble Baroness able to give any indication what would be the proportions of the total expenditure on military operations in and out of Mozambique, compared between that spent by the Government and what would be provided by outside sources?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have no knowledge of any expenditure on military equipment and so on, but whatever might be spent, none of it will be spent by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether it is a fact that in Mozambique, quite apart from ideological views, a great deal is being done in health, education and child care by the Mozambique Government? Does she agree that contributions by our Government for those services should be supported by all of us in this House?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords, and it is our duty because we are bound to do so by United Nations resolution.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that, as she explained yesterday, if one is looking for a poor country—and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, about resources being put to good use—Bangladesh is considerably poorer than Mozambique?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do their best in the way of aid wherever it is required; and £15 million for Mozambique spread over many years is not much, but we hope that it will help where it is most needed.

SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS
2.44 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: 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 steps they propose to take to prevent or detect false claims for Social Service benefits; and whether they will review the legal penalties now operative.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would refer the noble Baroness to public statements made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security on 29th July this year and 21st September this year in which he described the further measures being taken to deal with Social Security fraud. It is intended to increase the maximum fine for an offence under the Supplementary Benefit Act, which is in addition to a maximum sentence of three months imprisonment, from £100 to £400, as is already provided under the Social Security Act 1975. These penalties, together with those which can be awarded when proceedings under the Theft Act are appropriate, are adequate.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, the announcement was made in, I think he said, July, which is about four months ago. Can he tell us whether these new penalties are operative
334
at this moment? Is the noble Lord aware that many steady, hard-working people are deeply resentful of the abuse of those who jog in and out of jobs, working out just how long they have to work to be eligible for benefit and to get their income tax back? Is the noble Lord also certain that employment officers are strict enough in seeing that people take jobs and are not allowed to refuse jobs which they are perfectly capable of carrying out?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness I should say that the penalty at the moment is a maximum of £100 and/or three months' imprisonment. We intend to seek the necessary power to have that increased to £400, and that will bring it in line with penalties of a similar nature. I pointed out that if proceedings are brought under the Theft Act, the penalty, so far as imprisonment is concerned, can be considerably greater. We have not failed to recognise the seriousness of this matter. I think that on a previous occasion I pointed out that there were over 15,000 successful prosecutions in 1975, which was twice the number for 1970, and it looks as if this year—I regret to say, in some respects—we are going to exceed that figure, because at present about 1,000 new cases are being investigated every week. So we are really trying to come to grips with this problem.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord undertake to study the implications of a judgment by Mr. Justice Brightman, reported in The Times today, where a gentleman living on Social Security spent his time collecting money for charity for orphans and pocketing the proceeds, and Mr. Justice Brightman said that he was doing nothing illegal?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord would not want me to comment on that, but I will bring the matter quite seriously to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, because at first glance it would appear to need real inquiries.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that if the noble Baroness opposite

335
would look at the Annual Report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission she would find much information that puts this problem into perspective? In particular, if there has been a recent increase this has to be related to the number of persons actually legitimately drawing Social Security benefit.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot reply, but she can ask another question.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I do indeed keep myself apprised of the reports of the Ministry, but I am very concerned that all those people who have faith in the National Insurance Scheme, and the many millions who willingly pay their dues for possibly their own and for the genuinely needy to draw upon them, are deeply resentful when they see this abuse? I am concerned that it brings the whole scheme into contempt by a bad minority who I think should be properly dealt with.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we would all accept that. I can only hope that publicity will be given to the fact that I gave to the noble Baroness a moment or two ago, when I said that every week about 1,000 new cases are being investigated.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed that almost every noble Lord who asks a Question in this House starts his first supplementary question with the words, "While thanking the noble Lord for that reply, will he do something or other?", which is an absolute nonsense because it means that the Minister is thanking himself?

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
3 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself again into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself again into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Functions of Board as regards withdrawal of NHS facilities from private patients]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 25 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 28, and I should like to speak to both Amendments. Amendment No. 25 is quite simply to leave out the word "and" in order that Amendment No. 28, which reads, "give its reasons", may be added to the matters which the Board ought to do. It seems to me that the easiest way to put this case is to ask the Minister who will reply why the Board is not required to give the reasons for its decisions, rather than to ask that the reasons for its decisions should be given. After all, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would agree that almost every organisation, Government Department or Minister, when giving a decision, is nowadays expected to give the reasons for that decision.
After all, under Clause 4(3) the Board must have regard to the principles which have been set out. It must consider representations made to the Secretary of State and by the Secretary of State; it must consider representations by doctors and by patients; and it must consider representations by other people who have a substantial interest in the matter. It is therefore being asked to listen to quite a number of different organisations before reaching a decision. The noble Lord will be aware that a court is always required to give the reasons for its decisions; in the case of a planning inquiry the Secretary of State or the inspector is required to give his reasons for what he concludes; the Ombudsmen, both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Local Government Commissioner, are required to give their reasons; and even another place is required to give its

337
Reasons for not accepting our Amendments. I therefore hope that it does not seem at all an unreasonable point that the Board should be required to give its reasons, and that is what this Amendment is designed to do. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly, she is in fact moving Amendment No. 25 as a paving Amendment to No. 28, and I do not know whether the noble Baroness wants me to reply to Amendment No. 28 now or merely to deal with Amendment No. 25.
Baroness YOUNG: I should have thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to speak to Amendment No. 28, because Amendment No. 25 really makes very little sense on its own.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That being the case, may I say that in the Government's view the Amendment is inappropriate for two reasons. I understand that the effect of the Amendment would be to require the Board, as the noble Baroness has said, in formulating proposals for the progressive withdrawal of authorisations of pay beds and private facilities, to give its reasons for its recommendations. In our view, the Board must have regard to the principles set out in subsection (7). In other words, before it makes any recommendations to the Secretary of State it must apply the four criteria and satisfy itself that there is a reasonable demand for private practice in the catchment area of the hospital or hospitals concerned; that sufficient alternative facilities are available to meet that demand; that, if there are not, all reasonable steps are being taken to provide such facilities outside the National Health Service; and if such steps are not being taken, that those concerned have been warned that failure to do so could result in the revocation of the existing authorisations. Secondly, the Board must consider representations from those concerned with, or interested in, any proposals it may make to the Secretary of State.
Should the Board then submit proposals to the Secretary of State, it seems to the Government that there will be no need for it to give reasons for its recommendations.
338
The Board's reasons will, I submit, be apparent; I think of necessity they must be apparent. Where it recommends separation, it will be satisfied that the facilities involved fall within the criteria for separation. Where it does not recommend separation, clearly it will have concluded that the criteria are not satisfied. I think Members of your Lordships' Committee must realise that the criteria are clearly set out in the Bill, so if the Board decides for or against it is because the criteria are being met or are not being met.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that in carrying out its duty to submit proposals to the Secretary of State the Board is intended to be completely independent. If the Board is going to be asked to give its reasons, the question could easily be asked: Why is it being asked to give its reasons when it is an independent body and its decisions should be accepted? Its reasons for making recommendations are, and will always be, that it is satisfied that it has met the requirements of the Act in respect of the progressive withdrawal of pay beds and other facilities for private patients. Whether or not the noble Baroness agrees with my answer, I hope she will think it is a fair answer, having regard to the responsibilities put on the Board and to the obligations that the Board must fulfil under the Bill.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I ask the noble Lord this question? Suppose the Board makes a very controversial decision, even though it is within the criteria set out here. After all, we are dealing with (what shall I say?) somewhat argumentative people, in the sense that doctors, members of the health services and all the rest of it are not people who are going to sit down and accept anything without question. Does it mean that the Board announces the decision as a fait accompli without anybody knowing what the reasons are except that there are criteria here? How do the people who want to know why find that out? Do they have to go to the court? What is the machinery for those people who do not understand a decision of the Board if the Board has not got to publicise it in a sense in which it can be understood by the ordinary person who is involved in this particular thing?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I appreciate the point which the noble Baroness has raised, but we have to bear in mind that here we have a Board of five members. There is one thing we can be absolutely certain of, and that is that the chairman is independent. He is independent, if I may say so with the greatest respect, of the medical profession, and is completely independent of the other two representatives. If the Board makes a decision, it can make that decision only on a majority viewpoint: it may be three to two, I concede, but it is nevertheless a majority. But the Board will have discussed with the various people concerned what is in fact involved in the withdrawal of pay beds; it will have discussed with the people involved the local situation, the local needs and requirements and what can be provided. We are, I think, dealing with a fairly high-powered board and not a run of the mill committee. It has, so far as I can see, no axe to grind, and will have an independent chairman. In view of the discussions that may take place beforehand, I think that this problem is much more academic than it is likely to be real.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Will the discussions which go on beforehand be public discussions so that people concerned will know what is being discussed? I am concerned that people should, if they want to, accept the Board's decision; but if they do not want to do so, how do they protest? That is an ordinary procedure—I was going to say "freedom of speech"—that we all have if we want to take a different point of view from that of some authority.
Lord SANDYS: We are starting on a very long debate which will last through the afternoon, evening and night and take us into tomorrow morning. I hope, if I may say so, in opening my remarks to the Front Bench opposite, that the somewhat threatening and monitoring manner adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, both on Second Reading and on previous Committee discussions will perhaps give way to a more mellow appraisal of this very difficult Bill. On behalf of my noble friends I can also say this. As my noble friend, Lady Young, lives in the Latin Quarter of Oxford, on our joint behalf I would say non perturbatnus. We are totally aware that there is a very substantial discussion ahead of us.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May we conduct the proceedings in English?
Lord SANDYS: For centuries it has been the practice of this House to treat a Latin quotation as an acceptable form of discussion. Nevertheless, I will draw that point to a close and come on to the Amendment as such. I hope that, first, I may cool the Government's impatience on the programme and refer to a document which I shall draw on from time to time which is the Royal Commission on Medical Education, the Todd Report (Command Paper 3569). If I may, I will quote one sentence in paragraph 21:
"The future pattern of medical care will be determined only partly by deliberate decisions. To a great extent it will be the result of developments in medicine itself."
I think it is a truism to say how often the unorthodox of yesterday becomes the orthodox of tomorrow. I do not think I need quote an example here, but I should like to refer to a debate on 12th May this year which was introduced on an Unstarred Question by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. It was in regard to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. The noble Lord will recall that he replied to that Unstarred Question and it was a very interesting one. Also, if I may, I refer to his right honourable friend the Minister of State, Dr. David Owen, and what he said in regard to this particular important subject. Dr. Owen in a broadcast on BBC4 early in May said:
"We are also slightly worried that, for instance, things like backache which can cost the nation over £100 million a year, is a very under-researched problem; but you have to have fundamental research and so I am wanting very much more public debate at this stage."
His right honourable friend referred to an issue which was brought up on that debate. I believe it would be much more satisfactory if we considered within the ambit of the National Health Service what might be called the fringe professions. I hope that they will take absolutely no offence at that expression. The unorthodox methods adopted so far as some medical practice is concerned may perhaps endear themselves to the Department of Health in the future, but if we adopt the attitude which is built into the Bill which is before the Committee it will not be possible to have the practice of these particular professions to anything like the same extent as may be possible without

341
the Board's intervention. I refer to other researches and we shall come on to research later, but let us consider this. British developments have been very significant in the medical field and I quote only two of them: waterbeds and airbeds. Both have been invaluable in medical care. If the Government's intention is taken to its logical conclusion, very little opportunity is going to be given for this type of innovation in the National Health Service hospitals, as we understand it, through the use of these innovations in private circumstances. I think that there is an overwhelming case to take a much more open view of this particular situation. I beg to support the Amendment.
Lord O'HAGAN: In order to save time, perhaps I could follow my noble friend and give the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the opportunity to answer us together. I should like to know from the noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, how he reconciles the answer he has given so far to my noble friend Lady Young with Clause 10 of the Bill that we are considering. This clause deals with the publication of proposals and the preparation of annual reports by the Secretary of State. It may save the time of the Committee if I read out the first few words of Clause 10 which are:
"The Secretary of State shall cause every set of proposals submitted to him under section 4 or 5 above"—
that is, Clause 4 or 5 of the Bill—
"and every report submitted to him under section 4(2)(b) above, to be published as soon as practicable after its submission …".
There then follows the mechanics of publication. It may be that I have not fully grasped what Clause 10 refers to. The word "proposals" in Clause 10 may be different from the word "proposals" in Clause 4. It may be that there is some subtle distinction which is beyond me. But even if there is a distinction is it not inconsistent that in Clause 4 we should have one type of proposals not to be published and then have Clause 10 the whole of which is devoted to making it possible for proposals to be published?
Clause 10 also deals with the annual reports. If the Government consider it may be inconvenient or impractical to issue a continuous stream of reports dealing with one particular set of circumstances after another, if there is a
342
technical objection to issuing a whole package of proposals one after another—it may be too expensive to do that—would it not be possible as a compromise, if we have the annual report which is to be debated by Parliament, to have what my noble friend is asking for included in the annual report? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the difference between the proposals as defined in Clause 4 and the proposals as defined in Clause 10. Could the noble Lord explain to the Committee why one type of proposal is to be published and the other is not to be published? I support the Amendment.
Lord SLATER: Could we have from the noble Lord who leads for the Opposition some clarification regarding the statement he made? He said that the Committee stage will take a long time. He did not address himself to the Amendment which is before the Committee at the moment. My noble friend replied that the Board will be set up with its independent chairman. I take it that the Board will have plenary powers and the casting vote will depend upon the chairman. Then the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that he supported his noble friend in what he had to say regarding the Amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, never referred to the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord, Lord Slater, is mistaken because what the Amendment says is obvious. It requires reasons to be given.
Lord SLATER: When the noble Lord sees Hansard tomorrow morning he will read what I have just stated. The statement he made was not as clear as he is trying to make out.
Lord SANDYS: I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Slater says. We are trying to include a number of professions and illustrate them in this particular sense. It is clear that the Amendment requires the Board to give reasons. I am illustrating it.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. Those who have anything to do with the National Health Service are bound to be worried that this important Board, which

343
would not have much to do with grass roots views, will be able to report to the Secretary of State but give no reasons to anybody else. Apparently nobody at grass roots level is to be told the reasons for the decision of these few men on the Board. The noble Lord said in his answer that the reasons will be apparent. Apparent to whom? Obviously they will be apparent to the Secretary of State but, unless they are asked to give their reasons, they will not be apparent to anybody else.
3.13 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, feels that I might become aggressive. I am the most cool of persons in the ordinary way but my comment the other day was made because I felt we were not making sufficient progress. We have already spent several hours on this Bill and we have not dealt with very many Amendments. As we have the rest of the day and the night before us, I hope that we shall keep cool because obviously there is no useful purpose served by behaving in any other way.
Lord SANDYS: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In answer to the noble Baroness, the only point I can make is there is no appeal to the Secretary of State because, rightly or wrongly, we feel that with this type of Board made up as it is the need will not arise. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, raised a matter which is, I concede, of some importance. The Board is answerable to Parliament for its annual report which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. That is perfectly clear. I know that it must give reasons for deciding not to recommend any further revocation at each six-monthly interval. That is a safeguard—I would not put it any higher than this—against unreasonable delay in carrying out the policy of separation which is enshrined in the Bill. Under Clause 10, the Secretary of State is required to publish each set of recommendations submitted by the Board. There is no requirement on the Board to give its reasons. I do not think that I have failed to answer any other question, and I do not think that there is
344
anything more that I can say on this matter.
Lord O'HAGAN: On that particular point of the annual report, am I correct in understanding the noble Lord to say that this report will not contain the reasons for the proposals which we are discussing in this Amendment? What will be in the report? Surely, the purpose of the annual report is to inform Parliament, and therefore the public, what the Board are doing and how they are carrying out their duties. I am not trying to split hairs. If the Board is not to be allowed to publish its reasons for what it is doing in the annual report, could the noble Lord explain what is the point of the annual report?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Most annual reports cover the activities of the organisation or group during a specified period and the purpose of the annual report is for Parliament to see clearly what the Board has done, what decisions it has made and what has been accomplished. That is very different from giving reasons.
3.17 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: This Amendment and the reply to it is an extremely good illustration why we are making slow progress. It cannot conceivably be a Party political point to ask a Board to publish its reasons for doing something. We do not have the slightest inkling that the Government even think that it is worth considering this point, let alone that they are going to accept it. If the Amendments had been grouped, we should have made more progress, because it would have been easier for everybody. However, that is water under the bridge.
I found Lord Wells-Pestell's answer unbelievably unsatisfactory. He said that it would be inappropriate for the Board to give its reasons, and he gave two reasons why this was so. First, the Board has to have regard to what is Clause 7 and see whether there are reasonable alternative facilities before the private facilities are phased out, Secondly, it must consider representations from all the interests concerned. The noble Lord went on to say that we are going to have an independent body with an independent chairman, and of course if the criteria are not satisfied they will judge. How will anybody

345
know why they decided that the criteria were satisfactory or unsatisfactory unless there is the evidence available on which they base their decision? It is no answer to say that an annual report will be published. I have read enough annual reports in my life to know perfectly well that unless you have a great deal of information about the background of the situation they are not always helpful. It is extremely easy to write a singularly unhelpful annual report. What is important to people is to know why a decision is arrived at, otherwise they cannot make a sensible judgment. They may say: "It is easy to see why the decision was arrived at because they had explained the reasons." It would be a very odd circumstance to say that the Board ought to give its reasons when nobody else does.
If one quotes similar examples, a judge may be regarded as an independent person, but he is required to give reasons. A planning inspector is required to give reasons. He is expected to be independent. We are not, as the noble Lord suggested, talking about small bodies and boards that have no particular power; we are talking about organisations and boards and individuals who exercise great power and they are expected to give decisions. Not to have to give decisions is putting the clock back to the kind of situation, perhaps in a more trusting world, where people felt they could accept a decision without having the reasons.
It is not my intention to press this Amendment, but I ask the noble Lord to consider it carefully. I think he will agree with me that people would have much more confidence in the Board if they had the published reasons for its findings. I think he may well find that he will get the whole of the Goodman proposals to work better. It is not as if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, commented on this point in his recommendations, so the Government would not be going back on any pledges in that regard if they put it in. If they considered it further, they would find that it would be useful, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I want to repeat what I said because there is no point in my taking this matter back to look at it afresh. We have had sufficient time to look at these matters
346
and we have done so carefully. The criteria which govern the actions of the Board are clearly laid down in the Act. We assume that the Board will apply the criteria because it cannot act on any other basis. It can act only on the basis of the views of the people who are going to be affected and the decision which it has to take. There has to be a good deal of good will and give and take on both sides—give and take because the criteria lay down that beds cannot be phased out unless comparable private sector beds are available. At this stage in the proceedings I do not think that I am going to say anything which will please the noble Baroness, because I do not imagine I am going to be able to meet any of her requirements. If she does not agree with the Government's view, the remedy is in her own hands; she can divide your Lordships on any matter.
Baroness YOUNG: I must try to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that if he cannot see the point I am making he is considerably more gullible than I should have thought. I should not have thought that he could accept that argument whether it was given to him by his right honourable friend in another place or his advisers. He is assuming that the Board will make a perfect judgment and that we will all be completely satisfied with everything it does although he knows as well as I do that human beings do not work like that. We have debated this matter; I am sorry he does not see the point, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.24 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("in") to ("or") in line 27.
The noble Lord said: If Amendment No. 26 is made the subsection will read as follows:
"any body which is representative of medical practitioners or dental practitioners or of persons employed or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals …"
The following Amendment will remove "NHS" and I leave that for the time being. My first point is that the Board is claiming independence. The noble

347
Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as well as his right honourable friend referred to this, and I do not think we need go into it at very much greater length. Not only is the chairman referred to as being independent but, if we read the remarks of his right honourable friend, one is given to understand that the Board as well as the chairman is supposed to be independent. Having established an independent Board, it is instructed to adhere to certain principles set out in subsection (8). Then it is told that it is to listen only to representatives of the medical and dental professions in NHS hospitals; it must listen to nobody else. On the previous Amendment I spent some time in referring to fringe professions. I believe it is a mistaken view of the Government to allow the Board to listen only to those professions practising in NHS hospitals. If the Board is to function with any degree of satisfaction to the population as a whole, it is very much better to broaden the scope of its remit and to include everybody. I should have thought that that was self-evident. Certainly it is self-evident to this side of the Committee.
Lord O'HAGAN: Perhaps I could give some informal grouping and follow my noble friend. In so doing, I speak to the next Amendment which hangs with this one. In this clause we are looking at the mechanism which revokes authorisations for the use of NHS accommodation and we are examining the various channels of communication open to people affected by these revocations and the ways in which representations can be made to the Board on their behalf. In Clause 4(3), to which both these Amendments refer, we are dealing with those people who are entitled to make representations, and in (3)(b) (i) (ii) (iii) we have a list. Amendment No. 26 moved by my noble friend and the next Amendment No. 27 seek to make a little wider the list of people who are entitled to make representation. There is a good reason for this.
The Secretary of State in another place when ending his speech on Second Reading said:
"Let us stop the politicing and get back to the primary task of patient care",
and I agree with him. I should have thought that, if we are concerning ourselves
348
with the primary task of patient care, we ought to make sure that all those who are concerned with patient care have a chance to make representation. The Amendment moved by my noble friend and the following Amendment No. 27 make sure that the Board can consider the interests of patients at all NHS hospitals. I believe sickness to be indivisible and that this Bill should be concerned with the primary task of patient care. If our Amendments are accepted, it will make the Bill that little bit better and I hope the Government will look favourably on them.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for suggesting that we take the two together because they logically follow on one from the other. The effect of Amendment No. 26 would be to remove the reference in lines 26 and 27 on page 4 to "one or other of the national health services" and I do not think this is something on which we need spend much time. We have been advised by the Parliamentary draftsmen that this reference is necessary in order to establish beyond doubt that, when formulating proposals for revocation of authorisation of private facilities in NHS hospitals, the Board is under an obligation to consider representations made to it by representatives of persons other than doctors or dentists employed in the NHS in Scotland as well as those employed in the NHS in England and Wales.
The NHS in Scotland is a legally separate service, as are the services in England and Wales. That is explained in the general interpretation of Clause 23(1). Amendment No. 27 would retain the obligation of the Boards to consider representations from representatives of NHS employees, in addition to those of doctors and dentists. It would have the effect of extending the same right to make representations to the Board of persons concerned with the interests of patients in private as well as in NHS hospitals. We also believe that is unnecessary, because it is unlikely that the Board would refuse to accept representations from bodies such as BUPA or the Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust, which may be regarded as being broadly representative of patients in private hospitals, under the terms of Clause 4(3)(b)(iii). That reads:

349
"… any other person having a substantial interest in the proposals;".
As such bodies would be covered by this provision, there is clearly no practical need to mention any of them specifically.
We think there is a presentational argument for making specific reference in Clause 4(3)(b)(ii) to the persons concerned with the interests of NHS patients, because the Board's primary functions under this Bill are to separate the private practice from the NHS and to ensure that such exceptions as are allowed to that policy do not operate to the disadvantage of the NHS patients.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation and I can see that she has taken great care over it; but the fact remains that she says that the Board's primary responsibility is to make quite sure that the NHS and the private patients are separated and that the NHS patients shall not suffer. I should have thought it would he equally important to ensure that all patients should not suffer, and the object of Amendment No. 27 is that the interests of all patients should be considered—or rather that representations may be made by them—and not simply the patients at NHS hospitals. I appreciate what she has said on the drafting point, but on the second Amendment it seems to me there is a clear distinction. I should have thought that their interests, although partly covered by representations from bodies such as BUPA, are not precisely the same in every instance. I cannot see why their interests should not be considered under Clause 4(3)(b)(ii).
Baroness STEDMAN: We think they are covered under Clause 4(3)(b)(iii):
"Any other person having a substantial interest in the proposals;",
which would cover persons in the pay beds and in private nursing homes.
Lord O'HAGAN: In that case, why is it that it says "any other person" as opposed to "any body"? There is a difference in terminology. In sub-paragraph (ii) it is "any body", which I presume means an organisation, whereas sub-paragraph (iii) talks about "any other person". Is the noble Baroness saying that BUPA is a person?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, but I think "body" is used in sub-paragraph (ii) as meaning a representative body of medical practitioners, dental practitioners and people of that kind, rather than organisations or people who are individually involved in providing private nursing facilities.
Baroness YOUNG: Again, I am bound to say that I do not think this is a matter of great political difference between us; but if the noble Baroness says that that clause is meant to include representations from private patients as well as from NHS patients, I cannot see why it would do any harm to say so. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has told us that he is not going to consider anything at all, so even if we are asking the noble Baroness to consider something which the Government say they think is covered but about which there is obviously some doubt, perhaps there is no point in continuing. However, I should just like to hear why the noble Baroness feels that she cannot say in writing what she says she thinks the clause means.
Baroness STEDMAN: Because we think it is all covered within the clause as it is drafted at the moment, and we are advised by Parliamentary draftsmen that this clause does cover the points that have been made.
Lord SANDYS: I must confess I am not totally convinced. The noble Baroness has advanced arguments and my noble friend has replied; but perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I asked leave at this stage to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 38, after ("the") insert ("grant or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is consequential to No. 17.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 39, after ("section") insert ("1(1) or").
The noble Lord said: I think this would be a convenient moment to mention a letter, which is probably known to your Lordships as it has been mentioned earlier—that is, the Nodder letter, written by Mr. T. Nodder on 27th February, 1976. Your Lordships will be aware that this Amendment tries to ensure that the Board must separate proposals for in-patients as well as for out-patients, and the Nodder letter refers to consultation. This is a point which we may have, or should have, mentioned earlier because it has a bearing on the drafting of this particular part of Clause 4:
"At this stage authorities are not required to comment on the actual location of the pay-beds from which authorisations would be withdrawn or on the distribution or location of those that will remain. These are matters which the Secretary of State recognises should be the subject of fuller consultation during the passage of the Bill and, if necessary, in the period immediately following Royal Assent."
As drafted, we believe the Bill to be not at all satisfactory. A waiting list has been referred to and, of course, there are many operations of a non-urgent nature such as hernias, prostates, ophthalmic work and so on. I would ask your Lordships to turn to Clause 5(4) because if we turn to the next clause we see that the Secretary of State in particular circumstances is allowed to make adjustment of the accommodation, but that is only on a very short-term basis, when a number of wards or individual beds are closed. In Clause 4(5), if one plods through one hundred words at the beginning and then follows with the further ninety words in paragraph (b), it will give effect to what I have said. Those are restrictions, of course, on the powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act. But it is quite fundamental in our thinking that there should be flexibility.
The only flexibility the Government have thought fit to include is if there are circumstances which reduce the number of beds in a hospital—that is, the number of authorised beds after the first thousand beds have been withdrawn. The number, of course, is 3,444. Should there be a fire, for example, the Secretary of State is allowed to adjust the numbers, otherwise there is no question of adjustment. We believe that the in-patient services should be adjustable and there should be powers enabling the Secretary of State in particular circumstances to make those adjustments.
352
It would be very much to the benefit of the Bill if he were allowed to do so.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: At present the Bill requires the Board, in formulating proposals for the revocation of authorisation at any National Health Service hospital of facilities for private non-resident patients, to have regard to the different purposes and specialties for which accommodation or services are provided. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the Board, when making proposals for revoking authorisations of pay beds, to apply similar principles and consider revocation according to the different purposes and specialties for which pay beds were currently made available. Clause 4(4) as it stands allows the Board to make separate proposals in respect of the different purposes for which private out-patient and day patient facilities are available.
Under subsection (5) the Board is required to make its first proposals for revoking authorisations in respect of consulting rooms separately from those in respect of diagnostic facilities. It may also make proposals separately if it thinks fit in respect of separate specialties even though the actual authorisation is customarily given in respect of the accommodation and services provided at a hospital, or group of hospitals, as a whole. Clause 4 as it stands will allow an authorisation to be revoked in part or in whole if the Board so proposes.
The grounds for considering revocation by specialty so far as in-patient facilities are concerned—that is, pay beds—are not particularly convincing. Pay beds are not allocated to particular specialties—I repeat that: Pay beds are not allocated to particular specialties. If the Board were to attempt to recommend withdrawal of pay bed authorisations from one specialty but not from another, a considerable amount of confusion would be bound to result, particularly where a private patient in one specialty required attention from a doctor in another specialty from which facilities for private practice had been withdrawn.
With out-patients, it is quite common for a private patient seen in private consulting rooms outside the National Health Service to be referred to one particular

353
department of a National Health Service hospital, either as a private patient or as a National Health Service patient, whether for consultation or for diagnostic services. An in-patient in a National Health Service hospital is admitted either as a National Health Service patient or to an authorised pay bed as a private patient. If the person is admitted as a private patient, he will remain in that category during the course of his treatment, although he may be treated by a number of doctors from different departments of the hospital. Thus where the Board has not recommended the withdrawal of authorisations, it makes sense that the pay beds should be available for use by all specialties in that hospital. In the case of a hospital devoted to a single specialty—and I have in mind a maternity hospital—the Board will have regard to the availability of alternative facilities for the same specialty in the private sector.
Where a hospital includes some department offering treatment of a specialised nature using specialised equipment and skills, Clause 8 will allow occasional private patients to be treated there by any doctor in the hospital—even after the withdrawal of authorisations—subject to the fulfilment of specified conditions. To have authorised pay beds in a hospital in which private patients could be treated by part-time consultants in one specialty but not in another would, I suggest, be a source of friction among consultants, additional to the friction between staff who believe in private practice in the National Health Service and those who do not. I think it would be wrong to add to the problem to which private practice in National Health Service hospitals already gives rise. Consequently, the Government do not feel that they can accept the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I warned the Government that in resisting an Amendment of this sort, which offers a degree of flexibility, they were making a rod for their own backs in future. There is nothing more valuable than to have a degree of opportunity to vary the terms and circumstances. It is the situation in the Hospital Service today, I think, and I am certain the noble Lord will agree, that those in authority would like to be able to adjust circumstances where possible to suit their particular circumstances.
354
Flexibility in legislation is one thing that can always he introduced if the Government are so willing. We believe it is desirable. I am not going to press this Amendment. The Government have shown themselves rock-faced about it, but we shall refer to this particular problem at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 32 is concerned with Clause 4(4)(a) in which we are concerned about what will happen if there is suddenly the need to find temporary accommodation. My Amendment is simply concerned to leave out the word "may" in line 4 at the top of page 5 and to substitute the word "shall". It seems to me very important that in this case it should not be simply a permissive function of the Board, but that the Board must have regard in these circumstances for the proposals in respect of different specialties for the different purposes as they are set out in this clause. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider favourably this Amendment, although I am bound to say it is rather a forlorn hope in view of what has been said. I believe that if the Bill is to work at all satisfactorily it is very important that we should strengthen the Board's ability to deal with all of the different varieties of case with which it may have to deal, and that the Board "shall" be obliged to deal with them rather than "may" deal with them in certain circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. It reminds me very much of the other Bill we are discussing at the moment, getting local authorities to supply alternative housing for agricultural workers under the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. Having been in local government for a very long time, I think one has to put obligations on people. If it is necessary for the person concerned for his health, his domicile or whatever it might be, there should be some urgency and perhaps more insistent words should be put in Bills of this kind. In view of

355
the fact that the Board is going to be very authoritative, as the noble Lord explained when I was asking a question on another Amendment, I think there should be the authority for it to be told with some vigour that it is essential that unfortunate patients should be found other accommodation. It is only fair to the patients, and it is a word which might be very useful in this connection.
Lord AMULREE: I, too, should like to support this Amendment. It has always seemed to me that permissive legislation is a bad thing to encourage. If some things are permissive, good people do what they should. But had people have no reason to do anything. If something is worth doing at all, it should be made obligatory and, therefore, the word "shall" should be used in place of the word "may".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the Government do not accept this Amendment one could give an answer in a very few words. But I know that a very few words will not satisfy noble Lords opposite, and probably would not satisfy me if I were in their position, as I should want a much longer explanation. I come back to the composition of the Board and to what we believe will be its quality. Members of your Lordships' Committee must ask whether, when one is dealing with a Board of that calibre, and when the conditions are laid down very clearly and precisely, even though some noble Lords may not like them, one ought to hamstring and tie a body like that, and whether a matter of this kind should be left to its discretion, which is what we have so far as possible tried to do.
The effect of the Amendment would be to oblige the Board, in putting forward proposals for withdrawal of authorisations of NHS accommodation and services for private out-patients, to put forward separate proposals for different purposes and specialties for which the authorised facilities are available. The Bill as drafted enables the Board to do this where it thinks appropriate, but does not oblige it to do so, though it does require it to distinguish in its first proposals between consulting suites and specialist diagnostic back-up facilities. Although authorisations of private out-patient services are
356
seldom, if ever, related to particular purposes and specialties, in practice it will be possible to propose the immediate withdrawal of some facilities, while maintaining others for a longer period. For instance, the private sector may not have the ability, nor for reasons of safety may it be desirable for it to seek, to provide radiotherapy services outside the NHS. The desirability of the NHS continuing to allow private patients access to such a facility, however, need not prevent the Board from recommending the withdrawal of other facilities for private out-patients. What is practicable and desirable will, of course, vary from one hospital to another and from one part of the country to another.
In these circumstances, it seems right to the Government that the Board should he under a duty, when considering what recommendations it should make in respect of a particular hospital or group of hospitals, to apply the principles of Clause 4(7) separately in respect of each purpose or speciality for which private out-patient or day patient facilities at that hospital are being used. Clause 4(4)(a) so provides. But in the Government's view it would be wrong, with the exception of consulting rooms (Clause 4(5)), to oblige the Board to make separate recommendations to the Secretary of State in respect of each of these purposes and specialties. There should be discretion for the Board in how it deals with these matters. Clause 4(4)(b) provides such discretion. In other words, we nail our flag to the mast that it must be left to the discretion of the Board, and in the long run that is a much better way of working.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I am not surprised that the noble Lord said that, if he were on this side of the Committee, he would not accept the answer he was going to give.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I did not say that. If the noble Lord is going to quote me, let him quote me accurately. What I said was that I could well understand that noble Lords opposite would not feel happy with it, and nor would I if I were in their position, but I am not of their Party.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not think there is much difference between what the noble Lord has just said and what I paraphrased him as saying. This is rather like somebody telling a joke, when people laugh before the punch-line conies because they know what it will be. The noble Lord knew that the answer which he was going to give on this Amendment would be inconsistent with the argument he used on Amendment No. 29, because he then made it very clear that he thought it was in the best interests of administering this legislation—if it ever becomes law—to give the Board clear instructions on what it is to do. He said that we must not give the Board any freedom, and everything must be laid down.
In this Amendment, my noble friends are asking for the kind of flexibility which the noble Lord resisted on the previous Amendment. We are saying that we should make it perfectly clear that it shall do this thing which is desirable, not that it may do it. Let us give the Board clear instructions as to what it is supposed to do. The noble Lord cannot expect to get away with it. I know that it is not his argument. He is working to a brief, and I have a great deal of sympathy for noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite in view of the kind of briefs they are having to put up with. But the noble Lord cannot say, on the one hand, that clear instructions must be given, with no flexibility; and then, on the other hand, that flexibility must be retained, because the Board will have the ability and knowledge to allow it to use flexibility properly. I believe that the inconsistency in the noble Lord's opposition to this Amendment shows the weakness.
Nobody is suggesting for one minute that the Board will not have the knowledge and the ability to use its discretion. But there are certain matters covered in this Bill on which the instructions should be clear, and on which flexibility should not be allowed, and this is a case where the Board should accept as one of its obligations the duty to carry out this task. The noble Lord cannot say on Amendment No. 29 that he does not want flexibility, and then say on Amendment No. 31 that he does want it. My noble friend is absolutely right. If the Board is to carry out the instructions laid down in this Bill they must be clear, and this is one
358
of those points where they should be clear.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord must bear in mind that it will depend on what is the function of the Board in any given direction. At some stage or other, every one of us has to do certain things because society requires it of us, but in other matters we can use our own discretion. In the same way, there are certain things which the Board must do, and these are clearly laid down. But one cannot say that everything the Board does must be settled for it in advance. In carrying out its functions the Board must be allowed discretion in certain areas and, in our view, this is an area where it ought to have discretion. But we concede that there are other areas where the duty must he very clearly spelled out.
Baroness YOUNG: We have had a very useful discussion on this Amendment, which has been of more value than a simple debate in this House. As my noble friend Lord Sandys pointed out, this is one of the Amendments which was tied in Standing Committee in another place. It was never debated on the Floor of the House because it was guillotined. This is the first debate that we have had on the Amendment on the Floor of either House of Parliament, and as the Government have already guillotined the Amendments that we might conceivably send back to them it is almost certainly the only time that it will be debated. Therefore noble Lords in Committee should realise that a very real responsibility rests upon them, because this is a Government measure which, so far as I can see, is hardly going to be discussed by Parliament. Indeed, if your Lordships' House were to be abolished the measure would not be discussed by Parliament at all, so at least the fact that we can debate this important matter is something to he said for us, even by our critics.
As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has pointed out, there is a degree of inconsistency in the Government's view. We are asking that the Board must make separate proposals both for in-patient as well as for out-patient services. It does not seem to me to be a highly controversial point but, as the noble Lord has said, the calibre of the Board is such that the people

359
on it will be so good and so perfect that we must not question their reasons or ask for those reasons; and in this particular case we must give them great latitude.
Tomorrow we shall read with great interest in Hansard what the noble Lord has said on this Amendment and on Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, all of which are related to the same subject. It has been a rather complicated argument to follow and I shall read it with great care, because it may be a matter to which we shall wish to return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 6, after ("the") insert ("grant or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which is consequential upon Amendment No. 17.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 21, after second ("the") insert ("grant or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which is also consequential upon Amendment No. 17.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
4.3 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33.
The noble Baroness said: This is a somewhat complicated matter with a rather long history and I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I go through it. Subsection (5) is concerned with outpatients. Once I had understood the clue to this, which is that Section 1(1) of the 1968 Act deals with in-patients and Section 2(1) with out-patients, one has it quite clearly. The issue before the Committee is the phasing out of private out-patient facilities.
When the Bill was first drafted I believe that it was the intention of the Government
360
that the Board should be under an obligation to report within the first six months on the phasing out of consulting rooms—that is subsection (5)(a)—and also on other services which are named there: radiotherapy, diagnostic pathology and diagnostic radiology, together with the other matters included in paragraph (b). The consulting rooms were to be phased out within six months, but there was no time limit on the phasing out of the other out-patient services, on the grounds, quite rightly I think, that they are extremely expensive to produce and that it is unlikely that similar facilities could be produced within the very short time scale allowed under the Bill—certainly not within six months or even within a year.
One of the practical difficulties which follows from the Bill is that the private facilities will have to be provided with considerable rapidity if there is to be a true possibility for consultants to have private patients and private facilities. At the Committee stage in another place the Government introduced an Amendment which recommended that other out-patient facilities should also be phased out within a certain period of time, except radiotherapy. The consequence of all this is that the consulting rooms will now be phased out within the initial period of six months. The diagnostic pathology and diagnostic radiology services, including scanning, ultrasonics and methods involving the use of radio-isotopes will, under subsection (6), be phased out within 18 months. The only service which still has no time limit upon it is radiotherapy.
It is very difficult to know why there was this sudden change of heart during the Committee proceedings in another place. Because the matter was guillotined, Government Amendments are carried automatically so it has never again been discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons. This is most likely to be the only part of Parliament where we shall hear from the Government the reasons why they decided to do this.
May I ask the Government to think very carefully about whether they are implementing the spirit of Goodman. We have heard time without number that it is the intention of the Government to support private facilities and private medical practice; but if this argument is to have any meaning at all the facilities must be

361
there. One of the most difficult things to produce will be not only the hospital beds but the equipment, which is so expensive. Clearly there was a change of heart on the part of the Government regarding the original undertakings, and my Amendment would simply put back the Bill to what it was when it began. It seems to me that if this was the original intention of the Government they must have had a good reason for doing it and I hope that they will now consider that it is time to put back the Bill to what it was at the beginning. I beg to move.
4.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the noble Baroness has pointed out, lines 29 to 33 were added to subsection (6) as the result of a Government Amendment at Report stage in another place. The Amendment was designed to ensure that the Board submits proposals dealing with diagnostic out-patient facilities for private patients within a period of 12 months from the initial period. The effect of this Amendment would be to return to the former position whereby the Board's commitment to submitting proposals in this field was open-ended. The Government gave very careful thought to this problem and concluded that such a situation was unacceptable.
The Bill sets a timetable for the Board's reports. In our view, pay beds are clearly the first priority. The second is the report on common waiting lists, to which we also attach considerable importance. The third is facilities for private out-patient consultation. Diagnostic out-patient facilities come next. We realise that it will take time to equip and staff premises for use as pathological laboratories or radiology clinics and that it would be unrealistic to expect the Board to report as with a view to recommending revocations of authorisation of these facilities within too short a time. The question is how much time is sensible? One could argue six months, or a year, or 18 months or, as suggested in this Amendment, no set period of time. Six months, we feel, is too short bearing in mind the priorities which have been described and the initial pressure of work on the Board. On the other hand, we recognise the need for progress and if no target is set for a first review of these facilities we run the risk that the private sector may see no need to make alternative provision.
362
Taking these considerations into account we conclude that a requirement to submit its first report 12 months after the end of the initial period—that is, spring 1978, and we are in 1976 now—was fair to the private sector, fair to the Board and would not delay progress towards complete separation of private practice from the National Health Service which the Government are determined to bring about, as your Lordships know, within a reasonable time. In short, all this part of subsection (6) seeks to do is to set a deadline within which the Board is required to submit its first report on the revocation of diagnostic facilities for private out-patients other than radiotherapy. A deadline, moreover, which allows 18 months from Royal Assent is not, I submit, an unreasonable period. Even then it does not follow that the Board will recommend the phasing out of all such facilities in 18 months' time. We shall take note of the situation. It merely requires the Board to look specifically at those facilities within 18 months of Royal Assent and to submit recommendations in accordance with the same principles as it will apply to pay beds, and consultation suites on which it is required to submit its first report within six months of Royal Assent.
By proposing this Amendment, noble Lords opposite no doubt are seeking to delay the process of phasing out, and we understand this. Their Amendment will not necessarily achieve their aim, since it would still be open to the Board to look at out-patient facilities whenever it chooses, depending on how it gets on with its tasks, and I am sure your Lordships realize there is no reason why this should not be sooner rather than later. On balance, the Government feel that it is preferable to set a target date for the Board's first report on these matters, but, as I have explained, having regard both to the Board's task and to the time needed by the private sector to provide alternative facilities, and bearing in mind that the responsibility will be on the private sector to provide alternative facilities, we feel that the time that we are prepared to give is not unreasonable.
Lord O'HAGAN: On a previous Amendment, the noble Lord said that, if the proposals we were putting forward from these Benches were carried, a considerable amount of confusion would be

363
bound to result. I can only say to him that, having tried as hard as I could and having listened most carefully, a considerable amount of confusion has resulted in my mind and perhaps I may not be the stupidest member of the Committee. Perhaps I am, but I hope the noble Lord will now be able to confirm that by answering my simple question.
How can the noble Lord argue in this Amendment that the Government must tell the Board what to do, when in answer to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls a few minutes ago he said that the Board must be allowed to do whatever it wants to do? In answer to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when we were dealing with the Amendment to insert "shall" instead of "may", the noble Lord, speaking for the Government, said that the Board must have flexibility. This Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young would increase flexibility, yet in these circumstances the Government say, "Oh no, we can't have flexibility; we don't like flexibility". Can the noble Lord explain this inconsistency? That is the first of my simple questions. Perhaps I may complete the short list before the noble Lord answers.
The other question I want to put to the noble Lord is this. The Government say that—and I do not want to blaspheme—the doctrine of immaculate conception applies to the Bill in that it is a perfect expression of the Goodman compromise; that it is flawless; that no Amendments are needed; no Amendments will be accepted, and even where there are printing errors the noble Lord does not admit that there is a mistake. This is what the noble Lord says. Yet the Government in another place have come forward with an Amendment which is embodied in the words which now appear at the end of this subsection that my noble friend has moved to leave out. How can the Government say, when resisting our Amendments, that the Bill is perfect and any alterations to it will upset the Goodman proposals, when they themselves use the argument the other way and say, if they wish to make alterations to the Bill, minor or major, that they do not alter the balance of the Goodman proposals?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It may help the noble Lord and also save time
364
if I rise now. May I repeat what I said on the 8th November when we were dealing with Amendment No. 18. I support absolutely what my noble friend has just said about inconsistency, and if one is realistic about it, 12 months is not long enough. I think it is unwise to put in any figure at all; to leave it at the discretion of the Board is the right way to do it, but if we are going to put in any figure at all then 12 months is certainly not enough; when you are doing this sort of thing 12 months does not add up to two minutes—everybody knows that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will remember that I dragged her into the argument on 8th November. She was a constituent of mine and she was one of the leading local government leaders in the constituency that I had the honour to represent. She knows that on matters much less intricate than this she, on her planning committees, could not give answers under two or three years; not because they were lax, not because they were lazy, but because of the difficulty of getting together all the people who had to be consulted. Because of holidays and all the other things that go into the working of bureaucracy, 12 months is no time at all.
As the noble Lord has just explained, in any case this is No. 3 in order of priority. If they have to give whatever time there is to the other two matters which are put ahead of this in the list of priorities, then to put in the period of 12 months is really ludicrous. It would be much wiser to leave it to the Board, as my noble friend said, and for it to decide on its own timetable. The first thoughts of the Government were right. This is a case where their second thoughts were wrong. I wonder who it was who felt that they were being much too realistic in their approach. They are not often realistic, if I may say so, but in their original version at least they faced up to the sort of world in which we live, where posts are delayed, where one cannot get through on the telephone, where officials are being changed. If the period of 12 months is left in—and I repeat what I said on the 8th November—this will result in a slipshod decision because the time does not allow the Board to get the details it wants. Or it will result in some official being left to make the decision and this wise Board that the noble Lord

365
has told us about not being able to use its accumulated wisdom to help us at all. It will be either slipshod or it will be decided by one or two people who are not representative of the point of view that the noble Lord has assured us about. In my view, the Amendment is more sensible, but if it is that because of some pressures that we do not know about they have to put some period into the Bill, then 12 months is not enough. It must be two or three times that length of period if we want the job to be well done.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord shook me when he said that he wanted to speak and he thought that what he said might help me. I only hope that he is never against me, because if that is an indication of his help, well, some of us could do without enemies with some of the friends that we have! I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I say this very sincerely. The noble Lord laughingly said of himself that he is the stupidest Member of your Lordships House. He is far from that, and I can say for both sides of the Committee that we regard him as one of the ablest Members of this House. There is no question about that. I wish he would cross the Floor, as I think he will do one of these days.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord CARRINGTON: Noble Lords opposite certainly need it!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we could all do with extra ability.
Lord O'HAGAN: Was that a general indication?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Oh no!—do not embarrass us. There really is not any inconsistency at all. I do not want to go over the same ground again. In every board, every committee, every organisation, in anything that is organised, there must be spheres in which they have to take a definite line and make definite decisions. As in private life, there must also be areas in which one must be left to one's own discretion. This applies to the Board. The Board must have discretion in certain things. The Government have determined what those areas are, and have determined also the areas in
366
which they shall make a decision along certain lines.
I do not want to go again over the whole question of the Goodman proposals. I do not want to have to repeat this often. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who referred to the Gospel according to Saint Arnold—perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton; I am not sure—but we do not want to go over it again. We say that this was an agreement and we have honourably discharged our responsibility by putting that into the Bill. But our having done that does not mean to say that the Government have not the right to frame the rest of the Bill in the way that they think is right. When the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, complains that we have done this but we have also done other things, it is true that we have. This is embodied in the agreement. The other matters are subjects which the Government feel are desirable in respect of other matters outside the Goodman proposals. I think the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, kept on talking about the 12-month period. I should not have thought I was indistinct in this Chamber, but on a number of occasions I said that the period was 18 months, and not 12 months.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It happens to be 12 months that is written into the Bill we are discussing. One knows that there are six months on top of that, but it is the 12 months in the Bill that I want to be extended.
Lord PLATT: As the Government are so clear on what they are going to lay down and what they are not going to lay down, would the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, tell us what decisions are to be made by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service? Is that Commission to have nothing to do at all?—because as far as I can see, all the decisions will be made for them.
Viscount LONG: We seem to be having a good debate on this Amendment. I have come to the conclusion that as the afternoon goes on, one is going in the end to wonder what this Board is going to be able to do or not do. Equally, I am getting worried whether the Board will like this Bill or the responsibility handed to it by the Government. The Board is responsible

367
for making sure that the pay beds are phased out, that the private facilities are phased out; but in the long run, so far as I can see, the Board will be held responsible for making sure—and I stand to be corrected—that the hospital still makes money. If you are going to have part of this equipment taken out, then surely I am right in saying that the private sector had to pay a fee to a National Health hospital, and that money will not be there when this happens. So the Amendment of my noble friend is quite right and quite in order. We should watch the matter and protect the Board from some of its difficulties which will be produced by the Bill.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I do not want to continue the argument, but there is one point of confusion in my mind with which, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will deal. Let us take the 12-month period and the specialty of radiography as an example. If, at the end of 12 months, it is seen that alternative private facilities for radiology are not available, what does the Board then propose? The Bill says, "the Board shall bring forward proposals". If it is accepted that these National Health Service hospital facilities are not to be denied unless and until alternative facilities are available, how can the Board then produce proposals? Presumably the Board does nothing until that condition is achieved. This is not a debating point; it is a serious point. What does the word "proposals" mean when in fact the circumstances are such that under this Bill nothing is to be done to deny those facilities to private patients?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My understanding of the situation is that there will be a responsibility on the Board within a specified time to see what alternative facilities are available in the private sector. If in a particular area or areas those facilities are not available, then the facilities in those spheres which are clearly set out will be available in National Health Service hospitals for the private sector.
Lord HILL of LUTON: That I understand; but the Board in such circumstances "shall produce proposals" governing exactly the set of circumstances
368
to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred. But what can it possibly propose? I understand the word "proposals" in this context to mean positive proposals relating to those circumstances. If the Act is observed, nothing will be done. What can "proposals" mean when it contemplates circumstances in which nothing will be done?
Lord STONE: I can vouch for the fact that these conditions do exist today in the private sector, both for radiology and pathology. These conditions have been there ever since 1948. They are in practice at this moment, and they exist. I can see no reason why they should not in point of fact even do better as and when they may or may not be phased out of the National Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I just answer the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, because I understand his point—at least, I think I do. The use of the word "proposals" will mean two things. One will be the proposals for the alternative facilities within the private sector, and where the private sector cannot produce these, the proposal will be that the private sector shall continue to use those specialties within the National Health Service. That is how I understand it.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I hope that is the interpretation. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, says, a proposal can be a decision not to revoke the facilities to private patients in such circumstances, I must say it is rather an odd phrase to use—"requiring the Board to produce proposals", when in fact it contemplates a set of circumstances in which there will be no proposals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I am wrong, then I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and perhaps he will allow me to send a copy of the letter to the noble Baroness.
4.29 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I am sorry to come back on that, and I admit that I am looking at this as a layman. I do not think I can accept the interpretation given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell (although that is what he himself genuinely felt) in the context of

369
the Bill, unless it is written into the Bill at some other point. I do not think I can accept that it means what the noble Lord himself has said he thinks it means. The word "proposal" can only mean, if not the withdrawal the threat of withdrawal. There is no reason at all why that phrase should be in, unless it carries that meaning with it—in the absence of the explanation of the meaning being as the noble Lord has put it embodied somewhere else in the Bill. I must confess I had not thought of the point until the noble Lord, Lord Hill, made it.
My worry about this was for other reasons. I believe the point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord's answer, make it even more essential that this Amendment should be accepted. If we remove these words from the Bill the Board will be in the same position as the noble Lord has described. If these words are not there, the Board will be able to implement what is obviously the intention in the way the noble Lord has described it. But as long as these words remain in the Bill, at the end of the day it comes to the Law Lords to interpret the meaning. The noble Lord may remember that I got a Private Member's Bill through on the meaning of a word which affected very many people very much indeed.
I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, in all humility, that in the context of this Bill this word "proposal" as it stands does carry with it a connotation that this service will be withdrawn, and will not remain as the noble Lord explained. I would venture to suggest that it may be a good thing to accept this Amendment so that the noble Lord can look at the matter and get advice as to whether or not my layman's interpretation is wide of the mark. If he can produce greater evidence than just his own opinion to show that the meaning of this word is different, then we can accept it. I do not know whether my noble friend had it in mind to withdraw this Amendment, but in the light of the point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, I would hope that my noble friend would think very hard before withdrawing it. If we vote and we are able to get sufficient support, we shall know that the Government will have to look at it again, whereas if it is not taken out there is less likelihood of that happening.
Lord SANDYS: I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls; he has many arguments on his side. I should like, also as a layman, to address my remarks not only to the Government but also to the noble Lord, Lord Stone, who I think is addressing the House in Committee for the first or second time. He, of course, is a general practitioner. Despite the fact that he agrees with the Government, perhaps cautiously, as a layman, I might address these remarks to him as well.
The Royal Commission to which I previously referred, the Todd Commission on Medical Education, which sat in days when the situation was perhaps a little less frenetic, between 1965 and 1968, in their Command Paper 3569, addressed themselves to this particular problem. I think it is an advantage to listen to a Royal Commission which considered the subject with care and close attention. I will make a brief reference to Chapter 10, paragraph 515:
"A number of Consultant teachers will probably wish to continue some private practice. The problem which this raises, both in ensuring that such teachers are available where and when they are needed for teaching and that they have access to the facilities needed to treat private patients at an acceptable modern standard, have given rise to proposals that Consultant teachers' service should be 'geographically full-time'; i.e. that they should be enabled to see and treat private patients at the teaching hospital."
The point is that the Government's Bill as drafted turns the Todd Commission's recommendation on its head. The Commission goes on later in that chapter to stress this particular point. I believe that so far as medical education is concerned the Board are being asked to do quite the wrong thing.
Lord PLATT: As an ex-member of that particular Commission, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said.
Baroness YOUNG: The purpose of the Amendment we have put down is, of course, to restore the Bill to what it was when it was first introduced in another place. It is important that we have had this very full debate here, and I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part because, of course, this was a Government Amendment introduced on Report and guillotined in another place; it is yet another example of an Amendment which has never been discussed on the

371
Floor of the House in another place and therefore never discussed by Parliament at all except for the proceedings in your Lordships' House. I think it is important for us to note, in the course of this Committee stage, how many of these points there are.
The first point I tried to make to the Government was to ask the noble Lord why they had changed their mind and altered the decisions of the Board in this way. I have not yet heard the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, give an answer to that question, which is, after all, the crucial one. They obviously had second thoughts. They moved their Amendment, they guillotined it, and we have it now in the Bill which has come to your Lordships' House. It would be helpful if the noble Lord felt able to answer the question in Committee, because it is clearly the first one that is going to be asked. As my noble friend Lord O'Hagan quite rightly said, the reply of the noble Lord is another inconsistency.
In this particular case the Board is being required to act in a certain way in regard to out-patient facilities. The time-scale suggested—if one looks at subsection (6) one sees that it is 12 months following the initial period—means that these particular facilities must be phased out, as I understand it, 18 months after the Bill becomes law. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls quite rightly said, it takes a very long time to establish another hospital and to put into it suitable facilities. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, quite properly asked the question, what is the Board to propose? As I understand the answer, if there were not any other facilities the Board would not necessarily propose that they would be phased out. But, of course, that is not what the Bill says; that is the noble Lord's interpretation of what the Government hope the Board will say. It is precisely this kind of point that the medical profession is most anxious about.
I would refer the Government to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at Second Reading (cols. 1500/1):
372
"There are other changes which are much of the same sort and they are changes which the doctors seek because they want a clarification of the position and a reassurance that what they are told the Bill means is in fact what the Bill means. I would urge the Government to give it to them in every single case."—[Official Report, 21/10/76.]
Here, I should have thought, was an exact case in point. It is the kind of issue on which clearly the Government consider this was part of the original Goodman agreement. Going back to the actual text of the agreement, I quote:
"The Board shall not necessarily retain existing private facilities for the purpose of specialised operations, treatments and investigations where the National Health Service is prepared to make such accommodation and equipment reasonably available on an occasional basis for individual requirements in specified circumstances and at an appropriate charge. The Bill would propose to allow health authorities to provide and charge for such specialised services for patients provided that they can satisfy the Secretary of State that there will be no disadvantage to NHS patients, and that such patients—whatever their country of origin—are admitted on the same basis of medical priority as an NHS patient."
It seems to me that what the Government originally wrote into the Bill meets the Goodman point. What the Government have now put into the Bill on Report does not. There is now a doubt about it, even though the noble Lord has said that that is not how it would be interpreted. The Bill has tightened up the timetable. It has put a firm timetable on expensive and difficult equipment and services. It is one thing to provide a consulting room within six months—after all, presumably anybody could turn over his dining room for a consulting room if that were what was required—but nobody can produce within a short period of time (and eighteen months is a short period of time) these alternative facilities. I feel that this is an Amendment I cannot withdraw, and therefore r wish to ask the Committee to decide upon it.
4.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Molson, L.

Alport, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Monck, V.

Amherst, E.

Exeter, M.

Monson, L.

Amory, V.

Faithfull, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

George-Brown, L.

Northesk, E.

Banks, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Onslow, E.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Birdwood, L.

Grey, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Blake, L.

Gridley, L.

Rea, L.

Blakenham, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reading, M.

Boothby, L.

Hampton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Harcourt, V.

Rochdale, V.

Bradford, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harvington, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brock, L.

Hawke, L.

Sackville, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hertford, M.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Just, L.

Caccia, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cairns, E.

Howe, E.

Sandford, L.

Caithness, E.

Hunt, L.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Savile, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sharples, B.

Chesham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Clancarty, E.

Jessel, L.

Spens, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kemsley, V.

Stamp, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stokes, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cobham, V.

Kintore, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Coleriane, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Swansea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd, L.

Terrington, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Vickers, B.

Daventry, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Wade, L.

Digby, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Waverley, V.

Dulverton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Westbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Winstanley, L.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Arwyn, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Birk, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bowden, L.

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

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brimelow, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Brockway, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

McCluskey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Maelor, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Milford, L.

Burntwood, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Henderson, L.

Northfield, L.

Caradon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Castle, L.

Hughes, L.

Pannell, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peddie, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

374

375

Raglan, L.

Stedman, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Williamson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stone, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Shackleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Shinwell, L.

Summerskill, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Slater, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 36, after ("be") insert ("granted or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move. This Amendment is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 38, after (' necessary") insert ("grants or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 44, leave out ("remain") and insert ("be").
The noble Baroness said: It may be helpful to the Committee if I move Amendment No. 38 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 42 and 43, all of which are consequential to Amendment No. 38. Once again we are hack on this important series of Amendments which meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Second Reading. I have already quoted Lord Goodman once and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I quote him again, but this series of Amendments is in fact designed to meet the point that he made at column 1500 at Second Reading on the 21st October when he said:
"The Bill contains a provision that that accommodation shall be reasonably suitable."—
that is, alternative private facilities. The noble Lord continued:
"The doctors say that it does not necessarily mean 'reasonable' in terms of quality: it means reasonable, perhaps, in terms of geographical position or in terms of size but it may not mean reasonable in terms of being good enough, clean enough, light enough, in the right position. My own interpretation of 'reasonable', which I think would be supported by better lawyers than I am, is that the word must mean' reasonable in
376
every sense'. In my view it is not necessary to underline it but at the same time it would cost nothing to underline it."—[Official Report, 2410/76; col. 1500.]
His argument went on to say that it would be to the advantage of the Bill if such Amendments were made because that would reassure the doctors, and he urged the Government to give in on these matters.
Amendment No. 38 would change the word "remain" to "be". This may be regarded in a sense as a semantic point, but "be" has a slightly different connotation from "remain", which has the unfortunate habit of suggesting that it might not remain something and therefore becomes one of those words which are regarded as part of the ratchet effect when legislation comes in which cannot be altered because of the complexities of altering it. This Amendment is in a sense a paving Amendment for the others which follow. The important ones are Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 which are designed to strengthen, by including other words, the needs that the Board must consider when saying that the alternative facilities are good and reasonable enough for the private practice of medicine.
In a sense, Clause 4(8) contains the key to the whole Bill because it sets out the principles of the Board and therefore it is extremely important to get the principles right. I appreciate—I do not intend to quote again the exact Goodman Agreement—that the words in the Bill are in many respects very similar to the words in the Goodman Agreement. Nevertheless, it will seem that where the Bill talks about facilities, it is necessary to explain that they should be at a satisfactory standard; that where the Bill talks about facilities that are available, they should be facilities accessible to patients and to practitioners of their choice; and that where the Bill talks about hospitals, they need to be available at reasonable cost. There are many ways in which the facilities would simply not be reasonably provided unless these three criteria are met.
The words in Amendment No. 41 "facilities at a satisfactory standard"

377
are taken from Clause 8(2), in which it will be seen that the Government use these very words to strengthen what it is they are saying in the clause. I hope therefore that the Government will see these Amendments as being designed to reassure the medical profession and patient that when the Bill comes into operation, if it does, it will be fairly operated. As Lord Goodman said on Second Reading, and as all of those who took part said, the essence of the Bill is that people will believe that it is possible to work it: the essence of it must be trust that the alternative facilities are available, and if that trust is not there then not only will things be difficult for private patients but all patients will suffer, which would be a very serious matter.
Again, these Amendments will no doubt not be debated in the other place because of the guillotine prodecure and therefore it would be helpful if those who feel that the Bill should be strengthened in this way would say so. As I say, this will probably be the only opportunity for either House to consider them in detail: they will almost certainly not be debated in the other place because they will be guillotined. As they are Amendments which Lord Goodman would have moved had he been here—we very much regret his illness—and as he would have wished them to be included in the Bill, I hope that the Minister will consider them favourably.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she was speaking at the same time to Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 42 and 43, and I will do the same. As I tried to assure her and noble Lords when we last discussed this matter, I have been through this series of Amendments very carefully and I should say at this stage, having taken legal advice in respect of Nos. 38 and 39, that I must, on that advice, resist them. The effect of No. 38 would be to change the emphasis—the noble Baroness made this point—and the character of the first principle to which the Board is to have regard in formulating proposals for the progressive revocation and authorisation of pay beds and facilities for private outpatients. Under this principle, as it stands in the Bill, authorisations at any particular hospital are to remain only while there is a reasonable demand for
378
accommodation or facilities for private practice in the area. The Amendment would mean that authorisations would be made while there was a demand for accommodation and facilities. The substitution of the word "be" for "remain" would, I understand, remove the guiding principle that when a reasonable demand or any demand ceased to exist in the area, the accommodation should no longer remain in operation.
We feel—although I believe that the noble Baroness is against me on this—that this meets the spirit of the proposals of 15th December, where the first criterion is,
"… 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".
Passing on to Amendment No. 39, again, this is an Amendment upon which I have taken legal advice. Again, I must say that, on that advice, I must resist it. The effect on this Amendment, though innocuous at first sight would be to change the emphasis and the character of the first principle. Under this, authorisations can only be given in certain circumstances. As your Lordships know, the object of the Bill is to separate practice from National Health Service hospitals in a way that allows reasonable time to those who wish to he treated privately or to give private treatment to make suitable alternative arrangements outside the National Health Service hospitals.
Amendment No. 41, to which the noble Baroness made specific reference may in a sense be rather more important. So far as this Amendment is concerned, 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 National Health Service hospitals.
As my right honourable friend the former Minister of State made clear in Standing Committee, the Government, in the December proposals, accepted that, in phasing out pay beds and facilities,

379
the Board could have regard to the intention of the Government to allow occasional admissions of patients, privately, to specialised NHS facilities if these particular services could not reasonably be provided to a satisfactory standard in the private sector, provided—and this was the point made by my right honourable friend—that this would not disadvantage the National Health Service patients. 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.
Secondly in determining the programme for phasing out. both the Secretary of State—I am speaking now in relation to the 1,000 pay beds—and the Board are obliged to look at the provision which is reasonably available in the private sector. 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 Government are allowing time for a measure of development and improvement of private sector facilities, and 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 satisfactorily be carried out in it. The private sector is subject to control by registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975, and if it is shown that this control does not sufficiently maintain standards, I am prepared to consider, in consultation with the profession, what improvements there might be. Primarily, it is for the professional people who work in private hospitals and nursing homes to maintain proper professional standards.
In addition, there is the safeguard that the Board is required to consider representations before making its proposals for phasing out. That was also the reason
380
why we should have liked the professions to join in discussions leading to an agreed schedule, so that the views of the professions at local level could have been taken fully into account. This was the subject of a meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had with the Secretary of State on 18th October last.
I do not think that there is much more that I need add in relation to Amendment No. 42, except to say that it is unlikely that private sector facilities would be established in places inaccessible to the private practitioners and patients who would use them. Nevertheless private sector facilities will not always be located so conveniently for all patients and practitioners as the pay beds that they replace. That we acknowledge and the practitioners themselves must realise. It has always been recognised that private facilities would not necessarily be re-provided on exactly the same scale or in exactly the same locations. Indeed, there are those who would urge that many pay beds are even now not located in the best possible positions and that consultants have to travel some distance.
With regard to Amendment No. 43, it is—if I may put it like this—no part of the Board's function to concern itself with the charges made by private nursing homes or by consultants in the private sector. At the same time, there is no reason to believe that private nursing homes in general are likely to charge excessively whether charges are considered in relation to costs or in relation to charges that would be necessary for pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. It has been the policy of successive Governments since the inception of the Health Service that patients who decide to seek private treatment rather than to avail themselves of National Health Service services should pay the full cost whether they are treated within or outside National Health Service hospitals.
I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that, even if I have been rather sketchy in some respects, I have tried to deal with the five Amendments to which she has spoken. For reasons that I have given—in two cases, we have taken legal advice and have been told that, so far as Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are concerned, we cannot accept them for legal reasons and, in the other three cases, we

381
feel that the Bill provides adequate safeguards—we cannot accept the Amendments.
5.10 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I should like to refer to Amendment No. 41. Am I right in understanding from the noble Lord that there will be discussions with the profession, as I think he said, with a view to the possible amendment in substance in the direction proposed in Amendment No. 41? This is really a matter of crucial importance from the angle of the public. Today, private accommodation within National Health Service hospitals may for the most part be regarded as of high standard and good quality, though there are variations. Those people who, for good reasons or otherwise, say that they prefer to obtain their service privately—and the reason is usually that they prefer for themselves or their families the privacy which private accommodation affords—need reassurance that in fact the private facilities will not be phased out until accommodation of a satisfactory kind is available.
I would urge upon the noble Lord to make absolutely explicit what he means by the words he has used, and to say whether he contemplates in certain circumstances the acceptance of some such words as these. I should have thought that it would be unacceptable to very many people that there should be the withdrawal of the good facilities that exist, throwing those people, particularly those large numbers who have insured against this provision, back to accommodation which is unsatisfactory or less satisfactory than was available in the private beds hospitals.
As the noble Lord spoke, I was reminded of Aneurin Bevan's phrase when he himself voluntarily offered to the profession that private practice could be conducted within National Health Service hospitals in order to bring them within the Service. He said that he wanted to avoid the development of a rash of nursing homes. Well, this Bill will have that effect. For heaven's sake! let us be certain that those external private facilities in existence, or contemplated, provide a satisfactory service, as satisfactory as is now obtained within the walls of the National Health Service hospitals.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I should like to add my support to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and others regarding Amendment No. 41 which I regard as crucial. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has perhaps put his finger on the real point. I know that while your Lordships are in Committee we should not be forever referring to history and perhaps dragging in Nye Bevan again. But it is a fact, as he made utterly clear in his Second Reading speech, that in those days, when he originally allowed for private practice within National Health Service hospitals, he did that for two reasons. The first was to keep the specialists in the hospitals—a phrase which he used over and over again—rather than have them disappearing into isolation in outlying nursing homes. The second reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said, was in order to prevent, or not spark off, the spread of a rash of nursing homes which he suggested would he substandard. So it is utterly clear that he then was very concerned about standards of medical treatment, wherever that medical treatment was—be it private, be it public, or wherever. He was concerned overall about the medical standards being provided for patients, whether they were State patients or private patients.
I believe that by resisting this Amendment, which merely requires that those other facilities should be at a satisfactory standard, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is putting the clock back and is beginning to say, "Well, so long as we get this separation of private practice from State practice, so long as we start the phasing out of private practice we are not really concerned about what happens to the standards in the private sector". I say at once that I personally am much more concerned about the standards in the National Health Service than I am about any other standards. But I do not think that we here, or anybody who is concerned about public health, should close our eyes to a possible deterioration in standards of medical practice anywhere. So I hope that the noble Lord will think again and will perhaps answer more specifically the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, about his intentions with regard to further discussions and possibly further Amendments later. I feel that in reality he is

383
concerned himself about the standards in the private sector and he would not wish us to think otherwise. But his resisting the Amendment tempts one to think that perhaps he has withdrawn a little from that position.
Lord PLATT: I should like to make a comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has just said. Once again he has led us into the danger of confusing standards of medical practice—which were words that he used several times—and standards of facilities. I suggest to the Committee, for the third or fourth time, that these are two different things; at least they can be two different things. Nursing homes can be inspected and it can be said, "Oh yes, they are clean and they are using the right kind of apparatus and so on". But who are the people who are to work there, and who is to monitor their work? This is one of the greatest advantages of having the two in the same hospital, instead of separating them. It will be found that those members of the profession who are after the gold first and foremost will go to the plushy nursing homes, and some of the others will say, "I am not going to join this racket. I will just stick to the Health Service beds." So the two things would be divided to the great deterioration of standards for patients on both sides.
Lord SANDYS: In regard to Amendment No. 38 I was not altogether surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggest that for technical reasons it was necessary to resist the Amendment on the grounds given. I believe that these two words are very important here. So far as the Government are concerned if the word "remain" stays in the Bill it will ensure what we may term a ratchet effect; that is, a degree of rigidity and an impossibility of reversal at a later date. I am trying to think of illustrations as we go through the Bill. I am not intending to prolong the proceedings in this way, but believe that these very bare bones of clauses need illustration.
It so happens that medical practice changes with the years and what was considered satisfactory on 1st July 1948, when the Health Service came into being, is in some cases no longer current medical
384
practice in the strictest sense. Let me give an example. There is to my knowledge in the National Health Service a number of instances where the Service uses spas or the waters of particular territories for the use of National Health Service patients. In this case I am thinking of a spa which I know in Worcestershire, at Droitwich, where for a very long time patients have derived benefit from the brine waters. Since 1948, up until comparatively recently—that is within the last 18 months or so—a very large number of private treatments have taken place within the National Health Service every year. To the best of my knowledge, the figure is approximately 50,000 treatments. Because medical practice is changing and because it is suggested that the same treatment could be given by other means, this particular feature is liable to be deleted from the National Health Service treatment. If the word "remain" stays in the Bill, no longer would this particular situation obtain.
So far as medical practice changes, the fads and peculiarities of medical practice alter. Sometimes, within a decade some treatments are phased out and then, after a trial period and the adoption of a new drug, they are phased in again, after dissatisfaction. What the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said was—and I quote his words—that private facilities would not be reprovided in the same locations. If this occurred in a particular case concerning Droitwich Spa or any other spa, or any other treatment, the difficulty would arise. I believe that to build a rigidity into the Bill by ensuring that the Board follows the instructions set out in subsection (8) would be unsatisfactory.
My noble friend Lady Young reminded the Committee that this Amendment would be subject to, or is liable to be subject to, guillotine in another place. I think the Committee should also be reminded that in Standing Committee in the House of Commons. Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 were subject to a tied vote in all three cases. On Report, in the case of Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 neither of them was reached; and so once again the situation obtains that your Lordships are examining a position of great importance which another place will not have an opportunity to investigate further. For those reasons, I believe that Amendment No. 38 should be upheld.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I take up the last few words of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who says that Amendment No. 38 must be upheld. I think the Committee must appreciate that legal advice has been taken on this subject; and in respect of Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, as I said to your Lordships, the Government have been advised that in relation to what they want to do in the Bill the Amendment would be unacceptable. It is for your Lordships to make up your minds as to whether it is felt the Amendments are desirable or whether, the Government having taken the advice that they have, that should be sufficient for everybody concerned.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is a rather important point that he is making. He says that the Government have taken legal advice and that therefore they cannot accept the Amendments. Does the legal advice apply to whether or not this is the correct interpretation of the Goodman agreement, or does it mean that if the Amendment was carried there would be a position produced which was contradictory to something in existing law, and therefore would be a legal absurdity?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I understand that it was looked at in the light of the Goodman proposals and that the judgment was based on that. I should like to try to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hill. I wonder whether I made myself perfectly clear. When I said what I did I was referring to the phasing out of the 1,000 beds. I referred to the Schedule, and the Schedule refers to the 1,000 beds. The Department invited comment on that, but no comment was forthcoming. When I said that we should welcome discussions with members of the profession, I had in mind that in connection with the phasing out now of the 1,000 beds it will become the responsibility of the area health authorities to advise on which beds in their area are right and proper to be phased out, and we should assume that discussions would take place between the area health authorities which would have that responsibility and the medical personnel involved. If have misled the noble Lord, I am sorry, but it is to this that I was referring.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I have no doubt it was owing to my own stupidity, but I had hoped that for one moment we could escape from this automatic rejection of every Amendment in order to secure that at least the alternative accommodation which would justify the abolition of private facilities within the National Health hospitals could be required to he of a satisfactory kind, of a satisfactory quality. If the Government reject these words there is no safeguard against a determined drive to exclude private practice from National Health Service hospitals without the slightest care being taken to ensure that the alternative available to the public is of the same quality. In an earlier phase of this Committee stage the noble Lord said that there was nothing in this Bill that was aimed at the destruction of private practice; he stood firmly and solemnly for the continuance of private practice. If he will not accept words to ensure that the alternative provision is of a satisfactory kind, he is giving the whole game away: that this is the beginning of a drive to abolish private practice, starting with the abolition of National Health Service private facilities within hospitals without taking the trouble to make sure that what is available as an alternative is of a satisfactory standard.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: What the noble Lord is suggesting, if I may say so, is that attention will not be paid to the provision of accommodation and facilities of a reasonable and satisfactory standard. I said that this will be taken into account because in phasing things out the Board have to look at the facilities available.
Lord HILL of LUTON: "Reasonably available".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes; and they will presumably have discussions with the medical profession as to whether they are or are not. But the noble Lord, Lord Hill, must bear in mind that the whole purpose of this Bill is to separate eventually private practice from the National Health Service; and what he is in fact saying is that deep down in him there is a fear that the private sector is not going to "make it". Very often from some of the things that noble Lords opposite have said when they have expressed anxiety, it is clear that in the back of their minds they also have this

387
fear. There is no evidence at all that this will be so. When one realises, as we in Government realise, the amount of money that is being poured into the private sector at the moment and the plans that there are for building and equipment, I do not see what they have to worry about at all.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I really am not concerned with private practice "not making it". What I am concerned with is the fact that the words "reasonably available" do not cover the quality of the alternative provision. The phrase "reasonably available" means something quite different. It is the rejection of Amendment No. 41, which requires that the alternative facilities should be of a satisfactory standard, which passes my comprehension, after all the noble Lord has said about the desirability of maintaining private practice in the future.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Perhaps I could press the noble Lord a little further at this particular point. I am sorry to do so again; but, after all, paragraph (b) on page 6 does qualify the other accommodation. It refers to it; it describes it. All that is required by Amendment No. 41 is the insertion of these words" at a satisfactory standard". What is said at the moment? At the moment it says that the facilities for the private practice of medicine have to be sufficient. The words are,
"if sufficient accommodation and facilities … are … available …".
That relates to size and the ability to cope with numbers. First we have that description, that they must be "sufficient"; secondly, the Bill goes on to say they must be "reasonably available". In a lengthy discussion on Monday the noble Lord defined the words "reasonably available" as meaning "accessible". I accept that. So now we know that they must be "sufficient", that is, big enough; and they must be "accessible", one must have the opportunity to get to them. Why cannot we add "and they must be at a satisfactory standard" as well?
Baroness YOUNG: I think that we have had a very serious and important debate. I think that we have all listened with close attention to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord
388
Winstanley, who are both professionals and practising and aware of the needs of the medical profession. In preparation for the Committee's proceedings on this Bill I read the very interesting article by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, setting out the whole of the background of the National Health Service. One particular quotation struck me as particularly important. He said:
"On the one hand, medicine of the highest quality must be delivered to all members of the community; on the other hand, those who actually make the delivery must remain free professional men and women if they are to provide the high quality needed."
In those two sentences, it seems to me, he summed up the balance required.
What this debate has been about is achieving the balance. I am bound to say, having listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I remain deeply concerned that in fact we are not going to achieve that balance. I shall read with great care in Hansard tomorrow what he has said about this and what "reasonably" means. But he has not really allayed the fears of the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Winstanley, because it is much more than just a question of providing facilities; it is a question of providing facilities at a satisfactory standard.
For the life of me, I cannot see why the noble Lord cannot accept that Amendment because Clause 8 of the Bill, at the top of page 10, reads:
"In this subsection 'privately available' means available at a satisfactory standard otherwise than at an NHS hospital."
If he can use those words in Clause 8, I cannot see why he cannot use the words in Clause 4, particularly when it would meet genuine fears. This is not an idle debating point. We are not even debating the whole of the future of the National Health Service. We are trying to ensure that the doctors, having made an agreement that the private beds will be phased out—and I would remind the noble Lord that the basis of the Goodman agreement and the acceptance of it was that the consultants would withdraw their working to contract which they were doing at that particular time—have done so on firm understandings. At every point the noble Lord has reminded us that the Government are sticking to the Goodman agreement. Now they are saying that they

389
are going to interpret it in only one particular way. They are not prepared to write into this clause something that they are prepared to write into Clause 8.
The noble Lord in fact said that we are worried that the private facilities may be worse than the NHS facilities. Whether we are worried about that or not, everybody should be worried that we should be setting up second-class facilities for anybody anywhere—when part of the Goodman agreement was that facilities should be available at a satisfactory standard and, presumably, they were intended to be accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice and, presumably to be available at a reasonable cost. I think that we are entitled to have this written into the Bill.
To comment on the question of charges, the noble Lord said that it was no business of his what charges are made for private facilities. But there is a relevance to this. The fact is that if charges for private use facilities in hospitals are pitched at such a level, they cease to be alternative facilities available to people. It is easy, as any runner of a monopoly knows, to price anybody out of the market when one does not want to use his facilities. I am not suggesting that that is the Government's intention, but it would do no possible harm to state it in the Bill by saying that it must be at a reasonable cost. That is all that is being asked. We all understand the work of inflation and that charges must go up; but it is not unreasonable to put it into the Bill that it should be at a reasonable cost. Therefore I feel that Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are of the greatest importance and I shall not feel able to withdraw them.
So far as Amendment No. 38 is concerned, I am not sure that I have yet understood the legal difficulty there. It is because I am not clear what is the legal difficulty, and because I myself would like to take advice on the matter, that I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38 on the understanding that, having taken further advice, I may come back to it on Report. I have linked my remarks to Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43. I should inform the Committee that I do not feel able to withdraw those.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Will the noble Baroness allow me to say that I gave reasons for the legal difficulty in Amendments numbers 38 and 39, which she will probably see when reading Hansard tommorrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 8, after ("facilities") insert ("at a satisfactory standard").
The noble Baroness said: I have already indicated that this is not an Amendment that I feel able to withdraw. I should like to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter. I beg to move.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Brock, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Alport, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Dundee, E.

Amherst, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Eccles, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Byers, L.

Elles, B.

Amory, V.

Cairns, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Elton, L.

Amulree, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ely, Bp.

Auckland, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Balerno, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Exeter, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Carrington, L.

Faithfull, B.

Banks, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Falmouth, V.

Barnby, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cross, V.

Ferrier, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Berkeley, B.

Daventry, V.

Gainford, L.

Blakenham, V.

de Clifford, L.

Garner, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Bradford, E.

Digby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Goschen, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

St. Just, L.

Grafton, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Salisbury, Bp.

Gray, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sandys, L.

Greenway, L.

Mansfield, E.

Savile, L.

Grey, E.

Margadale, L.

Seear, B.

Gridley, L.

Marley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Melville, V.

Sharples, B.

Hampton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Meston, L.

Somers, L.

Harcourt, V.

Monck, V.

Spens, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stamp, L.

Harvington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stokes, L.

Hawke, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Northchurch, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunt, L.

Northesk, E.

Strathspey, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swansea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Terrington, L.

Ilchester, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teynham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Pender, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kemsley, V.

Peterborough, Bp.

Tranmire, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Platt, L.

Vickers, B.

Kintore, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Reading, M.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Reay, L.

Wardington, L.

London, Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Waverley, V.

Long, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Westbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Winstanley, L.

Luke, L.

Rochester, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lyell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Arwyn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peddie, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brimelow, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Slater, L.

Caradon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Soper, L.

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wilson, of Radcliffe, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("available") and insert ("accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133: Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Alport, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monson, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack. L.

Mottistone, L.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Auckland, L.

George-Brown, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E.

Balfour of Inchrye. L.

Grafton, D.

O'Hagan, L.

Banks, L.

Gray, L.

Onslow, E.

Barnby, L.

Greenway, L.

Pender, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Peterborough, Bp.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Blakenham, V.

Hampton, L.

Reading, M.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Reay, L.

Bradford, E.

Harcourt, V.

Redesdale, L.

Brock, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Brooke of Cumnor. L.

Harvington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hawke, L.

Rochester, L.

Caithness, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L.

Chelwood, L.

Ilchester, E.

Savile, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Simon, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Somers, L.

Crawshaw, E.

Kintore, E.

Spens, L.

Cross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strang, L.

Daventry, V.

London, Bp.

Strathcarron, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller,]

Lonsdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Luke, L.

Terrington, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waverley, V.

Ely, Bp.

Mansfield, E.

Westbury, L.

Emmet of Amberley. B.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Exeter, M.

Marley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Melville, V.

Young, B.

Falmouth, V.

Merrivale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Caradon, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

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

Pannell, L.

Winterbottom, L.[Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

5.56 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 10, after ("hospitals)") insert ("and available at reasonable cost").
The noble Baroness said: We have already discussed this Amendment when we were discussing Amendment No. 38 and I moved all these Amendments together. I must say that I found the Division on Amendment No. 42 quite extraordinary and I think this is a feeling shared by the entire Committee. At the beginning of these Committee proceedings I indicated that we on this side of the Committee were taking this Bill very seriously. As the Committee will be aware, there were 52 tied Amendments in the Committee stage in another place; they were guillotined on Report and but for these Committee proceedings a great many matters would not be discussed by Parliament at all; they are certainly not being discussed in another place. I have done my best to order our affairs on this side as well as I can. The Government have declined to group any Amendments which would have made the procedure easier from their point of view and I am at a loss to understand why they declined to do so, because it is in their interest to get the Bill through, not particularly our interest. However, we have done our best and grouped the Amendments as well as possible in order to help the discussion. When I move a consequential Amendment and have to have a second Division I find it all the more extraordinary. It is wasting the time of the Committee when we have a number of Amendments before us.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It may he that I am at fault, but I think noble Lords had better look at the Amendment before saying "Hear, hear!". Amendment No. 41 dealt with satisfactory standards; Amendment No. 42 dealt with accessibility to patients and practitioners of their choice and I cannot see that that is consequential on the other. The next Amendment which the noble Baroness has just moved deals with these facilities being available at reasonable cost. They are three quite distinct things and I cannot see how anybody can argue that three quite separate matters are consequential.
Baroness YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows perfectly well, the three points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when we discussed them at Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, believed that Amendments ought to be made to the Bill. These Amendments made these three points. They are to one particular sub-section of a clause and I spoke to them together. I think this is a rather useless semantic point about their not being consequential and simply takes up the time of the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("() that no authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions should be revoked so long as their use in that connection contributes to the education or training of medical or dental practitioners or of persons employed in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at hospitals;").
The noble Lord said: On the following three Amendments we may find ourselves to some extent in the same difficulty because of grouping or the lack of it. I think it will be of some advantage if I speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 because they all deal with the same point. I will in fact address myself initially to Amendment No. 45, and speak on the other two. Phasing out would most emphatically damage education and training. I have already referred to the Royal Commission on Medical Education. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, who served on the Todd Commission, was one of the members of that very eminent body. He supported me in my conclusion that the Bill now before us flies in the face of what the Todd Commission agreed and set out in their Report, in particular in Chapter 10. I think it would be of some advantage if I reduced the number of quotations. Your Lordships may feel I have dealt insufficiently with this very important document, but I will draw upon it again if need be, if the noble Baroness wishes me to bring out certain points later.
I should like to say, first, that the drafting of Clause 4(8) in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) is obscure and, speaking on

397
behalf of my noble friends on this side of the Committee, we find the language unacceptable. We have addressed ourselves to this problem and have redrafted those parts of Clause 4 which we believe needed redrafting. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, for instance, to subsection (8)(c), where we consider the English to be most unsatisfactory. It contains a use of the impersonal passive which makes nonsense. Perhaps I might read it aloud so as to make clear to the Committee what I am endeavouring to show:
"(c)that the continued authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should depend on there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than at NHS hospitals, sufficient reasonable accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry to meet the reasonable demand for them in the area or areas served by the hospital or hospitals in question;".
The phrase:
"… there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than …"
is an extraordinary use of English. If one attempts to read the clause as a whole, I believe there is an obscurity of language, and I constantly refer to the problem which is set out in the Renton Committee Report. May I be permitted to omit the reference in that Report? I will read it if any noble Lord wishes me to do so.
I turn now to Clause 4(8)(d). In that comparatively long subsection we have what seems to be equal nonsense, because the language is of a similar nature. I believe that one of our chief tasks in this Chamber is to remove obscurity of language, to make the obscure clear and to make the lengthy and platitudinous interesting and brief, if we can. Here the Government are presenting us with a group of paragraphs containing what I can only describe as nonsense. It may be only linguistic nonsense or perhaps "nonsense on stilts"—which is a higher form of nonsense—but, at least, in addressing ourselves to these three Amendments, we are endeavouring to get the language right as a start.
I would refer to the basic issue of education and training. It is fundamental, and there will be a major gap if the subsections to which I have referred are passed by the Committee. The Todd Commission referred to education and
398
training in Chapter 10 of their Report, and I will not quote from that again as I have already quoted twice from that chapter this afternoon. However, I should like to say that there are two issues I believe your Lordships should consider. One is the question of examinations—and very important it is—for those doctors and practitioners who come to these shores from abroad, and the examinations which are undertaken by those who qualify who are resident in this country. One of the principal points is that of the 10,000 who come from overseas to practise within the National Health Service—I think the noble Baroness will agree that the number is approximately 10,000; it is 9,000 odd—there will be a very substantial number who are not willing to undertake certain tests.
There is a basic test, which is normally applicable here, but I want to address myself to the basic issue of the conjoint examination. The conjoint examination—I hope that noble Lords with medical knowledge will correct me if I am wrong—must be sat by doctors in the United Kingdom, but it need not be passed by those coming from overseas who wish to practise in this country. That is unfair and unreasonable from two points of view. One concerns those very highly-qualified doctors from overseas who have a very high standard indeed in their own territory and who choose to sit the examination and qualify. They are, of course, under no illusions whatever about the fact that many of their fellow countrymen who are not so well qualified are under no obligation to sit that examination. That is one side of the story only. There are other matters to which I could refer, but they are matters to which other members of this Committee who are much better qualified would be able to address themselves. I believe these matters concerning education and training are very serious ones and we should not pass them by. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 45.
Lord PLATT: May I just intervene, since the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has invited those of us with medical knowledge to do so? One does not have to sit the conjoint examination to qualify in medicine. It is one of the possible qualifying medical examinations. A university degree in medicine is equally good.
Baroness STEDMAN: I do not think the effect of this Amendment would be quite as far-reaching in the actual training of doctors as the noble Lord opposite would have us believe. For many years it has been the manpower policy of successive Administrations to reduce the numbers of contracts for small numbers of sessions in our teaching hospitals, in line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Medical Education. For some time, therefore, all the new consultants' posts have been approved as whole-time, or maximum part-time, except in special circumstances. I recognise that the withdrawal of the private practice facilities from NHS hospitals may result in some consultants being less readily available, but I also think it is important not to exaggerate the extent of this problem by suggesting that the education of medical students, junior doctors and other hospital staff will be adversely affected.
This will not be a new development. Many consultants already make use of private nursing homes and hospitals some distance away from their National Health Service hospitals, and by no means all of the NHS hospitals have the facilities for private patients, and those members of their consultant staff who practise privately often have to travel.
Furthermore, I would remind noble Lords opposite that we are here considering a very small proportion of total health service facilities, pay beds being two per cent. of available acute beds, which in any event have never been used as intensively as ordinary NHS beds. The volume of clinical experience that private patients contribute is consequently of a much more marginal value, save perhaps in the case of some of our more specialised units. But this kind of experience need not be lost, because Clause 8 provides for the occasional admissions of private patients who need highly specialised treatments. The same provision will also ensure that the contribution to training resulting from the admission of aliens who come to this country specifically for treatment and who suffer from diseases or complications rarely seen in this country need not be lost by reason of phasing out.
I believe the Opposition want to perpetuate the present arrangements under which a consultant is free to admit to a
400
pay bed any patient, whether a native of this country or from overseas, who is prepared to pay for any treatment, irrespective of the length of the waiting list, if in his judgment research funds or medical education would benefit. While the Government accept that it is not unreasonable that consultants with highly specialised skills should not be denied that opportunity of building an international reputation, provided that the treatment they offer to overseas patients is no different from that given to NHS patients, we think it wrong that in places where there are long waiting lists consultants should be free to use NHS facilities to take in patients, particularly from overseas, for non-serious operations in order to enhance revenue for research. That is not the way to finance research. The purpose of this Amendment seems to us to be destructive of the principle that the National Health Service is first and foremost for the people of this country.
We are rightly proud of our tradition of making these facilities available to patients from overseas who have the misfortune to be taken ill while in this country. We are equally proud of the tradition of allowing patients to come here for highly specialised facilities not readily available in their own countries, and the Health Services Bill will not affect these arrangements. I repeat, however, that the Government are not prepared to allow consultants to sell routine NHS services to overseas patients, or, for that matter, to British patients, who are prepared to pay a premium in order to jump the queue, so as to increase the flow of revenue to research funds at the expense of the majority of the citizens of this country who, through the taxes they pay, provide these facilities for the use of the community as a whole.
Lord O'HAGAN: I wonder whether I may raise one point with the noble Baroness on this Amendment. She may wish to refer to it after consultation on a subsequent Amendment. She has referred continually to "citizens of this country" and she implied that the citizens of this country were the people who were to be considered, primarily, and that no others were to have equal consideration. I ask whether, in the drafting of this Bill, the Department responsible for it took account of our accession to the EEC, because

401
under the Treaty of Rome we are obliged to give to all nationals of EEC countries on a reciprocal basis treatment equal to that we afford to our own nationals. May I ask whether, on reconsideration, she will not wish to withdraw some of her comments about people from outside this country, because if her statement were taken at its face value it would be in breach at least of the spirit of the Treaty. When the Government are making statements of this sort, could she say whether they have considered their obligations under the Treaty of Rome?
Baroness STEDMAN: I am concerned at this point with the pay beds. Whether they are citizens of this country or citizens of Europe or wherever they come from, if they want the facilities and wish to pay for them, those are the facilities with which I am concerned. Our medical obligations, I may say, are honoured under the Treaty of Rome. We are able to offer the NHS facilities. When it comes to pay beds, we said that we were "proud of our tradition of making these facilities available to patients from overseas". We are equally proud of our tradition of allowing patients to come here into our pay beds for highly specialised facilities which other countries cannot offer. However, we have to remember that our Health Service is paid for by the taxes of the people from this country. We cannot allow people to use their cheque books to jump the queue over medical needs or over the needs of the people paying their taxes for the ordinary Health Service treatment. We cannot allow pay beds to continue to be used as a means of jumping the queue.
Lord O'HAGAN: I was not trying to intervene on the point of cheque books or not cheque books or on queue jumping or not queue jumping. What I was seeking to try to obtain from the Government was a statement that when looking at this Bill they would take into account our obligations under the Treaty. The answer of the noble Baroness has confirmed my suspicion that they have not, because she cannot say in the same breath, "We have looked at this matter" and then say, "It is all very well to talk about patients from overseas jumping the queue" and so on. I will not persist now, but at some later stage would the Government give the Committee a firm assurance that when they
402
are talking about foreigners, the Government and the Department responsible for the preparation of this Bill have hoisted in the fact that this Government could be taken to court in Luxembourg if they were to pass legislation which discriminated against our fellow nationals of the Community and gave them a less favourable position under our national law than the position awarded to our own nationals?
The Government may wish to do something that discriminates against people from Saudi Arabia—if they arc foolish enough to wish to do so. What I am asking for is an assurance from the Government that they realise that if they are doing something in this Bill which puts someone from Germany or France in a less favourable position than our own citizens, then they are in breach of the Treaty obligations.
Baroness STEDMAN: I have taken further advice on this. The National Health Service is provided for the people of Great Britain, but nothing in this Bill affects our EEC obligations.
Lord HARVINGTON: I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, make a rather drastic accusation about the English of this clause. I waited anxiously for the noble Baroness to address herself to this question. Unless she feels satisfied that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is completely wrong, perhaps she would say that she would prevail upon those cloudy people, the Parliamentary draftsmen, to have another look and see whether they could not make it clear. As far as I understand it, she has ignored that part of the noble Lord's comments.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sorry if I was discourteous, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has had as much experience as I have of coping with Parliamentary draftsmen. They say that it must be put in this rather archaic way in which it is put—
Lord HARVINGTON: Unclear!
Baroness STEDMAN: Unclear if you like. Far be it from ordinary mortals to argue with them. This is the way in which we have been advised by the Parliamentary draftsmen that it should be put.
Baroness YOUNG: We shall be returning to this point on a later Amendment. I have the deepest sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but the noble Lord ought to take this up with his colleagues in the Government, because the drafting of parts of this Bill is totally incomprehensible. I suspect that what the Government have done is to take the Goodman agreement, which was a document and not a piece of legislation, and simply write parts of it into the Bill. As I said, we shall be returning to this point, but it hardly helps either the medical profession or organisations such as BUPA, who will have to interpret the Bill, if it is written in this obscure language which can be understood only when the Government have chosen to give us an explanation, and when we have seen it in Hansard.
6.20 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, used a number of emotive phrases and, to a degree, her remarks failed to recognise that we have plenty of time ahead of us—perhaps another 12hours—to consider the body of this Bill. I believe that there are some real points which I am about to raise, because, although the noble Baroness commented on the volume of clinical experience, the essence of this matter has yet to be discussed. I do not know whether the Hospital Activity Analysis is in the noble Baroness's brief, but if it is I think she will agree that it would be worth while advising the Committee what the hospital activity is. The noble Baroness disagrees?
Baroness STEDMAN: No. It is not part of my brief.
Lord SANDYS: It happens to be part of my interest in this case. I have a quotation from the Minister of State, Dr. Owen, in Standing Committee, and I think it would be valuable for the Committee to have the figures and to appreciate he balance between NHS patients and private patients. The Minister of State said, at column 409 of the Official Report for Standing Committee D:
"I will quote some figures taken from the Hospital Activity Analysis. In neurology there were 24,000 NHS patients and 700 private patients; in neuro-surgery 26,000 NHS and 600 private: in cardiology 25,000 NHS and 500 private; in radiotherapy 43,000 NHS and 970 private, and in thoracic surgery 26,000 NHS and 600 private. There are plenty of NHS patients
404
receiving complex treatments, and the absence of private patients would not seem likely to affect significantly the amount of clinical material, particularly when one has regard to the effects of Clause 8 admissions."
He ended his comment by saying:
"I think there has been gross exaggeration of the consequences."
I totally deny that. There has not been gross exaggeration.
My noble friend Lady Young and I consulted the medical profession, and what we heard was extremely interesting. We discussed the point at some length not only with a general practitioner, but also with a consultant, and the proposition was put to us that if a substantial number of beds disappear—and we know of the initial phase of 1,000 beds, followed in due course by 3,444 beds, if the Government have their way—there will be a substantial loss of clinical experience. Clinical experience, as expressed in the analysis, shows that the vast majority are NHS patients, but the point which the consultants make is that a very small number of cases from abroad frequently bring heart conditions, as well as conditions of the lungs and of the blood, which are quite unknown in this country and they form a very valuable basis for training and examination. For instance, a heart patient from Bradford is most unlikely to have the same condition as a heart patient from Perugia. The point made by the consultants is valid.
As we said at length on Second Reading, private patients from abroad bring not only funds but physical conditions which are not only unknown, but will not be within the experience of the young doctors and consultants of tomorrow. This is a serious point which is worthy of consideration. As I understand it—and, again, I am more than ready to give way to any medical noble Lord who wishes to intervene in specialty training, after roughly two and a half years in general surgery, a young doctor will very often move on to a registrar's job, and it is normal practice in the National Health Service for a registrar to be asked to take over a number of patients. But when a certain situation arises the top man, the consultant, is asked to examine a case in greater detail, and I believe it would be a great disservice to the medical profession, particularly to those members of it who are going in for higher qualifications in both the Hospital

405
Service and the general practitioner service, if we allowed the Government to get away with it. The Government may say that, because there are 43,000 NHS cases, there is an enormous weight of clinical experience. But I am talking not about the weight of numbers, but about the weight of conditions.
Lord STONE: Surely that argument would apply to both sides of the profession, to the public side and to the private side. One can use the same argument about the number in private practice and about the much larger experience of the public hospitals.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: I should like to support these Amendments. Many of my colleagues are worried about how this Bill will affect their teaching of medical students, and postgraduates and interfere with their medical research. Several of them have told me—one did so this morning—that they would seriously think of resigning from the National Health Service if that happened. That really would hurt the National Health Service and their patients. These Amendments would help to discourage doctors from doing that, and I hope that your Lordships will agree.
Lord SANDYS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, for his support. He is a qualified consultant, and on this side of the Committee we have few enough of them. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is apparently unable to be here at the moment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stone, is wrong and I beg to disagree with him. He is a qualified general practitioner and I am a layman. But I believe that a variety of clinical experience is available within the National Health Service, for the good reasons which I have given.
Lord STONE: But the noble Lord compared 26,000 with about 800.
Lord SANDYS: My point is that among those 800 there were some very unusual conditions, very often from overseas. They are conditions induced by the climate of the country from which those patients came, or by some other cause. If there are fewer beds in hospitals, there will automatically be a much greater throughput, and the biggest block of all
406
will be in the outflow through convalescence, because of the number of convalescent homes which are liable to be closed. Therefore a number of acute patients are likely to stay in hospital quite a long time. This is a particular difficulty because the whole weight of current medical practice is, especially in acute hospitals, to ensure that there is a considerable throughput and that after serious operations patients are quite rapidly impelled to leave those hospitals and go into convalescent circumstances. It seems that there will be a blockage in acute hospitals on this account, and I do not believe that the noble Baroness will be able to produce figures which will be able to convince this side of the Committee that this is not so.
Baroness STEDMAN: No, I cannot produce figures. But what I did say was that the pay beds account for only a small proportion of those people who are treated, and, despite the figures which the noble Lord gave, the great majority of people who go into pay beds go in as maternity cases, for varicose veins, hernias and other conditions, and the highly specialised ones will still retain the right of having pay beds. They will still be able to use the NHS facilities until there are alternative facilities for them.
The hospital for Tropical Diseases will still take patients from abroad with those diseases of which we do not have much experience in this country, but about which our doctors need to know in their training. Those kind of specialised hospitals will not be deprived of having these patients, nor of the doctors getting training in them. There is a vast reservoir of clinical experience in our NHS and teaching hospitals for doctors' training. There is obviously a great divide between us. We do not believe that the position is as serious as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would accept. We do not think we are doing anything to the detriment of doctors' training in the future.
Lord AUCKLAND: These conditions seem to apply to London. We all accept that the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London will not be affected by the Bill. But there are various regional hospitals, such as the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and a number of specialist hospitals in the North of England, which are likely to be adversely affected, and

407
where these relatively rare diseases are treated. Have the Government given any thought to the hospitals outside the London area, particularly at a time where more people are leaving London for these areas and where there is an increased amount of training of medical students, registrars and others in those hospitals outside London?
Baroness STEDMAN: Where a hospital has built up a particular speciality, which is not available to private patients outside in private nursing homes, then they still will he treated in that hospital for that speciality. We are not taking anything away from hospitals outside London.
Lord SANDYS: I believe we have had an interesting, though not satisfactory, debate. In the first place I drew your Lordships' attention to the drafting of this part of the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hambleden, who reminded the Committee that the noble Baroness had said nothing about it. My noble friend Lady Young has sympathised with the Government on the problem of drafting. But at the same time we are in some difficulty, and I hope that the noble Baroness w ill be able to draw the Parliamentary Counsel's attention to this matter. If she is unwilling to do that on this Amendment, perhaps she will do so on the next one. Nevertheless, it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I withdrew the Amendment and returned to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("() that no authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions should be revoked so long as their use in that connection contributes (whether financially or otherwise) to medical or dental research;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 46 was subject to a tied vote in Standing Committee in the House of Commons. This will be a somewhat wearisome and repetitive phrase which we shall repeat at regular intervals. But it is of great
408
significance, for once again the situation will apply that your Lordships' Committee is considering an Amendment which is unlikely to be viewed again in another place. This Amendment is concerned with authorisations and their relationship to medical or dental research. There have been cases in the past, and mention has been made in the newspapers, of obstruction from planning committees for political reasons: the obstruction of authorisation for the constructing of hospitals or nursing homes, using administrative reasons as a cover. I believe that from the body of our knowledge in this field we can cite cases, but I will not do so because it may be provocative at this stage, unless the noble Baroness wishes me to.
It appears that to leave the Bill without this Amendment would be unsatisfactory for the future of medical and dental research. This is a field which I believe my noble friend Lord Auckland referred to as being of great importance. My noble friend Lord Colwyn is a qualified dentist in this field and has in the past contributed to debates on the dental situation. Medical research as conducted in this country at present is perhaps one of those fields in which this country excels. This also applies to dental research. But it can perhaps be said—certainly over the past 50 or 60 years, and long before that indeed; for, after all, Dr. Jenner was a citizen of this country and a resident of Cheltenham—that medical research owes much to particular innovations in both treatment and practice which have been evolved in the United Kingdom. It is self-evident I believe that this situation would suffer, and I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: Again I would be repetitive if I gave the same answer as to the last Amendment. But really the same kind of circumstances apply in this case as in the other. I think that the noble Lord opposite is getting unduly worried about the kind of experience that our doctors and dentists will use as a result of the revocation, because Clause 8, when we reach it, provides for the occasional admissions of private patients who need the highly specialised treatments. The same provision will also ensure that the contribution to training, resulting from the admission of the aliens to whom

409
we referred on the previous Amendment, also comes in. This was raised, as the noble Lord said, in the Standing Committee. No doubt he has seen the letter which my right honourable friend Mr. Ennals sent to his right honourable friend Mr. Jenkin. If not, may I quote from it where he said:
"Following David Owens's undertaking during our debate in Standing Committee, I am writing to let you know the final outcome of our enquiries of area health authorities, teaching and boards of governors about the money transferred to research for fees received by whole-time consultants with honorary contracts for treatment given to them by private patients.
"The full returns confirm the impression we formed on the basis of the replies we received from some authorities by the beginning of August, that the annual amount transferred is relatively small, probably no more than £250,000 from all types of treatment."
This compares with a contribution to medical research from trust funds of about £3½ million a year, and total central expenditure on medical research of over £40 million.
"So far as we can tell, and accepting hospital authorities' own assessment of the proportion of private patients whose needs were highly specialised and who it is presumed would have been eligible for admission under Clause 8 arrangements, the national reduction in the amount transferred to research funds when all pay beds have been phased out is unlikely much to exceed £50,000 a year. Even allowing for the possibility of over-reporting by some authorities of the type of case that may in future be eligible for a Clause 8 admission and for some possible under-reporting of the amounts currently available, the reduction would still be a very small proportion of the total research budget.
"These figures from the returns confirm…that the problem is not large and the way to deal with any consequences that emerge as phasing out of pay beds proceeds is through our current methods of funding research which are flexible."
This shows that the Government are alive to the fact that research projects come and go, that money sometimes dries up before a project is finished and that there are funds available to it. The Government would be anxious to see that all the necessary research was still carried on.
Lord O'HAGAN: if the Government are concerned that the revocation of authorisations will, to however insubstantial an extent, affect research, and if it is a point which the Government take seriously, is it the intention of the Government that the Board will be able to take it into account in its deliberations? If the
410
Board is able to take this point into account, as I hope it will, how will the Board be informed about the reduction of research facilities in particular areas or in groups of hospitals? What is the mechanism whereby the Board will be able to grasp the consequences of its research revocations and how will it take them into account in its activities?
Baroness STEDMAN: My understanding is that this would not be one of the responsibilities of the Board. There would have to be consultation on each individual research project as it came up. If it needed help, presumably it would have to go through its Area Health Authority and Regional Health Authority up to the Department. The final decision on how and if it could be helped would rest with the Department.
Lord O'HAGAN: If I may intervene again, does this mean that the Committee is to understand that if research becomes prejudiced through the revocation of authorisations there will be a departmental mechanism for ensuring that whatever shortfall there is will be considered and will be borne by the Department on the Vote that it gets from the other place for its normal work? Or will this come under one of the research councils? How will the money that is lost be made up?
Baroness STEDMAN: Each case would have to be considered on its merits. If the Government felt that there was no other way of funding a project which needed to be carried out, then they would find ways and means to fund it; but there is no assurance of this, if a project has died out, without an application being made to the Department and the Department considering the merits or demerits of the case put to them.
Lord PLATT: I think that is a terrible answer. A great deal of research is carried out by registrars during their term of training. Half-way through their training they may get a bright idea for which they want support from funds. How many layers did the noble Baroness say that they would have to penetrate? I was not quite sure, but the registrar would probably have retired before he received his answer.
Baroness YOUNG: Again I sympathise with the noble Baroness opposite who has been put into an extremely difficult position by having to speak at relatively short notice on these very complicated matters. However, my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has rightly drawn the Committee's attention to the fact that a great many problems are involved and I do not believe that the Government have faced up to them. If in our financial straits the noble Baroness and her colleagues can just write off £250,000 as being absolutely nothing, they have a most extraordinary conception of the world in which we are living. Money for research is of prime importance to all patients, both in the National Health Service and outside. If one looks at the great achievements in British medical science and research, surely nobody in this Committee would want to deny any funds that could be obtained from this source for such a worthwhile cause. We are told that we do not need to bother about this and that the Government will find the money from somewhere else. I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness is intending to mislead the Committee, but when the Government have told us on innumerable occasions that there is no more money for almost every project which is raised it is stretching our credulity to think that we can possibly accept such an argument.
There is a much more fundamental argument. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept these Amendments. If the Board look at the question and find that the phasing out of the beds will not interfere in any way with training or research, it can phase them out accordingly. I cannot see why the Board cannot have the responsibility for taking this matter into account. Above all, training and research arc going to apply throughout the whole of the health services, whether to private patients or to National Health Service patients. Surely nobody can want less good training for doctors or less good medical research into all of the terrible problems which still confront us.
Baroness ELLTOT of HARWOOD: I have listened with great interest to the debate and to the reply of the noble Baroness, and I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Platt. If any research project has to go through the Department of Health and Social Security from bottom to top before any money is given to it, the
412
registrar or young doctor who has had some bright idea and wants to get on with that piece of research will, as the noble Lord has said, have left by the time he receives permission to go ahead with it. This research might or might not lead to anything; one does not know. However, for that application to have to go all the way through this hierarchy right up to the Minister of Health seems to me to be absolutely crazy.
I understood that if a great doctor or surgeon in a hospital had under him somebody who he thought had a bright idea into which he ought to do some research, he could go ahead and get help from research funds: but if it has to drag through the machinery of the DHSS before anything can be done about it then the money, which we all know is in very short supply, will have been used up. Surely this is a very retrograde step.
The Bill is supposed to be forward-looking and very helpful, but every time we have a discussion it seems to me that we are going backwards more and more and doing things which we stopped doing when the National Health Service was first introduced in 1948. We are going to have to go back and do many things which were done away with then. For instance, we are again going to have the masses of private nursing homes and hospitals which existed before the National Health Service began. Now they will all have to be revived because of this foolish idea about separating the National Health Service from the private sector. Research is going to be hit very badly.
I find it very depressing to hear what the noble Baroness had to say, although no doubt she had to say what she was told to say. I dislike being told what to say and I prefer to challenge the people who do the drafting. There seems to be some kind of "sacred cow" about the draftsmanship of Bills. I have known Ministers who have torn drafts to pieces, produced far better ones themselves and paid absolutely no attention to the drafting. Quite honestly, what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, read out just does not make any sense at all, and I only hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will go for the draftsmen when this is over and will make them produce something which is easier to read and better to understand.
Lord SANDYS: I entirely agree with every word spoken by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and also by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan. We are in a very difficult situation here because at this particular stage, with this group of Amendments and with this complexity of language, it would seem inadvisable to divide the Committee on the issue. Nevertheless, I can assure the Government, and warn them at the same time, that we shall be returning to this particular part of the Bill on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: This may be a convenient moment to halt the Committee stage for an hour in order to take other Business. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.52 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTLAND (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL
[References are to Bill(318)as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reason and Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 1-2.]
Clause 5, page 4, line 35, leave out paragraphs ((h)) and (i).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
Clause 5, Page 4, line 36, at end insert 'other than an application under paragraph 11 A of that Schedule where no objection is made in relation to the application'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree to Amendment No. 2 proposed by the Commons to the words restored to the Bill. All the Amendments with which we are concerned tonight deal with the question of safeguards against Sunday opening. The issue of Sunday opening has been debated in both Houses and a decision has been reached in favour of the principle of Sunday opening. The other place has considered on two occasions the need for safeguards and has reached the same conclusion both times. That conclusion is that safeguards under which an application has to be made to a licensing board are necessary. The matter was considered very thoroughly last week in the other place, and by a majority of approximately three to one the safeguards were approved. They received support from all Parties and the vote was decisively in favour of the safeguards.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree to the Commons Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord kirkhill.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I find it very disappointing that in your Lordships' House we are debating at great length the question of the Sunday opening of public houses in Scotland. We agreed that they should be open and we agreed that the conditions under which they were open should be of the highest, but we thought that that also applied to all the other days in the week; that is to say, that if a public house is badly run it should not be open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday. In other words that the special licence for Sunday was really not necessary. I have read the report of the debate in the other House and we had quite a lot of support from both sides of the House. There were members of the Labour Party who supported us and also members of the Conservative Party. Equally there were members of the Labour Party and of the Conservative Party who were on the other side, and in the end the Division discarded our views in favour of the views of the other people.
I am not going to oppose this Motion because, as the noble Lord has rightly

415
said, this subject has been discussed in your Lordships' House, it has been discussed in the other place and it has now come hack to us. However, I find it rather short-sighted of the other place. I also think it is treating the Scots differently from the English. Public houses in England are open on Sundays and nobody worries particularly about it. Of course if they are badly run on Sundays they should be stopped, but I would stop them on any other day of the week if they were badly run and caused a nuisance. I think it is wrong that just because it is Sunday one has to have special licensing. It is a great pity that the other House did not agree with your Lordships, because I consider that on this occasion our view was a more liberal one, more forward looking and wiser. We shall not oppose it but I wish to make my protest, as I did in the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 3–11]
Clause 53, page 38, line 6, leave out from "evening" to end of line 9.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment or the following Reason:
Because it is necessary to include a procedure under which applications for Sunday opening are made to licensing boards.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. The effect of Amendment No. 3 was to make Sunday opening unrestricted. The other place regard the safeguards of Schedule 4 as being necessary, and I recommend that your Lordships' House should not insist on Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 5–11.]
Schedule 4, leave out Schedule 4.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 91, line 32, at end insert—
"4A. Section 10(2)(b) and section 10(5) of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications., apply in relation to an application for Sunday opening as they apply in relation to an application for the grant of a new licence."
Page 91, line 43, after "that" insert ", except as otherwise provided by this Act".
Page 92, line 16, at end insert—
"11 A. An application for the renewal of a public house licence or refreshment licence under section 10 of this Act shall state whether the applicant is making an application for Sunday opening."
Page 92, line 17, leave out "5 to 9" and insert "4A to 10".
Page 92, line 18, after "11" insert "or 11 A".
Page 92, line 20, at end insert—
"12 A. The grant of an application for Sunday opening under paragraph 2 or 11 above shall come into effect on the making of the grant except that where there were objections at the hearing the grant shall not come into effect until—

(a) the time within which an appeal may be made has elapsed, or

(b) where an appeal has been lodged, the appeal has been abandoned or determined in favour of the applicant for the grant.

12 B. The grant of an application for Sunday opening under paragraph 11 A above shall come into effect on the renewal of the licence to which the application relates.
12 C. If an application for Sunday opening is made under paragraph 11 A above any existing grant of such an application shall continue to have effect—

(a) until the first mentioned application is granted by the board;

(b) if the first mentioned application is refused, until the time within which an appeal may be made has elapsed, or if an appeal has been lodged, until the appeal has been abandoned or determined.

12D. The grant of an application for Sunday opening shall cease to have effect when the licence to which it relates ceases to have effect."
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree to Amendments Nos. 6 to 11 en bloc proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill. The point which has to be made, as has earlier and usually been the position, is that there should be safeguards on the question of Sunday opening. I agree with the Commons that Schedule 4 contains important safeguards which should be preserved. The Amendments to the Schedule made by the Commons have two main purposes. These are to apply to applications for Sunday opening the relevant procedural requirements which

417
are imposed on applications for licences and to provide for the currency of permission for Sunday opening to he of the same duration as the licence to which it relates.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree to the Amendments proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I do not know what has happened to all our supporters on this Licensing Bill, but again I would simply say that in my view this is a great mistake. We are now putting ourselves into an inferior position to that of the English. In my view that is a mistake. I think that the debates which went on in the other House did not face the problems which they will now have to face, especially in regard to the making of applications for licences for Sundays, and so on. That is a great mistake.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I beg to move as a further Amendment to the words restored to the Bill, manuscript Amendment No. 12:
Schedule 4, page 92, line 39, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 40 and insert ("each individual premises named in a complaint").
My Lords, I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 12 which has been circulated in my name. It seems not inappropriate that at an hour when noble Lords are allowed to rise from their pay beds and take some refreshment we should perhaps turn to a Bill concerned with refreshment, albeit of an alcoholic nature. At the outset, let me reassure the House that I have no intention of attempting a rerun of the arguments about the opening of public houses in Scotland on Sundays, in regard to which I made my position clear in Committee and on Report, with both my voice and my vote. Not only would it be an abuse of your Lordships' tolerance, but it would serve no useful purpose to add to the remarks already made by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood.
My Lords, any similarity between the issue of Schedule 4 and the major legislative
418
matters concerning our attention at this time is purely coincidental, but there is a coincidence. It so happens that Schedule 4 to the Bill has not been debated as to its content in any detailed sense. However, any similarity to anything else ends here, because in our Public Bill Committee we followed our convictions and inclinations, and also the lead of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and we expunged Schedule 4 from the Bill. Maybe that was a tactical error. Certainly I was not seized then of the point I am bringing to the attention of your Lordships this evening. In any event, on Report, this house backed in the Division Lobbies the action of the Public Bill Committee.
I repaired to another place to listen, Divisions here permitting, to the debate on Schedule 4 when the Bill returned to the House of Commons, and I have since read what else was said that I may have missed. The debate did not enlighten me on the point which is now troubling me, since it only re-enacted the arguments pertaining to Sunday opening of public houses in general, despite the absence of any consideration of the Schedule when it was introduced on Third Reading in another place, to meet the insistence of Members in another place on Committee and on Report with regard to writing in Sunday opening. I would not deny a certain sympathy with some of the main arguments advanced here and in another place—particularly in another place—concerning the peculiar circumstances of some of our city areas. Maybe Schedule 4 is a way of dealing with these particular problems. Someone who has pushed as many pints and halves of whisky across the bar as I have could never be doubted as to his sympathy with the staff affected—another point made in another place but which, frankly, is not one that could be dealt with in this Bill. It is a matter for the staff and the employers in their own good time to sort out.
That I think that a number of Amendments should have been made to Schedule 4 is not material to my case this evening. Under the twin constraints of procedure and appropriate behaviour, I am content with my suggested Amendment in order to draw to the attentoin of your Lordships a single provision in Part II of Schedule 4. Part II of Schedule 4 becomes operative when permission

419
has been granted to a public house to open on a Sunday. Part II provides that where a competent objector—and if any noble Lord wishes to check on what they are he will find them in Clause 16(1) of the Bill—complains, as provided for, to a licensing board, and the Board finds the complaint justified, the Board shall make a Sunday restriction order. The order can either say, "No opening on Sunday henceforth", or it can alter the permitted opening hours on Sunday.
My Lords, paragraph 15 on page 92 says:
"The licensing board may make a Sunday restriction order in relation to individual premises or in relation to a group of premises in respect of which the same type of licence is held".
I believe that one may interpret those words to mean that a licensing board is empowered to close public houses in a group, whatever that may be (in a locality one assumes) which have not offended under the terms of the Bill, purely on the grounds that one public house in the locality had attracted a complaint that the board found proved. I have found nothing in any official utterance to suggest that it is intended that Schedule 4 should be used as a device for implementing an unofficial, unauthorised, no-licence resolution in respect of Sundays, and I acquit the Government of any such intention. I would submit, however, that it would be open to a licensing board, were it so minded, to so operate it if the interpretation of paragraph 15 be as I suggest. That such an eventuality should arise would be singularly undesirable in any circumstances, and particularly when arising from a Bill which abolishes no-licence and limiting resolutions is obvious.
Paragraph 14 on page 92 of the Bill draws attention to the procedure to be followed on receipt of a complaint, bringing into play subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Clause 31, with, as it puts it, "necessary modifications". I do not find comfort in any safeguard that it might be suggested lies here. I still submit that paragraph 15 can stand on its own simply as an expression of the power of the licensing board. Even if one accepted that, it should be read in conjunction with paragraph 14 and its attendant provisions. I think the position remains far from clear.
420
Surely the words "necessary modification" in paragraph 14 could attract modifications to meet the apparent power of paragraph 15. Furthermore, I can find nothing in the wording of Clause 31 of the Bill to say that the requirement to notify a licensee of the intention to hold a hearing, where a complaint has been lodged, carries with it a restriction that notification can be made only to the licensee or licensees against whom a complaint is made. That might appear to quarrel with common sense, but that is not so, surely, when one has regard to the words in paragraph 15 of Schedule 4. The words in the manuscript Amendment seek to make clear that a restriction order should be made only in relation to those premises that provoked the complaint, if the complaint is found proven.
I think that dubiety exists; that the words in the Bill do not make clear what I am sure is the Government's intention. If the words of which I complain are open to the interpretation which I suggest, there are only two further points to make. The first relates specifically to the Bill and it is the less important of the two, although it is important in the context of this reforming measure. The Bill creates a new category of licence—the refreshment licence. In my speech I have, to avoid confusion, particularly not referred to the fact that refreshment licences can be dealt with under this Schedule. The point I make here is not in regard to that. I think that all of us who have taken an interest in this measure hope, all your Lordships hope and everyone in Scotland hopes, that the creation of these refreshment houses will have a civilising influence upon drinking in Scotland and become part and parcel of improvement generally in the conditions of the licensed premises to which people resort for refreshment.
However, if a hoard was so minded and able suddenly to close all public houses in an area where there were also refreshment houses, purely because of action under my interpretation of the Bill, the refreshment houses would be forced, regardless of their wishes, inevitably to become bars or public houses overnight, or choose to close on Sundays.
There is the second point, which is my main point in this particular argument. It is a general one and goes outside the

421
Bill. If I am right, we are surely introducing a singularly unattractive principle—a principle which says, in effect, that if a Mr. Gray is convicted and imprisoned, every other Mr. Gray in the neighbourhood should also be gaoled. To incarcerate all Grays and silence them might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, at this moment, and perhaps to other noble Lords, but I am sure that he would be as opposed accidentally to introducing such a principle into the Bill as would anyone in your Lordships' House.
It would, I am sure, he singularly inappropriate to send this Bill back for further debate and argument in another place. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can either say that he is pleased to accept the Amendment, in which case it will require no noticeable amount of Parliamentary time in another place or perhaps he could, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, say that when the Department issues the instructions and guidance, which inevitably it must with a measure of this complexity, he will undertake to have it made clear in any circular that the Government's intention as to how paragraph 15 should be interpreted is the same as my Amendment seeks to spell out.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will not be surprised to hear that I am unable to accept his Amendment. However, in view of what has been said, I am willing to give this assurance. When the time comes for guidance to be issued in a Departmental circular on these provisions, it is envisaged that licensing boards will be advised that premises which have not been the subject of a complaint should not be dealt with under Part II of Schedule 4.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, we should express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for his eagle eye in finding a perfectly clear case of bad drafting. This is rather more interesting than it appears, because the Bill—and although it is non-political, it is controversial—has been thoroughly examined in the other place. It has been thoroughly examined in this place, and it is quite interesting to see that numerically we sent no less than 53 Amendments to the other place. Of those, only three were disagreed to. This is how the constitution of
422
this country works. It is not sensational; it is not a matter which catches the eye of the media, whether in writing, pictures or orally, but it is a very important function and the noble Lord has shown how important it is to exercise revising factors.
To me there is a perfectly clear lack of logic between Clause 16 and Part II, paragraph 15 of the Schedule. The clause deals purely in the singular—that is to say, when a mistake is made that particular house can be restricted and the Schedule goes to groups of houses. There is not only a lack of logic here but it is also contrary to natural justice. We are grateful to Lord Gray for drawing our attention to it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, cannot accept what is obviously a desirable, proper and right Amendment. I am not unsympathetic to the problems that he faces, but it is a pity that he cannot accept the Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, one does not want to be contentious about this. Equally, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, treated my noble friend, Lord Gray, a little cavalierly. I say that purely from the point of view of trying to understand what paragraph 15 says. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest, because I am the holder of a justice's licence in Scotland. Although I may be a publican, in view of the flattering remarks made about me in the Daily Mail yesterday, I hope that as a landlord noble Lords opposite will not think of me as a sinner.
Could the noble Lord tell us what those who were engaged in the drafting of this subsection intended it to mean. Did they intend it to mean that if, for instance, a firm or individual held premises or several sets of premises with Sunday licences, misbehaviour at one could bring the curtain down on all? Is that what is meant, otherwise it is difficult to see the logic?
The only other matter about which I am a little puzzled is this. If Parliament makes a legislative nonsense—and goodness knows! in this Session we have made an awful lot—on this particularly small point, is it constitutionally right to leave it to some administrative set of instructions, issued by we know not who to persons whose identity is equally obscure, setting out how presumably properly appointed

423
justices are to carry out their duties in accordance with the Act on which they are engaged? It is a matter upon which the noble Lord might care to reflect.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, certainly it was not my intention, and I hope noble Lords did not feel that I was treating in a cavalier manner the very serious point which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was putting before your Lordships' House. Indeed, I join in paying tribute to the fact that throughout the somewhat prolonged debate upon the Bill the noble Lord has been pertinacious in his close analysis and line by line concern with the Bill. I think I can in part allay fears which your Lordships have expressed. If we look at the provisions of Part II of the Schedule, paragraph 13 gives the Board power to make an order to restrict or reduce Sunday opening on a complaint being made. Paragraph 14 then applies the provisions of subsections (4) to (6) of Clause 31 to the Sunday restriction order procedure with any necessary modifications. It is necessary, therefore, then to look in detail at these subsections.
Subsection (4) of Clause 31 says that on receipt of a complaint the board shall decide whether or not to hold a hearing on the issue. I emphasise the words "on the issue", because the issue which is to be heard is the issue raised by the complaint and no other. Subsection (5) then goes on to set out what happens when the board has decided to hold a hearing on the issue raised by the complaint. Under paragraph (a) of that subsection, the clerk of the board shall serve on the holder of the licence a notice specifying the complaint and the grounds upon which the restriction of the orders is sought.
My Lords, it is inconceivable, in our view, that a board would use this procedure to notify a licence holder whose premises had not been the subject of a complaint. Paragraph (d) further protects the licence holder by providing that the Board shall not order restriction of the hours without hearing the holder. The hearing is, of course, on the issue raised by the complaint. Subsection (6) then gives additional protection to the licence holder by giving him a right of appeal to the sheriff, and ultimately, on a point of law, to the Court of Session. I might emphasise, with regard to the
424
right of appeal to the sheriff, that that is a fairly speedy course of action on the Scottish scene.
My Lords, when all these provisions are read together, I do not see any danger that a licence holder whose premises had not been the subject of a complaint could lose his Sunday hours. It may then he asked—and indeed the noble Lord posed this question—what is the purpose of paragraph 15 of Schedule 4. At least, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, alluded to that. It is included to allow a board to make an order in relation to a group of premises where the group of premises has been the subject of a complaint which is upheld at a hearing.
A comparable provision is included in subsection (3) of Clause 64, which deals with restriction orders concerning the permitted hours after 10 p.m. Again its purpose is to enable the board to make a single order affecting a group of premises where a complaint about a group of premises is upheld. That is the Government's position. However, my earlier statement, while it falls short of the acceptance by the Government of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I submit goes more than half-way to meeting his point.
7.28 p.m.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I will confess to disappointment that my words are not to get into the Bill through ready acceptance by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I should like to thank my noble friends for their support and for pointing to aspects of the situation which I had not myself seen. In view of the hour and the business of the night—and I understand perhaps even early morning—that lies before us, I will not now indulge in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I would only comment—he said I might not he surprised to find he did not agree with me—that I am sure he will not be surprised to find that I do not agree with him. I would cite one aspect in particular which calls into question the introduction of similarities from other parts of the Bill. In Schedule 4 we are inviting licensing boards to make rather complicated and difficult qualitative judgments concerning Sunday; and there are words in that Schedule which noble Lords will appreciate are going to place difficulties enough before licensing boards without our adding to

425
them. It seems sad that if, as seems to be the case, the wrong words have got into the Bill, we cannot deal with them now.
Having said all that, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the ready way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has come to meet me on this, and to say that I am grateful for the statement he has made as to what will happen. However, perhaps one day an opportunity will occur to tidy this up, but until that day arises I hope my noble friends, to whom once again I express my thanks, will accept that we should rest, if not entirely content, with the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments he now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (226) as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–3.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.
Clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc. The purpose of these Amendments is to delay the coming into operation of the provisions of the Bill by two months, that is, until 1st March, 1977, in order to give teachers affected a longer period of warning. They were accepted at Committee stage in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 3rd November. The date of 1st January originally inserted in the Bill was, at the time the Bill was
426
introduced, considered to be the earliest date on which its provisions could reasonably come into force. I myself made this point during the Second Reading debate on 27th July last. The passage of the Bill through the other place has not been as fast as was originally hoped, and as a result there would be only a matter of five or six weeks between the Royal Assent and 1st January.
There was some discussion in the other place that the Bill contravened the Contracts of Employment Act 1972, in that it did not permit 12 weeks' notice to be given to teachers affected.
However, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made clear on 3rd November, the provisions of the Bill related to retirement and not to dismissal, redundancy or other forms of termination of employment. My right honourable friend was advised that the normal notice given by employers under the Contracts of Employment Act would not be necessary. Even so, the Government accepted that the arguments put forward at Committee stage in the other place, namely, that the teachers affected would have insufficient warning of the coming into operation of the provisions of the Bill, were well-founded, and that it would be reasonable to have a later commencement date than that originally proposed so that education authorities could give reasonable warning to the teachers affected.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland also indicated that when the Bill receives Royal Assent a circular will be issued to education authorities asking them to take decisions as soon as possible so that teachers affected can be given the earliest possible warning.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.32 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill proposes increases in the limits on the selective financial assistance which may be provided under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by Section 22 of, and Part I

427
of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975. Such assistance must be in the national interest and benefit the economy of the United Kingdom or a part or area of the United Kingdom. It is not limited in application to the Assisted Areas, but it has to be for the specific purposes set out in Section 7(2) of the Industry Act 1972, such as the development, modernisation or maintenance of industrial capacity.
Under Section 8(7) of the Industry Act 1972 the initial limit on Section 8 assistance was put at £150 million, with provision that this limit could be raised by order on not more than four occasions by sums not exceeding £100 million on each occasion. The maximum possible limit on assistance was thus £550 million. The Bill would introduce a new initial limit of £600 million, which could be raised by order on not more than four occasions by sums not exceeding £250 million on each occasion. The maximum possible limit would then be £1,600 million. These new limits are needed now in order that measures vital to the regeneration of industry and already in progress can be implemented and so that the Government are able to respond to the needs of industry in future. Commitments under Section 8 now total about £440 million, and at the current rate of increase commitments should exceed £550 million—the present maximum possible limit—within a few months.
Of the total of £440 million so far committed, some £250 million of assistance has been committed to individual companies, of which the largest single element is the £162·5 million commitment to Chrysler to restore the company to continuing viability. The balance of £190 million has been committed under special schemes, including £75 million under the Offshore Supplies Scheme introduced by the then Government in 1973. Eighty million pounds has been committed under the Accelerated Projects Scheme, and a further £35 million under schemes of incentives to particular sectors of industry, notably the ferrous foundry, machine tools, clothing and wool textile sectors.
Introduced in April last year as a temporary counter-cyclical measure, the Accelerated Projects Scheme has been particularly successful in inducing companies
428
to bring forward projects that would not otherwise have taken place during the recession. The scheme was closed to applications at the end of July this year, and only a very few applications then outstanding remain to be considered. To date 110 offers of assistance totalling £81 million have been made for projects valued at nearly £600 million. These payments should benefit the balance of payments by some £450 million a year by 1980, and create or safeguard some 13,700 jobs. They will also mean substantial orders being placed with United Kingdom plant and equipment and United Kingdom construction companies, work for several thousand employees resulting in those sectors.
Apart from the industry schemes I have already mentioned, the Government introduced last summer further measures of support for the paper and board, printing machinery, textile machinery and poultry-processing sectors. These schemes are drawn up from close co-operation and joint studies between the Government and industry, usually involving also the appropriate sector working party or economic development council under NEDC. All these measures, while each has its own budgetary allocation, will extend over a period of time. Therefore, not only will commitments exceed the £550 million maximum under the original Act in the next few months, but current measures are expected to lead to commitments reaching £1,000 million by 1980. For example, a further £200 million under Section 8 is currently allocated to British Leyland, as indicated in the White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd 6393). Another £200 million is likely to be committed to the Offshore Supplies Scheme. The balance will arise on existing and further Section 8 industry schemes.
The proposed increase in the limits on assistance does not mean that there will be sudden and substantial increases in public expenditure. The total of commitments include, for example, guarantees which may not be called—as in the case of Chrysler; and undertakings to make payments at future dates. Selective assistance is generally phased over a number of years as the needs of the project require. Thus, while at present commitments total £440 million, actual payments to date total only about £110 million. So, we are not pouring money into the economy.

429
The total expenditure under the present Act is only £110 million.
Parliament has several controls over the provision of assistance. First, assistance is provided in accordance with the Government's published Criteria for Assistance to Industry Secondly, significant projects or schemes are carefully appraised and submitted for examination by the Industrial Development Advisory Board appointed under Section 9 of the Industry Act 1972 or other Advisory Boards appointed to scrutinise proposals under Industry Schemes. Thirdly, assistance exceeding £5 million on any one project must be approved by Affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons—I emphasise, anything over £5 million. Fourthly, the increasing level of total commitments will, of course, be subject to the proposed new limits, and an order of the House of Commons would be required on each of the four occasions when the limit could be raised. The Bill also provides that none of the money shall be used in assistance to or for the acquisition of banks and insurance companies. This provision results from an Opposition Amendment, which the Government are prepared to accept.
The Bill is therefore essential to enable the Government to pursue the measures, widely supported and endorsed, for strengthening industry. The present time—with the depressed level of trade and other uncertainties affecting the confidence and strength of industry—requires the highest priority to be given to the challenging tasks of modernisation of British industry and stimulating of investment and these measures are therefore critical to the economic future of this country. For this reason I commend the Bill unreservedly to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Winterbottonz.)
7.39 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, it is stimulating to speak to such a packed House! I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for giving us so much information—in fact, rather more information than I had hoped for. However, the Bill for all its enormous length—a quarter of a page!—is extremely complicated. I find it complicated because it
430
seems amazing to me that we have an Act at present which sets off with a limit of £350 million and then goes up in tranches to a further limit, but half-way through, or perhaps three-quarters of the way through—I shall have to look at Hansard to see exactly what figures were given, because so many were quoted that it was difficult to follow—we suddenly find that we have to go on to a new ball game which starts with another limit and further tranches.
It was argued in another place that the tranches already made available should be taken away, and on that basis when we were talking about £350 million—and here I am quite prepared to be corrected because the noble Lord has brought in some other figures and I was not able to adjust along the line—I was thinking that that figure should be subtracted from the future limit because it has already been spent. But it gets even more complicated when you have the question of a limit which is increased by a limit, and then further limits. It almost seems that we disappear into infinity on this basis. It uses this phrase "The total possible limit is thus £1,600 million". We had a limit of £550 million, and this means that we are increasing it by three times.
Where I get a little concerned—and I did not actually follow it in what the noble Lord said—is that in Written Answers in another place it has been said that the existing tranches can be increased. If this is the case, does that come out of the total possible total or do we have another total possible total? It is operated in a rather confusing way. I should have thought it would have been much simpler if we had started off with a limit and then had to increase the limit. The tranche was originally a £100 million tranche and it has gone up to £250 million, but if the existing tranches can be increased, where do we then stand? I may be totally "thick" on this subject, but I am confused and shall look forward to some further explanation, if the noble Lord can give it to us.
There are one or two other points I should like to raise. The noble Lord gave us quite a lot of information about what it had been spent on, and he came up with that lovely remark—and I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not here, because when

431
the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on another occasion talked about £13 million as a mere bagatelle he was jumped on fairly firmly on that point—" Only £160 million'. I should have thought that £1 million was quite a large figure, but inflation has come in—inflation caused of course, I am afraid, by Government policies, and that has to be admitted. We are going up threefold in a relatively short period.
What happens then? Presumably we have another Bill which increases the total possible limit yet again. Although only £160 million has been spent we are going up to a total possible of £1,600 million, which presumably means ten times the amount. But the noble Lord admitted that there are commitments within this, and commitments, I may say, which are fairly far-reaching, as we saw when he mentioned Chrysler. We on these Benches are worried about several things in this particular Bill. Aid has been given on some items, we felt, to protect certain politically sensitive lame ducks. Instead of perhaps being humanely shot they seem to have been preserved for everlasting life—or put out of season, I should say—by enormous injections of cash. I do not think that that is the right thing to do, and I hope that this matter will be looked at even more carefully in the future.
One other aspect I wish to raise was the way in which this money can be moved around. We saw this in the case of British Leyland, where the money seemed to be run round in ever diminishing circles, arid instead of any "bee" money being used, Industry Act money was siphoned around for this purpose. It seems that this can produce a lot of individual honey pots from which money can be siphoned around from one to another. So there is a bit of a smokescreen when there are different bodies allocating different sums of money to different schemes.
I should like the noble Lord to confirm that presumably any money under this Bill can be allocated to any schemes within the aircraft and shipbuilding industry as well. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us some guidance on that point. It is a very short Bill but it is extremely complicated. I do not think we have had all the assurances, despite the remarks made by the noble Lord, on what this money is really going
432
to be used for in the future and why it is so very necessary, especially after the fact that he said that only £160 million has been actually spent as opposed to commitments. It seems rather strange, at a time when we have such an enormous financial burden, with the IMF here and so many other factors pressing upon us, that we should start to bring in a Bill which increases threefold the amount of money that can be spent. The noble Lord says that it is going to increase jobs. I very much hope it will, but in the past the way in which this money has been allocated has not been the best way by which to reduce unemployment and stimulate industry. We are not happy with this Bill, but we are grateful for the explanation which the noble Lord has given us and are looking forward to some further explanation from him.
7.47 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like from these Benches to speak briefly on the general principles raised by this Bill. In doing so I am afraid that I am going to be a little more harsh than the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has been. We do not think much of it at all. Indeed, we think even less of it then of the Act of 1972 brought in by the Conservative Government of the time from which this Bill stems. Our opposition is not merely to the potentially vast sums of money involved in it but to the fact that it provides, as we see it, no satisfactory general administrative framework for the public financing of industry, no adequate system for monitoring such expenditure, no businesslike budgeting arrangements for the allocation of the money, and no procedure for determining the relative merits of claims for assistance.
We on these Benches are certainly not opposed to the allocation of public funds to industry, although in general we believe that industry is more able than Government to judge best how capital should be invested. What we deplore is the absence of any comprehensive policy concerning this kind of expenditure. As I understand it, it may in future arise from the 1972 Act, from the Industry Act 1975 setting up the National Enterprise Board, from the Industrial Common Ownership Bill which has just been passed by your Lordships' House, from Bills seeking to nationalise industries such as the aircraft

433
and shipbuilding industries—in our view quite unnecessarily, to say the least—and from the accelerated investment project scheme, to which the noble Lord referred in his opening remarks. I must confess that I am a little unclear about this scheme, and perhaps he would he kind enough to enlighten me. My understanding was that this particular scheme had come to an end and that it might be replaced by some similar scheme designed to bring forward investment already planned by industry. Perhaps he will let us know what the position is in that regard. Now there is this Bill, and there may be other such sources from which money can be supplied to industry. They are enough to be going on with.
Having worked in industry for many years, I appreciate that it cannot be easy for the Government to plan ahead and that crises, such as those in Rolls-Royce in the last few years, suddenly arise. But even allowing for that, and for the extraordinarily difficult, though not altogether unforseeable, problems with which this Government have been confronted recently—by Chrysler and British Leyland in the car industry, for example—we feel that the time has come for some agreed national policy to be worked out in this field. I believe it is essential that the Government should consult with both sides of industry under the aegis of the National Economic Development Council about this and discuss the matter with other political Parties so that in future policies introduced and organisations set up by one Party are not immediately overthrown by another when it obtains power.
From the organisational point of view, I suggest there is a case in point now in the National Enterprise Board. When the Industry Act 1975 was being debated in this House we on these Benches made it plain—and we feel the same now—that the NEB was by no means without blemish. But only last week I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, was reported to have felt obliged to begin a campaign to save the Board from disbandment threatened by the Conservative Party. I do not want to strike an attitude on this point at this time, but I feel keenly that at least two things are essential for the future. First, the Government of the day should not introduce measures likely to be judged by the Opposition to be
434
so extreme that they have to be reversed immediately the Opposition become the Government. Secondly, the Opposition should deliberate very carefully indeed before committing themselves to taking destructive action when they obtain power. I firmly believe that our only industrial and economic hope as a nation is to identify common ground on which we can build together.
In the meantime, we have this Bill and, as I understand the position—I noted the doubts expressed by Lord Redesdale—we are now being asked to authorise the Government, subject only to Treasury consent and the approval of up to four draft orders by Resolution in another place, to hand out over £1,000 million more than is now permissible, and that without having any idea of the organisations to which the first tranche of this money should go, other than that, as has been said, none of it will go to banks or insurance companies. We are not even told the criteria which will guide the Government in making these allocations. Even worse, to judge from recent experience, much of it may go to companies in which industrial relations, productivity and return on capital are unsatisfactory but which have the ability to shout most loudly and are best placed to disrupt the national economy. These may be strong words but we feel strongly on this point.
The fundamental reason why sums of this magnitude may now be required is that our economy has been so badly handled that many firms which are not inefficient can no longer pay the fantastic rates of interest which are now demanded if they go to their banks to borrow money, and at the same time earn a reasonable return on their capital. Perhaps the most significant sentence in this little Bill is to be found in the Explanatory Memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill in which we read:
"It is not possible to make precise forecasts of the rate of future expenditure under the Bill, since the extent of financial assistance provided under section 8 "—
that is, of the Industry Act 1972
"will depend on the needs of industry".
I can only say that until recently I worked in a large international company which has an enormous annual capital expenditure programme and I recall the immense amount of detailed planning that each

435
year preceded and still precedes decisions on what projects money should be put into. I speculate as to the career prospects of the people engaging in all that planning if they were to go to their board of directors and say in so many words that they could not forecast expenditure for which they might later be seeking authorisation because that would depend on future needs. They would simply lose their jobs. We on these Benches regard this Bill as a symptom of a fundamental mismanagement of the economy and as a striking illustration of why agreed action is needed to put the economy right.
7.57 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in replying to this short but useful debate I feel that I must first make a point which is relevant. The present small Bill is based on the Conservative Industry Act 1972, which was amended by the 1975 Act, and that is really the foundation of the whole thinking of the Bill. We are, I hope, passing a measure which will enable the actual allocation under the 1972 Act of money to be raised from the figures I gave to the higher figures included in the Bill.
Although Governments must carry responsibility for the situation of the day—that is what we are here for—I would not accept that the whole of the inflation we are facing has been caused by the present Government. The problems that industry faced in 1972 faced a Conservative Administration. There was then the use of the oil weapon by the Arab world against Israel and it was the world inflation that followed on the savage rise in the price of crude oil that set the inflationary wheel turning in the industrial world of the West. Although I never try to duck responsibility, the inflation that exists in the world today is due only in part to Her Majesty's Government, whether of a previous or the present period. The problems facing industry in 1972 are the same as the problems facing industry in 1976 and we believe that this measure has been a useful attempt to start the modernisation of those elements of British industry which for various reasons—historical, managerial and the rest—have not been able to build up their capital structures to a point where they can compete with the reconstructed industries of Germany and Japan.
436
That is by way of some opening remarks and I will now try to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, what we are doing when we talk about the figures in this little Bill. I repeat what I said earlier; that there is an initial limit and that thereafter there are four tranches. What has really happened is that a multiplier has been applied to the initial limit and the four tranches. The reason is partly that money is not worth what it was in 1972 but also because the problems created by the disruption of the world economy are greater. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was yearning back to the good old days of Manchester liberalism and free enterprise. Unfortunately, we either have to support industries that have been struck by the economic storm which has swept through the industrial world of the West or we have to let them go under. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that industries should go under.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I wonder if he could amplify one of the points that he was moving away from when he was talking about the original tranches. The Minister in another place said that the existing tranches could be subsumed in the first tranche. This was the first of the £200 million tranches and the Minister said that they could be subsumed into the first one. Quite what that meant when we started to ask how much had been spent and where the new tranches took over from the old ones was not clear. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was going to give us some clarification. I only intervened because he had moved on to what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, had said.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall try to answer that one. Admittedly, this word "subsume" has come into my vocabulary rather late in life. I have a feeling that it really means the same as "included". Am I right? My noble friend agrees with me, I am glad to say.
May I first make it clear that we are not going to ask the British people to supply more than £1,600 million whatever happens. I shall try to explain what is happening. The Act of 1972 provided for the expenditure of £150 million and that this initial limit might be increased

437
by the order of the Secretary of State on four occasions by not more than £100 million. So, when we started in 1972 we got a top figure for the commitment. This was not spending. We must realise that there is a big difference between commitment and spending. A Government cannot enter into commitments unless they have a legal right so to do. They may not have to use all the money that is committed, but they cannot commit themselves unless they have the legal right to do so—or, rather, they could do so, but they might be sued and there could be all sorts of ugly scenes in both Houses, so they would not do that.
Let us take Chrysler as an illustration of the point. The commitment there is very high. It is £162,500,000. In point of fact, claims to date are only £48 million and there is very good reason for believing that the figure will never be reached. If one looks at the tabulated figures of moneys committed, commitments as of 26th October were £247 million plus, but the expenditure was only £96 million plus. Roughly a third of the commitment only has been spent. That should be borne in mind if we talk of inflationary pressures. We are strengthening vital industries, giving them backing and a guarantee which they require, but we believe that, with the management that exists in these companies, the full commitment will not be required. If it were to be required, that would be a matter that noble Lords and Members of another place would wish to comment upon. Have I answered the noble Lord's question?
Lord REDESDALE: Not entirely, my Lords, though I am most grateful for the trouble that the noble Lord is taking. My worry is that when one has spent—and it is not a question of how much is actually spent but of what is committed, because if it is committed it is, to all intents and purposes spent, at least in my language—a total amount on, for instance, Chrysler, we must say that it must come into the original tranches and be taken up in those slices. It was said in another place that these later tranches would be taken up by the first one. All right, but the argument was then put that the money ought to have been allowed for and, instead of going on to the £1,600 million, should have been taken off and, therefore, that we would come back to the
438
figure of £1,300 million because that money had already been spent. Really, the argument was put that, on this basis, the Bill was mis-worded, and I was hoping that we were going to get an explanation. I am sorry to labour the point, but it seems that we are starting all over again as opposed to taking into account what has been spent.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I understand the Bill, it is really quite simple. Because of inflation and the requirements of industry following on the world economic crisis, the amount of money required to underpin certain key elements of British industry has increased When we started on this operation we had an upper limit of spending or commitment of £550 million. We are now reaching the point when, although our expenditure is, as I showed, comparatively small, the level of our commitment is reaching what was laid down in the 1972 Act. We know that we shall need more money than this over a period of years up to, I believe, 1980, and, for that reason, we are providing the Government with powers to raise the initial limit from £150 million to £600 million, but that does not mean that there will automatically he more expenditure. Then we arc enabling the Government, by Affirmative order of the House of Commons, to raise four further tranches of £250 million. In point of fact, there has been no increase in the amount of money available to be handed out to industry; it merely means that, since we are approaching the cut-off point of the 1972 Act as originally drafted, we have to raise that cut-off point from a maximum of £550 million to a maximum of £1,600 million. I hope that I have made that clear; I have understood it myself.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I was clearing a point of the drafting of the Bill. It does not allow for what has already been spent because it is putting up the limit again. All I am saying is that it should allow for what has been spent. The arguments were put forward in another place and that is why I did not want to labour them, but if you have spent this amount of money and you are going to go on, the amount of money that will be available will be about £1,300 million as opposed to £1,600 million. That was on the old figures, but more money has been spent so in

439
fact more should have come off. I shall not labour this point any further because I take it that the intention is that it should be the £1,600 million. All I am saying is that it is not very satisfactorily worded in view of the amount of money that has been spent.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord and the House will forgive me if I rise at this juncture, because I know that there is a desire to move on to other matters, but when the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, got up, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, had just accused me—if I understood him correctly—of wishing to return to some old-fashioned Liberal free enterprise ideas of the Manchester school, or words to that effect. Perhaps the noble Lord would give me the credit of allowing that what I said was that we on these Benches do not oppose the allocation of Government money to industry. What we deplore is the absence of any comprehensive policy for dealing with this question.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord also said that no criteria was laid down. In point of fact, as I said in my speech, criteria are laid down. They are entitled Criteria for Assistance to Industry, and if the noble Lord wishes I shall send him a copy so that he will know what the criteria are. There is Parliamentary control. Every tranche is subject to Affirmative Resolution in another place; and it is not as if the Government are madly throwing money about to support irrelevant industries throughout the country. What they are planning to do is to support, through this very difficult period, key industries on which our future industrial strength will depend. That is the object behind it all. There are criteria. There is Parliamentary control. I believe that the Bill is not a piece of doctrinaire socialism, but is building upon a very useful Bill produced by the previous Administration which was trying to solve the problems of British industry in a way that I think we should all support. It is not just a wanton spending spree. Criteria are laid down, and Parliament has control over the spending in the future as the tranches come forward for consideration.
I should like to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. He asked
440
about the position of funds related to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The funds could be directed towards those companies which may be brought into public ownership, but it is improbable that this will happen. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about the accelerated projects scheme, and I should like to say something about that. The scheme was announced in April, 1975, as a temporary counter-cyclical measure, at a time when investment intentions were falling sharply. Projects had to start by the end of September, 1976, and benefit the balance of payments—those were the criteria. The noble Lord is quite right: this scheme was closed to applications at the end of July, 1976.
Perhaps the noble Lord would like to know just what happened during that period. In all some 350 applications were received, and £80 million worth of assistance has been offered in respect of 110 projects costing £600 million. The projects are spread throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and a parallel scheme for various industries was also undertaken at the same time. Basically it was an attempt to bring forward investment plans of various industries as a counter-cyclical measure.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, my question was directed to the future of this scheme or any scheme which might supplant it, rather than to the past, and it was on that point that I was hoping that the noble Lord might be able to enlighten me.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question and preface it with one or two remarks. Some time ago there was a conference at Chequers which produced a pamphlet, Strategy for Industry As a result of that Strategy for Industry paper. "Neddy" asked its constituent small "Neddies" if they would produce an analysis of their industries and how their individual industries could take part in the larger vision. Has the Bill, or the money which is to be provided under it, anything whatever to do with the 32 industries which have lately put up their case?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is difficult to say because the purpose of the Bill is so limited. It is to give

441
wider powers of assistance to the Government under the Industry Act 1972, as amended slightly by the 1975 Act. I am certain that if the "little Neddies" produce schemes which indicate assistance of the type considered under the present 1972 Act and the amending Bill which we are discussing today, then the money should he available. But that is not what we are really talking about tonight.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("() that the authorisation of any such accommodation under those provisions for use in that connection should be revoked only if sufficient accommodation affording privacy to the patient is otherwise reasonably available at NHS hospitals to meet the reasonable demand for it in the district or districts served by the hospital or hospitals in question;").
The noble Baroness said: I was moved to put down the Amendment, which is concerned with amenity beds, very largely as a result of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said at Second Reading on the 21st October last, as reported at column 1578 of the Official Report:
"I could have done with an amenity bed, and so could a good many of the others. One knows how important this is, and it is part of Government policy to try to do something about it when these beds become available."
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also referred to amenity beds at Second Reading. He said, as reported at column 1490 of the Official Report:
"… I should like to come back to the pay bed question and to refer to the strange tale of the amenity beds. These were mentioned in Section 4 of the National Health Service Act, the provisions of which would allow hospitals to use single rooms or small wards to provide accommodation for people who wanted them—provided they were not needed urgently for general medical purposes—on the payment of a relatively small weekly charge."
It seems to me that in the whole of the Bill there is no proper consideration of the question of amenity beds, and yet it is perfectly clear that the use of, and the
442
need for, amenity beds is, if anything, much more likely to be greater after private facilities have been phased out. There is no reason at all for not supposing that the demand for amenity beds might rise very sharply, particularly in places where the private facilities are perhaps some far distance from the centres of population, so causing difficulties for families visiting patients; or there may be a great many other reasons why someone might wish to have an amenity bed. The reasons and the wish for amenity beds seem to me to be those which we should all understand. After all, some people want solitude or quiet, and some people do not enjoy sharing a room when they are well, let alone when they are ill; and this seems to me a perfectly reasonable point of view.
As I understand it, amenity beds have not been used very extensively since the 1946 Act, and it would appear to me at any rate that there have been two reasons for this. One is that, as I understand it, it is perfectly possible to ask for an amenity bed, but a hospital will never give a guarantee that an amenity bed will be available, and therefore people who would like the privacy of a room may feel that at the last minute they may not he able to get the amenity bed and so would not risk not having the privacy they would like.
The other point, I understand, is that you may be admitted and have an amenity bed, but there can be no guarantee that you will remain in that amenity bed for the whole of the time you are in hospital because if it is required by somebody who needs privacy for medical reasons you can he turned out of the amenity bed and put somewhere else in the hospital. So there are obviously great disadvantages, and this may well be why they have not been as used as they might have been in the past. Yet I think that modern hospitals are now being built in which there are single rooms for everybody going into them, and a much greater degree of privacy than there ever was in old hospitals. This reflects, of course, what is a perfectly natural desire for most people, and that is to have a room of their own. At any rate, it seems to us on this side of the Committee that, as the pay beds are to be phased out of the hospitals, the only way in which a number of people

443
would be likely to get privacy in hospitals would be by the use of amenity beds.
I think it would be very unfortunate, therefore, if at no point in our deliberations did we discuss the issue of amenity beds, and I hope that the Government will look favourably upon Amendment No. 47, which is designed to ask the Board, when it is considering phasing out beds, to have regard to the need for amenity beds and to keep amenity beds available for those who would like this particular form of accommodation in hospital. This, after all, is something which is a part of the National Health Service and which was introduced in 1946. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 47.
8.23 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think I would take issue with the noble Baroness on a single word that she has said other than to say that this matter exercises our minds every bit as much as it does the minds of other Members of your Lordships' Committee; but the short answer is that we do not think it is necessary for this to be incorporated in a Bill—in other words, in legislation—because this is really the function of the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness remarked that there is not a great deal of occupancy of amenity beds at the present. This is perfectly true. In fact, at present these beds are little used. There was a 16 per cent. occupancy in 1974, and I have no doubt at all in my mind that the two reasons which the noble Baroness gave are probably the main reasons why they have been under-occupied.
However, may we look at the position as it is now and the position as it will be when pay beds are phased out? More than two-thirds of hospitals with authorised pay beds have five or less such beds, and they are usually to be found in single rooms or small rooms attached to or adjacent to general wards. As authorisations are withdrawn from these beds, most of them are likely to be absorbed into the general bed strength and become available for National Health Service patients. Whether or not they are used as amenity beds, the privacy previously afforded to private patients will generally be available to National Health Service
444
patients; because if you have 66 per cent. of such hospitals with five or less pay beds and they are in single rooms attached to wards, I think of necessity they will become available, and will be used, for amenity purposes.
The noble Baroness may well say, "This is not good enough; there ought to be some obligation on the hospital to sec that they are used for that purpose". What I should like to do is to repeat a statement made by my right honourable friend in Committee in another place, when he said this:
"I believe we should have more beds designated as amenity beds, that they should be more fully used, and that their availability should be more widely publicised. I never felt that the purpose of this legislation was to deprive people who needed it for medical reasons of the privacy that an amenity bed can provide. I shall be bringing the question of amenity beds to the notice of the health authorities and indicating my view that it is desirable that there should be increasing use of them. I shall bring that to the attention of the health authorities when the pay bed issue has been settled."
This really is the function, the responsibility, the duty, of the Secretary of State, and he recognises that in most hospitals it is going to be just one, two, three, four or at the maximum five beds. They will be conveniently situated to be used as amenity beds where hitherto they have been used as pay beds. I suggest—not, as I say, that there is anything between the point of view of the noble Baroness and that of myself other than the fact that I do not think this is a matter to be included in the Bill, to be embraced in legislation—that this is really the function of the Secretary of State, who is prepared, because he himself feels strongly about it, to see that hospitals are informed that they should be so used.
Lord O'HAGAN: I am sure all Members of the Committee are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he has said because, whatever may be the case with other points in this Bill, this is a subject on which there is very little, if any, political division of opinion. I base that comment on the remarks made at the Second Reading of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge. She said at column 1527 of the Official Report for the 21st October:
"I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that the amenity bed has not done the job that

445
Aneurin Bevan and the other founders of the Health Service wanted it to do".
She then went on to say:
"We have not nearly enough amenity beds";
and that was very much in tune with the thinking behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
The point I want to put to the noble Lord is this. He has said that the question of amenity beds is one on which it is for the Secretary of State to give guidance to health authorities. Could he perhaps go a little further than he has done already and say that, so far as possible, it will be suggested by the Secretary of State to health authorities that pay beds, as they are phased out, become amenity beds? Will there be any form of guidance, circular, or whatever the correct terminology is, so that there is a general understanding among those responsible that this is the intention of the Government? The noble Lord read out what his right honourable friend said in another place in Committee, and of course that is an important statement, but those Committee proceedings may not have been the daily reading of all those who will be concerned with this matter. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give some assurance to this Committee that this intention, which is shared on all sides of the Committee, that the number of amenity beds should be made more public and increased, if possible, where pay beds are phased out, will be expressed in some form of guidance or public statement by the Secretary of State, so that what we all want to see achieved is in fact brought about by those responsible.
8.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Knowing the membership of the Committee in another place, I am pretty certain that steps will be taken to see that the Secretary of State honours all the undertakings that he has given. I know a number of people in this House who would soon be asking questions about what directives or suggestions have gone out to the Area Health Authorities and what efforts are made to see that they have been complied with. I speak with some knowledge on this matter in view of the Questions I have answered. Having said that, I will give an undertaking, for I know there is strong feeling on this matter by a number of
446
people, to see that what the noble Lord and others have said is brought to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord PLATT: I spoke on the question of amenity beds at the Second Reading. I myself have been very disappointed at the lack of use of amenity beds. For a long time I served in a very large teaching hospital in the Provinces and the trouble was that we had only very few beds that we could use for this purpose. They were nearly always occupied by somebody so desperately ill that you had to nurse them in a single room, sometimes because of rather undesirable things which you did not want to introduce into a general ward. It just did not work; that was the trouble. If the Government could say that they are going to abolish all private beds and are going to fill them with people paying ten guineas a week instead of £200, then they would be very popular indeed.
The thing that troubles me—and this is not a Party political point—is the waiting list. Either there are going to be so many amenity beds created by this change that if you put your name down for an amenity bed you get it the clay after tomorrow, instead of after two years, for your hernia, or there will be so few beds that you dare not put your name down for an amenity bed because you know that you will have to wait five years instead of two years. Nobody has answered the question which I raised on Second Reading, and I should like to know what the Government answer is. If there is a bed going for ten guineas a week, then I have got to be in it one of these days.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I was pleased with the rather sympathetic reply of the noble Lord on amenity beds. Naturally, I accept his guarantees that the views of this House will be handed to the Secretary of State, but personally I think it would be very much better if we had the provision included in the Bill. Having regard to the statement made by the Minister, I can see no reason why we cannot have it in the Bill. I always like something in writing in a Bill. In a few years' time when, I hope, everything settles down, there will be many people concerned with the Health Service who will not have the slightest idea of what went on here or in

447
another place. I think it is far better to have something in a Bill that one can show to people or discuss with people, particularly as sometimes there can be tremendous arguments in all parts of the country over what is in the Bill, what is the law and what is desirable, et cetera It would be far better for those responsible (who probably will not be anybody connected with this House at all) if it were then to be in the Bill. So I hope the Minister will not only undertake his guarantee but will be sufficiently inspired to suggest this to the Secretary of State. In any case, I think it is a bit odd that a Secretary or State has got to decide about amenity beds. I should have thought it would be perhaps an Under-Secretary or somebody. The idea of a Secretary of State having to decide on amenity beds is laughable.
Perhaps as so many people in all these debates have been saying what has happened to them, I may give a personal example. I had always understood that if you had appendicitis, you felt a terrible pain; but I remember a few years ago not feeling very well although I had no pain at all. My secretary telephoned my doctor—this was in the North of England—who came straight away and said that I must see a consultant. I asked him when, and he said "Now". He rang up the appropriate consultant who quickly arrived and I was operated on: otherwise I should have died by 10 o'clock. I remember very well that when the ambulance came and all my friends rallied round me, I said "Good gracious! I don't know where my BUPA card is". They told me not to worry. I was put in an amenity bed in the Royal Victoria Infirmary at Newcastle. It is an excellent hospital and I was marvellously looked after. That is all very well but I should still much prefer to have the provision in the Bill.
If I may say so, it was rather difficult to follow the figures produced by the noble Lord. In the Schedules are listed all the hospitals where pay beds are going to be phased out. I should like to know how many amenity beds are to be in each hospital. I like to have details. I have learned from being in politics for more years than I can remember that you must have the details very carefully set out. Much as I like a great number of Ministers
448
—those in my own Party, naturally, and in Opposition occasionally—I have always thought it was much better to have every detail settled because sometimes Ministers get changed. You may have a great admiration for a Minister and think he is a perfect man or woman. Then he is whisked off and you get another Minister whom you do not like as much and perhaps do not trust as much.
I do not want the whole of this debate brought to the attention of the Secretary of State. Let him have a rest for once! Let us put the provision in the Bill, so that the people who come after us and who look at the development of the National Health Service know what we really did. Let them know that we put this important matter of amenity beds in the Bill. That is what I should like. I hope I can press the Minister not to bother about the Secretary of State but to bother about the Bill. Let us have it in writing.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: I do not want to detain the Committee for too long. I have a long experience of amenity beds. My husband was confined to hospital for eleven months—I was not a Member of this House or of another place when this problem arose—and because of his special medical condition he was placed in an amenity bed. This was merely because of the seriousness of the condition; it had nothing to do with whether one had a BUPA card or some other card. It was purely a medical decision, taken on whether a hospital patient needed an amenity bed. It worries me a little, listening to the debate tonight, that there is a suggestion that amenity beds might take the place of the private beds in hospitals.
While I sympathise entirely with the noble Baroness who suffered from appendicitis, I hope that "Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones" received exactly the same treatment, even if they did not have a BUPA card or some other card. I hope the amenity bed is used in the hospital on purely medical grounds because of the condition of the patient, and that the responsibility regarding the use of amenity beds will be taken by those who know the medical conditions, and not for any other reason or because one has a card of some description.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: One point about the occupation of amenity beds which is not generally known is this. An elderly relative of mine was admitted to a National Health Service hospital a few years ago. She was very ill and asked for privacy. An amenity bed was available but the sister said that she was short of nurses, and they could not keep such a good eye on my relative in the amenity bed as they could in the ward. My point is this: if there is a marked increase in the number of amenity beds in any ward, for people who are very ill, then more nurses may be needed.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My noble friend Lady Ward asked the Minister how many amenity beds the Government envisage. The noble Lord said that two-thirds of the hospitals have five or less pay beds, as I understand it. What about the other third? There was also emphasis that the beds should be used for medical reasons and presumably the amenity beds are allocated only by the sister of the ward or the doctor. But some people need amenity beds for social reasons which even the doctor does not know about. A member of Her Majesty's Government might be seriously hurt in a car crash and would need an amenity bed at a local hospital. That is a hypothetical situation, but it could occur. When the pay beds are phased out, how many amenity beds will be provided? Will there be amenity beds in every hospital in the country?
Lord SANDYS: My noble friends have brought out some practical points, and I should like to refer to the relationship of this Amendment to Amendment No. 16, which was concerned with putting pay beds withdrawn from National Health Service hospitals to the best possible use. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was pleased to acknowledge that there was a problem here. He gave a sympathetic answer, but he choked on the word "resident" in the Amendment. Reference was made to the use of beds for resident patients who were not private patients. My noble friend Lady Ward, speaking from a wealth of Parliamentary experience which none of us can equal, believes that this aspect of the matter should be embodied in the Bill. Her argument is conclusive, and I need say no more.
8.44 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: One has to bear in mind that it is impossible to devise a form of words to go into a Bill that can provide for the effective use of amenity beds. Once you embark upon doing that, you have to put down all sorts of qualifications. It would be wrong to assume that because there are amenity beds in X number of hospitals where the cost is, say, £10 a week, that anybody going into hospital and able to pay £10 a week has the right to demand an amenity bed.
An amenity bed is in the hospital for a variety of purposes: for people who want privacy and to be on their own. There are a large number of people who go into hospital for serious operations where it is necessary for them to have quiet. I am thinking—and I speak with some experience—of neuro-surgical wards, where people have had craniotomies and do not want to be in a public ward, not immediately, anyhow. Therefore for medical reasons—not because the patient wants it—they are put in amenity beds.
There are many people who would be a menace in public wards for all sorts of reasons, not least for personality reasons. You cannot set this out. All one can say is that there should be available as many amenity beds as possible. The health authorities should be told clearly that as pay beds are released they ought to have regard for the need to use as many as possible for amenity beds. One has to leave it to the doctor to decide on health grounds whether or not a person should have an amenity bed. This does not mean that every amenity bed is going to accommodate somebody because of the nature of their operation or because they are temperamentally unsuitable to go into a public ward, or that there is never going to be an amenity bed for the ordinary person who in the normal way probably would not qualify but who says: "I should like some privacy and I am prepared to pay". You cannot embody this in legislation. I do not think that I can say that it would be feasible to do this, and I do not think that I can go much farther than to say that I will bring this discussion to the notice of my right honourable friend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, asked whether some figures could be given, This is extremely difficult.

451
My first reaction was to say that if there are two-thirds of the hospitals with less than five beds, then one-third must have more than five; but it does not work out like that. I cannot give a total number of hospitals with more than five pay beds. University College hospital has 87 pay beds. Bradford Royal Infirmary has 75 pay beds. There are more than 3,000 amenity beds, but I cannot give a breakdown. If we are eventually going to release something like 4,444 pay beds, the number will increase considerably. The prospect of people being able to get an amenity bed in the future should be a great deal rosier than at the present time.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE: SIDE: The noble Lord said definitely and very nicely that he would hand on this discussion to the Secretary of State. But what good is it if he cannot do anything about it? The noble Lord practically said that he could not do anything about it, so what is the advantage of handing this on to the Secretary of State? I do not think that is at all good. In this day and age, it is a little odd to say that it is impossible to devise an appropriate scheme. I support the Amendment to provide words in the Bill to make the situation clear that we wish to have amenity beds in our National Health Service. Frankly, I do not think very much about the people who draw up Bills—I have been on Statutory Committees and I know something about it. To say that it is impossible in 1976 to find words to put in an important Bill makes me feel that the situation is quite ridiculous.
Lord HARVINGTON: Can the noble Lord help me? I cannot find anything about amenity beds as such in the Bill. Is there a reference to them or a definition, or would the noble Lord care to give a definition?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think I can keep on hopping up and down—what is more important I am not going to do so. We spent a long time on this—I will not say unimportant matter—and there are many other important matters before us. I think everybody on both sides of the Committee wants to make as much progress as possible. As I understand it, an amenity bed, in comparison with a pay bed, is one for which a small
452
charge is made. Any person going into a National Health hospital is entitled to ask for an amenity bed if one is available. An amenity bed is invariably one bed in a small room, very often at the end of the ward or just off the ward, and if that bed is not wanted for any other purpose and is not in use the National Health Service patient can have it. That has been the position since 1948.
Lord PLATT: As I understood the question by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, it was: is there any mention of it in the Bill?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is no mention at all in the Bill.
Lord STONE: May I correct my noble friend. Amenity beds in many hospitals I have seen do not entirely comply with what he said. They are not in special rooms. Often one finds small wards compartmentalised by screens so that there are from four to six beds; they are not all in individual rooms. From an amenity bed point of view, let me warn your Lordships that due to shortage of staff very often you will find that attention in a public ward will be much greater and more at your disposal than if you are confined to bed in a side ward.
Lord HILL of LUTON: We have expressed dissatisfaction with so many statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that we ought to reflect that on this occasion he has given us the strongest assurance that we have had on any section of the Bill. Although I may be quite alone in this matter, I think he has gone as far as he can reasonably be expected to go. Of course the end of private practice within the National Health Service hospital will make available a number of beds; most, if not all, in private rooms. It is a matter for local decision whether those beds are needed for general hospital patients, whether they go to the exceptionally ill on medical grounds or whether they are available for those who want privacy. I do not think it is capable of a formula. I do not think we shall get any more from the noble Lord, nor in his position would I give any more. Bearing in mind his forthright statement, I think we ought to concentrate our attention on the more unsatisfactory parts of the Bill.

453
The statement by the Secretary of State may not convince us all or convince us all for long, but at least there is one strong statement on this subject which affords some modest reassurance.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: May I add just one word? I am speaking as the regional chairman and, like most members of this Committee, I am very concerned that the greatest possible number of private beds should be converted into amenity beds. I do not think we have enough. We must be very careful not to embody something in the Bill which could create out of amenity beds a covert form of queue jumping identical to the problem that has given rise to the present Bill dealing with private beds. I also believe there is a certain amount of misunderstanding in this Committee about amenity beds. Of course a person coming into hospital who wants privacy is entitled to ask for an amenity bed. If it is available, that patient will be granted an amenity bed. But—and I hope that this applies all over England, and I am sure it does—if there is the slightest need by someone for medical purposes for that amenity bed the patient who has the amenity bed purely from a privacy point of view is warned when he takes the amenity bed that he may be turned out. I hope we shall keep the amenity beds along those lines.
I also hope—and I am a little frightened of this—that there will not be a direction from the Secretary of State that private beds should be turned into amenity beds. There may be enormous problems in turning some of them into amenity beds, particularly taking the example which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, used of the UCH private hospital block. To turn all those private beds into amenity beds would cost the National Health Service an enormous amount of money. If the private beds were ever phased out it may be better to change the use of that block. It is my further desire that in that particular hospital they will not be phased out. It is dangerous to lay down a directive. It is important that the authorities who administer the service should be given a certain amount of freedom to use the beds to best advantage.
Baroness YOUNG: I feel that we have had a very useful debate on the subject
454
of amenity beds. I am well aware that amenity beds as such are not mentioned in the Bill, so of course they are not defined. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said very helpful things in this matter, and I, at any rate, would like to believe that as many as possible of the phased out beds will be used as amenity beds. I think my noble friend Lord Sandys was right when he drew our attention to the linking of this Amendment with Amendment No. 16.
The most discouraging thing about the Government's reply to Amendment No. 16—which as the Committee will recall was an Amendment to make sure that the 1,000 beds phased out will in fact be used for patients—was that they could not give us that assurance. The thought that we might be phasing out the beds to find that they are going to be used as offices is most depressing. I could not be more pleased to think that as many as possible will be used as amenity beds. I believe it is quite right that hospitals should have discretion in this matter.
I entirely took the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who said that in the particular circumstances of her husband he required an amenity bed for his medical condition. This is understood by everybody. But there are a number of people who, for a variety of reasons, would like privacy. I forget now who it was on Second Reading—I am not sure that it was not the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge—who said that of course one group of people who wanted privacy was Government Ministers themselves. When they go into hospital, the first thing they want is a telephone. They are not the only ones. All sorts of other people wish to conduct their work while they are in hospital and require solitude in which to do it. If we are really anxious to promote the general wellbeing of the country, I should have thought it was not unreasonable that their case should be catered for. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, once we have more amenity beds we are up against the problem of queue jumping. Somebody eventulaly will find himself in an amenity bed for other than medical reasons and then the question will be: what are the reasons for that and how did he get there?
I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, because it has

455
been very valuable to have the views of the Committee on this matter. It is encouraging that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said that he will draw this debate to the attention of his right honourable friend. I think all of us—certainly my colleagues and I—would be glad, if there is a circular on this matter or some Ministerial directive, if the Government would send us a copy so that we may know the final outcome of this amenity bed question. As I indicated in my opening remarks, once the pay beds are phased out, the demand for amenity beds will grow, and I think all sides of the Committee share the conviction that this is a valuable provision, not only for medical cases but also on social grounds, and it is one that ought to be met. This is not an Amendment I intend to press to a Division, but I hope it is one the Committee will feel was worth debating and spending some time on. We hope that the Government keep to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and do bear in mind the needs of those who require privacy, for whatever reason. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: I put down Amendment No. 48 because I wanted to ask the Government what this clause of the Bill really means. It is perfectly clear that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 4(8) are in fact the four principles which the Goodman proposals laid down in paragraph (3)(d). Those proposals were:
"In determining the phasing out of pay beds and facilities from the National Health Service, the hoard shall be guided by the following criteria—"
and then it went on to list the criteria. Those are translated into paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 4(8). Turning to paragraph (c), we find that what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wrote into his proposals is lifted almost entirely intact and without alteration into the Bill.
Reading it, one finds that the grammar is rather curious, to say the least. The subsection begins:
456
"The principles referred to above are—"…
"(c) that the continued authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should depend on there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than at NHS hospitals, sufficient reasonable accommodation …
and so on. That is, of course, in the impersonal passive tense, which seems a curious way of writing something into a Bill, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what it means. For example, who is expected to take steps, what steps should they be expected to take, and who is expected to do anything about it? Are steps supposed to be taken by the patients, the doctors, the dentists, BUPA, those developing private hospitals? It really seems very strange and I am afraid I do not understand what the words mean.
It goes on in paragraph (d) to talk about people who are being affected. I should like to ask to whom "due warning" is likely to be given. Who is likely to be warning them and what will they be warning them about? Are they warning them about building private hospitals, or not building private hospitals? Are they perhaps warning BUPA that they should build more private hospitals? Once again, the language is extraordinary, and as this Bill is no doubt intended to be read and, I assume, understood not only by doctors and members of the medical profession but also by those of us who struggle terribly hard to find out what it means, I think it would be helpful if we had it put into English which would be intelligible to those of us who try to take, at any rate, a layman's interest in these problems. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps with your Lordships' permission I can deal with Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 together. As the noble Baroness said, they seem to go together. It is important to establish why these two paragraphs were in the December proposals and are now in the Bill. In a part of the country where there is a reasonable demand for accommodation and facilities for private practice but not sufficient private sector hospitals to meet that demand, the Board would not be able to propose the removal of pay beds by reference to paragraphs (a) and (b). In other words, pay beds would stay in the National Health Service hospital in spite of there being scope for private

457
sector facilities to be provided. It is the Government's aim to give the private sector a reasonable opportunity to provide its own facilities in such a case and for the pay beds to go. It is not the Government's intention to allow the pay beds to continue because the private sector is not willing to take the necessary steps. Therefore paragraph (c) says in effect that any continuation of pay beds should depend on there being taken all reasonable steps by the private sector to provide beds to meet reasonable demand.
The Board does not have to be satisfied that the volume of private sector places being provided is sufficient to meet an enormous and hypothetical demand, but only "a reasonable demand". If steps are not being taken in a reasonable way to meet that demand by providing for it outside the National Health Service, then under paragraph (d) the Board would by justified, after due warning, in phasing out the pay beds. The responsibility, as I understand it, is on the part of the doctors and the consultants and all others who are involved in this matter to take these steps. When the noble Baroness asks me who was responsible for this, the answer is that it is the doctors, the consultants and the others involved.
Lord O'HAGAN: Who gives the warning?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In this particular case it would be the Board, because the Board will be undertaking the responsibility.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I am really puzzled about this. Does it mean that in an area where there are no other private facilities, because of the character of the area and the difficulty of getting the necessary buildings, or the poverty of the area, if for good practical reasons it is difficult or impossible to establish private facilities, and the Board so thinks, then the private facilities at the hospital can be destroyed without there being any others in the area? Is this not really going too far in this matter? Is it consistent with the desire to provide private practice? I can think of areas where, for reasons that would be generally accepted, it is exceedingly difficult to establish private facilities. In such areas, through no fault of their own, there
458
would be a denial of existing facilities in the National Health hospital; there would be a withdrawal of service because it was impossible to establish private facilities. Am I right? Does it mean that? If so, is it not intolerably unfair to a certain kind of area which has difficulty in establishing the alternative facilities?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think it would he unfair if the Board were to decide to take this step without giving the private sector an opportunity of providing the facilities. The noble Lord himself uses the word "difficult". It would be their task to overcome the difficulty. It is not the function of this Bill to continue pay beds indefinitely. It is not the function of this Bill to see that there should always remain a certain number of pay beds, but only as long as it may be necessary for the private sector to make other arrangements. No time limit has been set on it, but I think it must be made perfectly clear to the private sector that if they are simply not prepared to do something—in certain areas they might not be prepared to do something—and continue in that way, they may lose the facilities. We recognise that in some areas—I could mention them and the noble Lord could mention many more—there will he difficulties. There may be difficulties of distance and travel, but let me be quite frank about it, those difficulties will have to be overcome.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: If you are putting the responsibility on the private sector to build a hospital or a nursing home, it was not the doctors and the surgeons who built nursing homes or private hospitals in the old days. That was done by private enterprise. Until the 1946 Act there was not the same co-operation—if one may put it like that—between the private sector and the National Health sector. It was after 1946 that there was this excellent combination which was worked out by Mr. Bevan. It so happens that at that time my husband was on the Conservative side which produced the National Health Service as we know it. Are the Government going to say that we shall have to go back to what happened in 1920 to 1930, or something of that kind, where we had to get people to raise great quantities of money to build nursing homes and hospitals

459
which were then not required when the National Health Service started?
You are really putting the clock back to something which, admittedly, at the time was thought to be good, but, when it started, the National Health Service was much better. It seems to me, if you take areas—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was saying, we all know—even very widely spread rural areas, where it is difficult to raise money and start projects, you are simply condemning people to having no choice of any kind at all. It looks to me as if you are really putting the clock back to something which happened before the introduction of the National Health Service. The National Health Service did a very good job in improving the whole health service of the country. It is very sad if the responsibility has to go to people who cannot put up these buildings because they do not have the facilities or the money.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I ask one question, because this is very important? If in one of these deprived areas—and there are many of which I know in my part of the country—a hospital is built by private money and private people, and is established as appears to be necessary, will the Government give an undertaking that that will not then be taken over by the National Health Service? I ask that question, because earlier in this House I raised the matter of the Sanderson home for crippled children in the area in which I live, which was built and endowed by private money. Fairly recently the people living in my area gave a great deal of money to provide a swimming pool for the crippled children, but that did not prevent the National Health Service from taking the whole lot, endowment and all.
Can we have an assurance that if people provide a hospital in a deprived area—and I am glad to say that there are people who are only too willing to provide such hospitals, if they have the money—and do what the noble Lord has said, it will never then be taken over and put into the National Health Service? I understand the difficulty about the shortage of money, but if the National Health
460
Service cannot provide proper accommodation in deprived areas and other people can, will the hospital remain the property of the people who have given the money and arranged for it to be built, or will the National Health Service at some time say, "We want that in the National Health Service"? It may improve the National Health Service, and I know that there are arguments for it, but we ought to know what will be the result if private people provide the necessary hospital accommodation in deprived areas.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think I can add a great deal to what I said when I tried to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hill. I am not being facetious when I say this, because I have said it many times, but the purpose of this Bill is to separate private practice from the National Health Service. There will eventually be a responsibility on the private sector to provide the beds that are needed. Meanwhile, there will be certain facilities within National Health Service hospitals available for private patients who, if they need specialised treatment, can have it provided in them if there are no similar facilities available in the private sector. Eventually all pay beds have to go, but no time limit will be fixed. If there is a tendency for some of the pay beds to stay on, then the Board and the Secretary of State will want to know why they still exist. We know that the private sector has a great many development plans and is building hospitals, certainly in London, but at this stage we are not concerned with that; we are concerned with what will be the situation in some of the remote parts of the country. The onus will be on the private sector to establish the facilities, if it feels there is a sufficient demand for private medicine in an area.
Lord HILL of LUTON: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting again? What worries me is this. In many cases private beds, usually a small number, are the most valuable, because of the inability of the area to provide a nursing home or other private accommodation for one reason or another. A few private beds in the kind of area I have in mind are immensely valuable, because of the impossibility, for one reason or another, of creating private nursing homes and the like. If the situation which made the development of private accommodation

461
unlikely or impossible in the past still persists, does it mean that, because of a decision that no reasonable efforts have been made—a very vague phrase—those private beds can be closed down? That would be a deprivation in an area, denying people who need more than most that private provision. I think this point should be looked at again for two reasons; first, for the reason that I have put forward, and secondly because if you are putting a responsibility on someone through a clause such as this, at least you should name on whom the responsibility is placed, instead of using a vague phrase.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: May I add another question? It has been stated—and I do not think anyone doubts it—that two-thirds of the hospitals have only five private beds in each. We can all visualise many areas of Britain where the private section of the medical profession would not attempt to build a hospital of five or ten beds. It would mean therefore that in time that part of Britain would be completely without any private accommodation for the people living there. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, used one word which gave me some hope. I should like him to qualify it. He said there is no time limit. If I interpreted that correctly, does it mean that those five beds in those hospitals could go on for ever?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I would hope I said that there is no time limit fixed at present, and not that there is no time limit, because obviously, eventually, there must be one. What we need to bear in mind is that there are many people wanting the services of private medicine and private hospitals and pay beds who at present travel a considerable distance, some coming from the North of England to London. This is not unusual. We must not think that a person who wants a pay bed, or who wants a private physician or a private consultant, is prepared to go only x number of miles. They go a good many miles. Let us face the fact that in an area where there are few pay beds at present, if the private sector cannot eventually provide—and, as I say, no time limit is fixed at the moment, although would personally expect and hope that someone would fix a time limit—private facilities, then they would have to be prepared to travel to a vicinity where those facilities are available.
Lord PLATT: There were one or two rather remarkable statements in that last speech. One is that there is no time limit fixed at present, but there must be one fixed some day. Why? Because a minority of people in this country want this Bill, I suppose. What other reason is there for fixing a time limit of any kind? The noble Lord now raises the question of time-wasting travel. This is just the effect that the Bill will produce. Consultants in London, instead of doing all their work at Guy's Hospital or U.C.H., will have to travel backwards and forwards through the London traffic to see their private patients in some nursing home in a nice area of London. It does not make sense.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: They do not have to travel at all. They can leave private practice and come into the National Health Service whole-time.
Lord PLATT: That is an absolute contradiction to what you said on the first Committee stage. You said there was no objection to private practice, that the Government had no objection to it, and all you wanted was that people should pay for it. I pointed out that they paid for it already. That is in absolute contradiction of—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is nothing inconsistent in what I said. I said that the Government did not want to get rid of private practice, and that the people who want to be involved in private practice can do so. If they find it so inconvenient, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, says, my reply is that they could consider coming whole-time into the National Health Service.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: Speaking as an ex-nurse, I am very concerned about the attitude of the patient who, so far as I can gather, does not seem to have been considered very much. It is sometimes a patient's choice that he has his own GP, who may or may not be a member of the National Health Service. In a rural area it is not very easy for a very ordinary, humble person living in a little cottage to travel many miles for special treatment—not necessarily to be in a private ward but merely to be looked after by the GP or consultant of his choice. That we may have Arabs travelling from all over

463
the world to this country to come into our pay beds is a very different matter, but they are not the only people who want a little special attention. Patients sometimes have more confidence in their own doctor who may or may not be a member of the National Health Service.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for the support that this Amendment has received from all parts of the House. There are two points about it. The first is the way that the particular paragraph is drafted. I do not blame in any way the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, or the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who have been given an impossible task in having to defend the drafting of this paragraph. Whatever else the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, discusses tomorrow with his right honourable friends, I think that he should get them to look at this paragraph.
I was grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of it because what he said is not what the Bill says. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, quite rightly remarked, the Bill does not say who is supposed to have taken the reasonable steps. That is the danger of it. We now discover, if I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, correctly, that the Board is going to say either to the doctors or to BUPA, "We are going to take away the private facilities in hospitals and we trust that you will produce private facilities somewhere else." If that is the intention of the Government, it ought to be written into the Statute. This kind of language will not do. May I ask the noble Lord to look again at
"… on there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than at NHS hospitals …".
It does not say who is to take the steps, who is to provide them and who is to decide whether or not they are reasonable. Apart from anything else, it needs redrafting, and for that reason alone I think that the paragraph ought to be removed from the Bill.
There is a much more serious point. Since the noble Lord has identified what it means, which it is exceedingly difficult
464
to do by reading the Bill, we discover that it is a threat ultimately that pay beds will be withdrawn from hospitals when there are no private facilities. No amount of talking and double-talking about it and saying that it is not the intention of the Government to phase out private medicine, something which I accept, will alter the fact that pay beds will be phased out if there are no alternative private facilities. If the obligation is to be put upon BUPA, or private enterprise, or the doctors, or somebody else it must be stated in the Statute.
As I say, I do not in any way criticise the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I am sure that he did not draft the Bill and I am also sure that he has been left to defend an unintelligible statement in the Bill, one which I would say to him is unworkable. The only people who will profit from it will be the lawyers who I think w ill have a field day—and good for them! They will certainly earn plenty of private fees from it. However, the serious point is that the statement ought to be understood.
Therefore I must press the Amendment because I think that it is badly drafted and because, now that we begin to understand what it is, it does not do what the Bill says. Before I do so, I should like to say that exactly the same criticisms apply to paragraph (d). Nowhere does it say that failure in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (c)—to take all reasonable steps that could be taken to provide, as mentioned in that paragraph—would itself be grounds for the Board to revoke authorisations, after giving due warning to the persons likely to be affected thereby. Nowhere does it say whose failure; nowhere does it explain who is to give the due warning, nor indeed who the persons are. Again it is a completely unintelligible paragraph which the noble Lord is left to defend, and I am extremely sorry for him. In fairness to the Committee I think that both paragraphs ought to be deleted.
9.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 75: Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Alport, L.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hacking, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Harvington, L.

Reay, L.

Barrington, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Belstead, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Berkeley, B.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Blakenham, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland. LY.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chelwood, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V.

Savile, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Devonshire, D.

Melville, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swansea, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Tranmire, L.

Exeter, M.

Mottistone, L.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, R.

Westbury, L.

Foot, L.

Northesk, F.

Winstanley, L.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Arwyn, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Willis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.39 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 6, line 22, leave out paragraph (d.)
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this Amendment which we took with the preceding Amendment No. 48. If the Committee would like me to do so, I am quite prepared to speak further to this Amendment. However, as I have already indicated, this Amendment is one I would press. I do not wish to withdraw it, but I take it that the Committee do not wish to divide again on it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should be revoked only if in the opinion of the Board those attempting to provide alternative accommodation or servirce have met with no unreasonable obstruction from any planning authority or other organisation;").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 50 is on a different point because it concerns planning permissions for the alternative facilities. The purpose of adding this further principle to which the Board should have regard is, I hope, clear from its wording. It is much to he regretted that in the recent past there have been examples of local planning authorities which have produced specious and sometimes unconvincing reasons for refusing or postponing the granting of planning permissions for developments in the private sector of medicine.
I do not think that I need remind the Committee of some of the statements that have been made, at any rate by NALGO, on this subject, even if, as I understand, NALGO has changed its mind about this. I hope very much that that is so. However, the fact is that it ought not to be possible for planning authorities to refuse planning permission on any other than planning grounds. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable that a planning authority should refuse planning permission because there are obvious planning objections to the case. However, the objections must be valid objections on planning grounds and not objections as a matter of principle to private medicine. I hope very much that the Government will give their full support to this principle because they continually tell us that they want to ensure that private medicine survives in this country. Its survival under this Bill entirely depends on alternative facilities being provided.
I hope that, following upon the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when all reasonable steps are taken the independent Board will take note if there is any obstruction by any local authority on other than planning grounds to the provision of these alternative facilities. It is probably unnecessary for me to remind the noble Baroness. Lady Stedman, of the now rather celebrated case in Southwark where precisely this happened. There it was the intention to provide private facilities and permission was refused by the planning authority on grounds other than planning grounds. As a consequence, the private hospital could not be built. That is a very serious matter. One of the important features of legislation is that all contingencies should be provided for. We cannot assume that all planning authorities will always act reasonably. This would be a longstop to make quite sure that they were not exceeding their powers for any reason at all. I hope that this Amendment will be given sympathetic consideration by the Government because I believe it to be an Amendment of considerable public importance and very necessary for the proper working of the Bill.
Lord O'HAGAN: In one sentence, I should like to support my noble friend in pressing this Amendment on the Government
468
and suggesting that they should consider it very seriously. My reason for this is a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when answering the debate on Amendment No. 48. The noble Lord said—and I hope that I wrote the words down correctly:
"There will be a responsibility on the private sector to provide what it needs."
If the private sector is to provide what it needs, it must be given planning permission to do so in all reasonable circumstances. This Amendment ensures that the private sector will be able to provide what it should, and I therefore hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I wonder whether I might ask for clarification, in order that I can understand the whole question of application for planning consent. This Amendment, as I understand it, is to some extent tied to Amendment No. 109 and also to Clause 13 on page 16 of the Bill. If a planning committee accepts an application, as I understand it, the Board has already agreed that the application may be made. That being the case, suppose the planning committee then turned down the application for a planning reason, which is, unlike the Southwark case, an oblique reason, it is not the real reason. I think it was said by T. S. Eliot:
"It is the greatest treason to do the right thing for the wrong reason".
I have had representations made to me from another part of the country where a planning application for a nursing home or hospital in the private sector was turned down on the ground of the building line. In fact, it is very difficult to understand this because the nursing home is opposite a building which is four times the size that the new building would have been.
Taking it one stage further, there is an appeal against the planning order, which I imagine would go to the Department of the Environment. Then the Department of the Environment is brought in, so that (a) it is not really to do with planning, it is to do with political belief, and (b) the patient is not then being considered, nor, as Lord O'Hagan said, is the need of the private sector. I should like clarification on this, because it is tied up with so many other parts of the Bill at a later stage. May I say that this does not apply to one belief

469
or another belief; it could apply either way. A reason could be given because people do not want the private sector built up, but equally, with another council of a different colour it could be that they did want the private sector built up. It seems to me there is slight confusion here, and I should be very grateful for clarification.
Baroness STEDMAN: The effect of this Amendment would be to add a fifth principle to those to which the Board has to have regard in formulating proposals for the progressive revocation of authorisations. This proposed additional principle would require the Board to form a view as to whether the local planning authorities were exercising their planning powers reasonably, and, where they considered they were not doing so, to withhold their proposals for revoking the pay bed authorisations.
We think this Amendment is both inappropriate and unnecessary, because it would note appropriate to imply in legislation that a planning authority was misusing its statutory powers or otherwise behaving unreasonably. Any applicant for planning permission at the moment who can produce evidence to support a claim has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, where it seems clear that a local planning authority is acting ultra vires, even to the courts. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to require the Board to involve itself in matters which ultimately might be the concern of the courts. The Amendment is unnecessary, we believe, because the third principle in paragraph (c) of subsection (8) allows the continuation of an authorisation while all reasonable steps are being taken to provide alternative facilities. It does not require that such steps shall proceed smoothly or be successful within any given time.
However, any so-called obstruction of such steps which caused delay but not the abandonment of the attempted provision of the facilities would therefore tend to defer the withdrawal of the relevant pay bed authorisations. I must remind the House that planning authorities are solely concerned with planning and environmental considerations and not with whether there is a need for a private nursing home or hospital in their area. I know that there were problems with Southwark
470
and this subject was raised in another place. The Secretary of State in his reply reminded the House that it was not the purpose of the Bill to interfere with the statutory powers and rights of the local planning authorities.
Baroness YOUNG: It is relatively easy for the Government to say that it is not for the Board to interfere with the local planning authority, and, wearing my local government hat, I can see why they would make such a statement. On the other hand, one must consider this matter from the point of view of the applicant. As I understand the Bill, it is perfectly possible for BUPA or somebody to apply to build a private nursing home. First of all, it must get the Board's approval for this. Let us assume that it gets the Board's approval. Then it must get planning permission from the local authority. As the Bill stands, the local authority could turn the private nursing home down on the very grounds that the Board had approved it.
The noble Baroness says that the answer is, of course, to go to appeal. She will know as well as I that going to appeal is not something that one enters into lightly. To begin with, it will take a long time, possibly two years. When I was in the Department of the Environment the settling of planning appeals often took, I believe, very nearly two years. It was a very long procedure after the appeal itself had been heard, during all of which time money is tied up, interest is lost, the site is vacant and all sorts of problems arise. Moreover, the applicant must pay the costs, which can run into thousands of pounds on planning appeals. Therefore, not only has the wretched applicant to raise the money to provide the nursing home but he must raise the money to pay for the costs of an appeal—an appeal on grounds which could be regarded as unfair because, after all, the Board which is supposed to have decided these matters has decided them and it is the local authority which in that particular case is being obstructive.
I cannot believe that this can possibly be regarded as a just principle. In the course of our last Division I was "told off" by one of our lawyers for saying that this is the type of situation which provides more work for the lawyers, and they at least should he satisfied with it. I

471
hesitate to repeat the argument again, but this is a very serious matter. I am bound to say that I find it most disappointing that the noble Baroness should have given the answer that she has given.
I fully appreciate that the Bill applies only to private nursing homes of over 100 beds in London and over 75 beds outside of London and that under those numbers it would be possible to provide the nursing home without going to the Board. Nevertheless planning permission will enter into the situation yet again. Although it will not be necessary to go to the Board, it will always he necessary to get planning permission if the building is to be put up at all. Therefore, there are two types of cases where the applicant could get into difficulties. I am bound to say once again that this is a matter which we, on this side of the House, feel most strongly about. It could, I think, lead to great injustice, and on reflection I do not feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Before the noble Baroness sits down and the noble Baroness opposite replies, I should like to be enlightened on one matter, and perhaps the sponsors of the Amendment could assist me. I take the noble Baroness's point about possible obstruction from the planning authorities. It seems to me that anyone who has ever been in contact with any planning authority has invariably met with unreasonable obstruction. One does not want to be facetious at this hour of the night, but it seems to me that this is what planning authorities are for—to present unreasonable obstructions until such time as citizens manage to overcome them. The Amendment goes on to say "or other organisation". Will the sponsors of the Amendment tell me which particular organisation they have in mind: is it NUPE, CHASE, NALGO,
472
one of the building trades organisations or what? Before I decide my attitude to this Amendment, I should like to know a bit more about what the sponsors of the Amendment have in mind.
Baroness YOUNG: The short answer to the noble Lord's question is that recent experience has shown that NALGO in fact instructed some of their officials not to give planning permission for private hospitals, and this might be a case in point. There could be others. It is perfectly possible to see that perhaps people, for some extraordinary reason, objected on principle to private medical facilities; people in an organisation quite different from any we have named. Therefore that is put in. The more important part of the Amendment is the reaction of the planning authority to this kind of representation.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure that the noble Baroness will let me wave my other hat at the Department of the Environment, and would not expect me to depart from the statement that it is not for this Bill to interfere with the statutory powers and rights of the planning authorities. I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.
9.57 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Cork and Orrery): The Question is that Amendment No. 50 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents "have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and in accordance with Standing Order No. 50 I declare the Motion agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should not be revoked if the revocation would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or non-resident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or national or social origin of their choice.").
The noble Lord said: We are still on Clause 4(8), and it may come as a surprise to some noble Lords to learn that the Department has been good enough to furnish notes on clauses. I read mine with appreciation and interest until I came to the notes on the provision with which we are dealing, where it contained the following remarks:
"Subsection (8) requires the Secretary of State to furnish the Board with information reasonably required in carrying out its functions under this clause. This duty will extend to health authorities carrying out the Secretary of State's functions".
There is a sort of blandness about that passage which I think your Lordships will appreciate, in that it in no way reflects the difficulty we have had in the last two and a half to three hours in examining this important subsection, which of course relates to the principles referred to earlier in the clause.
I return again to the question of drafting, because it is absolutely fundamental to Clause 4 especially and to the Bill In, general. I draw the attention of the Committee to a document which I regard, and which I hope the Government will regard, as a rade mecum, and that is Cmnd. 6053 entitled The Preparation of Legislation. Chapter 11 on drafting techniques starts with an important and fundamental principle concerning simplicity of style and three quotations are worth making. In this connection, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale,
"… formulated the idea on the following terms: Desirably, the language of legislation should be as near to ordinary speech as precision permits "
but he recognised that
"… most ordinary terminology contains ambiguity".
474
Another formulation by Mr. Arthur Percival, QC, MP, who is well known to your Lordships, is that
"… wherever possible, what is intended should be set out in the simplest terms in the language nearest to that which would be used by those affected by it".
The third comes from the Statute Law Society which suggests:
"Clarity of expression, of grammar and construction, should be a primary consideration".
I recommend Cmnd. 6053 very highly as compulsory reading for the Parliamentary draftsmen's department because, however expert they may be, that chapter is well worth having a look at if we are to be presented with legislation of this complication and which has been so much the concern of your Lordships for the whole period we have been debating the Bill up to now.
I come to the Amendment. Here we are dealing with the question of revocation where it
"… would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or non-resident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or national or social origin of their choice …"
to quote the words of the Amendment. Once again I believe that this is a fundamental principle that ought to be written into the Bill but, for reasons best known to the Government, they have seen fit not to do so. We have had the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act 1968—the well-known Act concerning racial discrimination—and we have the Race Relations Bill which is currently before your Lordships' House. In regard to these particular areas where discrimination can arise great delicacy is needed. After all, in regard to personal and private affairs, what affair is more personal and private than that which touches upon a person's health.
I feel that one can look at it from the point of view of the white majority patient, or from the point of view of the black minority patient. That is the way in which I prefer to look at it in the present context because I believe that it can be argued equally on either side. Let us take the situation of a Pakistani patient living in Nottingham where, I understand, there are

475
quite a large number of Pakistanis who could conceivably be patients. Is it not fair and reasonable that a sick Pakistani should, if he or she so wishes, seek out a practitioner of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or other social or national origin of his or her choice? I should have thought that this was a fundamental principle and one to which the United Kingdom has given its name and signature, for the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 have recently been ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom. This took place in March 1976, I understand. It may perhaps be worthy of note that the USSR is also a signatory. I believe that if we took these problems in their order we could consider them in detail. I do not know whether the Committee would wish to do that but perhaps other noble Lords, better versed than I, will be able to touch on aspects of sex and race. I should like to deal with a matter of language because I feel it to be fundamental in matters of communication.
Let us imagine that the particular patient concerned is one who speaks the Gujarati dialect. That is a very special dialect of the Indian language. It is used by a substantial number of people in India but by comparatively few in the United Kingdom other than those in the immigrant community. I believe that it should be a matter of fundamental choice for the potential patient to be able to seek out a practitioner who speaks his own language in order to be able to communicate with him, be he doctor, dentist, or practitioner in some other field of medicine.
Let us also consider the question as it touches upon the Race Relations Act at present. The Race Relations Act 1968 gave rise to a number of particularly celebrated cases when it passed into law. One of the first, and one which came in for a great deal of public attention, arose over an advertisement where the advertiser was particularly anxious to acquire the services of a Scottish cook who was going to be able to cook some porridge. This was the subject of a prosecution under the Act because it was felt that the advertisement showed racial prejudice. It seems absurd that this should take place. Nevertheless, with the Act as it stands, this is the sort
476
of possibility that can arise. That case is, of course, part and parcel of case law. But let us consider the situation as it I would be if a person of the black minority community was anxious to place an advertisement in a newspaper to acquire services. This would, equally, be under similar threat, and therefore it is very necessary, so far as the arrangements in the Bill are concerned, to state very clearly and categorically what should be the options open to those of all races, languages, sexes, religions and other national characteristics—
Lord BROWN: May I interrupt the noble Lord in order to assist him in his endeavours to extend his speech? I should like to remind him that he mentioned Gujarati, but he has not introduced the Cornish or the Gaelic minority languages.
Lord SANDYS: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, because indeed those are very important languages as practised in the United Kingdom. But one must stress here that this Amendment is of a perfectly serious nature, as indeed I believe his intervention was also intended.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: If noble Lords do not feel that it is rather a change of atmosphere for one of the Bishops to intervene in this debate, I should like to say that one tries to look at all these issues with a benign impartiality which is suitable to the Bishops' Bench. This particular matter is one on which I should like, with the good will of your Lordships, to say something. It touches on quite a wide area of national wellbeing. I suppose that the right reverend Prelate beside me should be speaking because he has Pakistani Gujarati speaking people in his diocese, but I will speak on his behalf as well. I ought to declare an interest here, in that I am the husband of a Guy's trained sister, and I am the father of an eight weeks' old new Guy's nurse—I mean that she has been training for eight weeks. So naturally this Bill is one which is often discussed in our home and there I am the listener because I am the non-professional.
Having said that, it seems to me that it would be very good if the Amendment

477
were put into the Bill, and I hope very much that the Government will see the wisdom of inserting it because of the quality of the opportunities we offer to the nation both under the National Health Service and in the private sector. The Amendment would help humanise our whole approach to medicine. It would show straight away concern for minorities, and I gather that this is something which increasingly we are feeling in the country we have a right and proper duty towards.
Secondly, it seems to me that the Amendment would show our concern for race and racial minorities. I am thinking here of the Moslem world. As we know, in the educational field they find it difficult for boys and girls of Moslem persuasion to go to mixed schools, and again in the medical world they prefer to go to doctors of the same sex. So far as I know, there are only two, but none the less one or the other is provided. Thirdly, on a more serious level of religion, I believe that the Roman Catholics in particular would feel that this Amendment would be a help and an ease to them in some of the medico-religious problems that they face today; and indeed that is true for members of the Church of England as well. Therefore, on the general grounds of liberty, compassion, good care and relationships between staff and patients, I hope that the Government, in their wisdom, will not wish to divide the Committee on this Amendment hut, with good sense, will accept it.
10.20 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I have gone a considerable distance in the course of our discussions on this Bill in agreeing with noble Baronesses and noble Lords on the next Bench, but I am sorry to have to tell them that I cannot travel along this particular route. I am sorry, too, to have to disagree with the right reverend Prelate on this matter. It seems to me that this new subsection, if it does anything, puts our race relations policies almost into reverse. We have anti-discrimination policies of a number of kinds. The Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to treat less favourably anybody on grounds of sex. The race discrimination laws make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of colour, race, ethnic origin and so on. Here we seem to be putting into
478
the Bill something which appears actively to encourage people to do this, to encourage people to discriminate in their choice of a doctor.
I really think that we should be travelling down a dangerous path if, by putting words into a Bill, we did anything to encourage people to believe that it was right or sensible that all Pakistanis should choose Pakistani doctors, that all Catholics should choose Catholic doctors, and so on. Indeed, I am delighted to be able to tell your Lordships that what goes on in practice is rather different. Catholic patients tend to choose Jewish doctors, particularly when they go in for family planning advice, and so on. One finds that there is a great deal of cross-fertilisation in this field—and I welcome it. I should not like to think that we all went here, that we all went there and that we all went to the other place. I do not see the point of this. It seems to me to go in a direction opposite to the direction in which society is now travelling.
Of course I recognise that one must see to it that there is a maximum range of choice of doctors for patients. One hopes there is always that range of choice. I should like to see a lot of women doctors and a lot of men doctors. I should like to see a lot of different kinds of doctors, so that different patients have different choices; and I should like to see them exercising those choices. But to put into a Statute language which appears to say that it is necessary for Pakistanis to have Pakistani doctors, for Nigerians to have Nigerian doctors, and so on, seems to me to be undesirable, to say the least.
Lord SANDYS: I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who we all know has his heart in the right place in this regard, has taken the drafting of this Amendment in a sense different from that which was intended. It is intended that it should be the doctor or medical practitioner of their choice. This does not indicate that it should be the doctor or dentist of their race or their religion; it is of their choice.
Lord WINSTANLEY: But they should choose a doctor, surely, on medical and doctoring grounds, and not on grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin. This is my point.
Lord HARVINGTON: I wish to apologise for the absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening as he has to be in attendance at a function which concerns his capacity as Earl Marshal of England, and he felt that on this occasion he had to give that priority. He has therefore asked me if I would speak for him—and, indeed, I had hoped in any case to speak for myself—but in speaking for him I am of course speaking with the authority of the Catholic Association, which is the mouthpiece of the Catholic denomination throughout Great Britain. I am asked by His Grace to say to your Lordships that the Catholic community hopes most sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord. In your Lordships' House and Committee every noble Lord speaks for himself and for himself only. He cannot speak on behalf of any other body or collection of people.
Lord HARVINGTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I must apologise for any indiscretion that I have made. Both the noble Duke and I are newcomers to your Lordships' House and I therefore ask for the forgiveness of the Committee for saying anything which I ought not to have said. Of course, I am speaking for myself and I am a member of the Committee of the Catholic Union which deals with all matters which are brought before either House of Parliament which might have a bearing on Catholic belief or dogma or anything of that kind.
In doing so, I should like to think that I am almost certainly speaking for our Anglican brethren and, as my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, for other denominations and peoples, too, right down to the simple case of the woman who wants a woman doctor to look after her. We feel that unless this Amendment is accepted by the Government there will be in the long run the very greatest difficulty of establishing the certainty of a Catholic woman wanting a gynaecologist or obstetrician of her own faith being able to obtain one. That, I think, is something we should regret and which might lead to very great religious feeling in this country.
480
Something which both Houses of Parliament, throughout modern history, have been very careful to avoid is a confrontation of a really serious character with religious denominations. I refer to the Education Acts where the situation of the denominational schools has always been respected by the Government of the day, and I believe that this is akin to that. I feel that this particular Amendment which seeks to provide a choice for (in this case) the woman in childbirth and so on ought to be accepted.
Man years ago when the National Health Service was being designed it so happened that Mr. Bevan was a patient in the Hospital of St. John and Jerusalem in St. John's Wood. In the next room was the Archbishop of Westminster who also was ill and being nursed back to good health. They got to know each other and became great friends. One has always believed that because of the understanding which developed between the Archbishop and the Minister the policy that was enshrined in the 1949 Act, indeed the policy which the majority of people in this country really wanted, was that there should be private practice alongside the National Health Service. It is that principle which has come to be thought of in the same way as denominational education. It is because of that principle that the members of my denomination are utterly opposed to the situation as it is and they hope sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment which my noble friends have moved.
I do not think there is anything more I wish to say. I hope to speak again later when we come to consider Part III wearing another hat, as I shall be, for the disclaimed hospitals. I hope that we shall have for once a kind thought from the Minister and that, even if he cannot accept the Amendment now, he will have another look at this issue to see what can be done to meet our wishes. If he does not do so there is going to be in this country a tremendous outcry among many thousands of Her Majesty's loyal subjects.
10.25 p.m.
Lord PLATT: In this instance I find it difficult to understand this Amendment. I should like some clarification of it. Much has been said about Pakistanis

481
and Catholics, but this is a Bill abolishing pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. Is it supposed that at the present moment there are people on the staff of these hospitals who happen to be Catholic gynaecologists or Pakistani neurosurgeons, or something of that kind? I do not see how any ill-effect is going to come of this Bill regarding race, sex or anything else. If every hospital was so staffed that it had a Catholic gynaecologist and a Pakistani neuro-surgeon, there would be a reason for this Amendment. The ordinary person has the choice of a general practitioner. General practitioners are not influenced by this Bill. We are discussing the question of hospital beds. A Pakistani patient can go to a Pakistani doctor if there is one in the district. Nothing in the Bill will prevent him from doing so. I do not understand the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: It may be helpful if I explain. To the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, may I say I was surprised by his remarks which were, in a sense, not as liberal as I should have expected. Nobody is obliging anybody to go to any particular doctor. All we are saying is that if you are a Roman Catholic and there is a Roman Catholic consultant whom you would like to see, you should be able to do so. When the pay beds are phased out we do not want the situation to be worse than it is now. Assuming we are in a perfect world—and we realise that we are not—there are circumstances in which people are able to choose, and where this happens we are saying that the pay beds should not he phased out if it would make the choice worse.
I appreciate that not everybody has the same view I have about freedom of choice. There should be as much freedom of choice as possible. Innumerable Questions are put to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, regarding the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. Whatever may be the merits or otherwise of those, the point is that a lot of women like to be treated by women doctors. I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, were here tonight. She has been the staunchest supporter of this, for she has said that a lot of women like to he treated by women doctors. This may be peculiar of them, I do not know. If this has been a possibility where there have been private
482
beds, I cannot see why, under this Bill, women should be denied this freedom of choice. I am at a loss to know why anybody would object to it. It is not giving them something they do not have at present.
The Amendment says:
"… if the revocation would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or non-resident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners …"
It is very important, because it is concerned not only with patients in hospital, but with out-patients as well. This is particularly important for the immigrant communities. If there is a consultant of their choice, who speaks their language, and they wish to see him, they should have the right to choose to do so. I should have thought that this was the sort of thing that would commend itself—if I may use what I hope is a generic term that applies to us all—to all good democrats.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: I should like to support the Amendment. If the Bill as drafted goes through, everyone gets fed into the sausage machine and devil take the hindmost. Surely this Amendment is designed to give sonic freedom of choice to the minorities, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, I am a minority. It is not only the case of Catholics and their particular desire—especially when it comes to women patients and gynaecological problems—for a Catholic doctor; it applies also to the other denominations and other religions. Take the case of people we have been talking about, the Gujaratis. If a Gujurati has to have a prostate operation, the first thing he will need will be a doctor who can explain the difficult implications for his family from the point of view of his beliefs. Surely the only thing this Amendment is trying to do is to give some right to the minority beliefs in this country. I think it should be supported and accepted by the Government.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches, said. I think it is not being quite fair to minorities. I should like to refer to the question of hospitals for women. As your Lordships know, there are two hospitals for women. One, the

483
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. One ought to think why these hospitals were started. One was started in 1886, primarily because it was necessary to get women qualified as doctors. It also had a dual purpose, not only to give women the opportunity to train and to practise as doctors but to provide treatment for women in all branches of medicine by a medical staff of their own sex. I regret to say that after 90 years women are still being discriminated against, and women's services and special needs have been neglected. As has been mentioned by other speakers, many would like to have the choice of being treated by their own sex. In this respect at the present time large sections of the health services for women are second rate.
Lord PLATT: May I intervene to say that I have on at least three occasions spoken in favour of keeping the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said; he is very courageous in everything he does. I think it is marvellous that he stays up night after night to support this Health Services Bill. Of course, perhaps staying up night after night discussing the health services is not the best way of improving our own health. This is Age Concern Year, and looking round the Chamber perhaps we might he a little concerned ourselves.
I am referring to this hospital particularly because it is threatened with immediate—and I mean immediate—closure. Psychiatry is another section in which women's needs are best met by women. Fifty per cent. more women are likely to need psychiatric care than men, and twice as many women have to have special drugs. Very often they find it difficult to explain their symptoms to a male therapist.
These two hospitals, the one in South London and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, are used by the Women's National Catholic Control Campaign for the excellent work they are doing. I am worried by the fact that it is anticipated that at the end of December the women will be evacuated—if I may put it that way—to the Whittington Hospital. I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows
484
that the maternity wing was evacuated by ambulance, as I understand it, arriving at the hospital without any notice to the staff concerned. I think it is very regrettable. They are naturally very worried about the future. I understand that the whole thing depends on a lift shaft, and that will cost between £30,000 and £100,000 to repair.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Baroness will allow me to interrupt her, I have dealt with the situation of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in your Lordships' House a number of times. With the greatest respect, I would say that it does not arise on this Amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: It is a question of sex. The two hospitals I have mentioned cater for one sex, and I thought this Amendment referred to the need to keep facilities for women if they wished to have them. However, perhaps I need not say anything more. The noble Lord will obviously remember what an important matter this is, and I hope that he will be able to reconsider the whole question with his right honourable friend, and to see that women are allowed to retain the hospitals to which they can go.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I should like to intervene very briefly, if the noble Lord will allow me to. He mentioned that people travel to hospitals. I should like to suggest that they would also like the opportunity of travelling specifically for a special surgeon, and also a medical practitioner, and sometimes also a dental practitioner. A number of your Lordships, I understand, have undergone hip operations. Up to now there have been very few surgeons in this country who were brilliant at performing hip operations—at one time there were only four, though there are more now. I should like to make certain, through this Amendment, that people will have freedom of choice not only as regards a hospital, but as regards a consultant and surgeon.
Another reason for supporting this Amendment is that, to my certain knowledge, we are now a multi-national society and a great many people of the first generation in our midst now are not English speaking. The question of speech has been brought up before. I think it is very important that people—and I have

485
Greek-Cypriots particularly in mind, because they have practically no English—should be able to consult people who speak their language. The second generation seem to be able to speak better English, but certainly in my courts I have endless translaters and so I feel it is vitally important to be able to go not only to a hospital of one's choice, but also to a particular consultant. That is absolutely vital to the welfare and wellbeing of the patient. I therefore support the Amendment.
Lord HARVINGTON: I should like to add just a brief postcript. This Amendment applies to most religions but, as a Catholic Peer, I should like to say that we already have a somewhat limited freedom of choice in the National Health Service. Without this Amendment, the Bill will make the position a great deal worse, so I would implore people to vote "Content" if the Question goes to a Division.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In case the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, thinks he has been damned by faint praise by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I think he has not only his heart in the right place, but his mind also. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, will forgive me for saying—perhaps it is an observation I ought not to make, but as a member of the Anglican Church, and not a High Anglican, I, like all other Anglicans, consider myself a member of the Holy Catholic Church, which means universal—that I think that those Members of your Lordships' House who are Roman Catholic ought to say they are Roman Catholics and not just "Catholics".
Having said that, no representations have been made to the Department by any religious organisations about the proposals in this Bill, and I want to ask your Lordships whether it was seriously being maintained that 2 per cent. of beds that are private are a significant factor in helping people to see a doctor, if they feel strongly about it, who understands their religious standpoint. For the great majority of patients who use the National Health Service and have never wanted or could afford to do otherwise, that sympathy and help will always be available in the National Health Service. There has been a very long discussion on the
486
matter before your Lordships, and I do not want to say a great deal other than that this Amendment, if accepted, would complicate the task of the Board.
The noble Baroness has made clear the concept of the patient's freedom and choice of consultant. In practice, all of us know—and in this I received some support the other day from my noble friend Lord Stone, who as a family doctor has had some experience in these matters—that the patient's freedom of choice more often than not is effectively limited by the advice and opinion of his family doctor. I realise that the noble Baroness is going to remind me that a patient must feel free to ask for a second opinion, and I would not quarrel with her about that at all. Of course he must; no one disputes that. All patients have that right now where for some reason they are unhappy about their first choice. But if they want a second opinion, in almost every case they will need to go back to the family practitioner for advice and guidance. How will the general practitioner decide on the choice of a consultant? I suggest that he would be guided largely by his knowledge of the patient's needs, and the expertise and special skills of the consultant rather than by considerations of sex, colour, language, religion, nationality or ethnic origin.
Of course, if his patient expresses a preference for a lady consultant, or one of his own faith or ethnic origin, I have no doubt that the general practitioner will do his best for his patient, always with the reservation that what his patient would like may not necessarily be available at the hospital in his home area. None of this is likely to change as the result of the separation of pay beds from the National Health Service hospitals.
I wonder if anyone seriously believes that it is realistic to ask the Health Service Board to assess whether, as a result of recommending the revocation of a pay bed authorisation at a particular hospital, it might conceivably make it more difficult than at present for a patient, irrespective of whether he were a private or National Health Service patient, to be treated by, if I may give an example, a female consultant who was an Australian aborigine by birth who happened to be a practising Mormon. Yet I suggest that this would be the effect of the Amendment.

487
I could go on, but I do not think there is any point in doing so. The only thing I want to say is that no management, however efficient, could guarantee to satisfy the requirements of this Amendment. That being so, it seems to be unreasonable to seek to tie the Board's hand more securely than Parliament has tried to tie the hands of the health authorities over the last 30 years. Therefore, I do not think that the Amendment itself is a realistic one, although I know a good many of your Lordships feel otherwise.
Baroness VICKERS: I would not mind whether she was an aborigine or a Mormon so long as she was a woman doctor.
Lord SANDYS: I think that the Government misunderstand the terms of the Amendment, because the Board is not asked to guarantee that in each individual case the patient w ill have the best possible solution. The Amendment is conditional and says:
… if the revocation would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or non-resident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or national or social origin of their choice.".
I do not believe that that will be such a burden upon the Board as the noble Lord suggests, but it opens another door, the door of freedom, to those who wish to take advantage of it. I am very much struck with the words of my noble friends and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who was kind enough to support the Amendment on the first occasion when the Bishops' Bench has participated in this debate. I believe that my noble friend Lady Young has replied to the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and I feel that I cannot withdraw the Amendment and will seek to press it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.47 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: May I come back briefly to Amendment No. 50, which dealt with the planning of a private hospital? The question which I should like to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I may be wrong, but I think that once an Amendment has been dealt with it is not within the competence of a Member of your Lordships' House to come back to it.
Lord O'HAGAN: May I intervene for one second? I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us some more guidance about the meaning of the word "proposals" as used in this clause. We have had a series of very long debates on this very long clause, and I believe that there has been some uncertainty as to the exact meaning of this word, which occurs in line 3 of the clause. I understand it to mean, "proposals for the progressive revocation of" et cetera, and that is all.I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to give a definitive judgment of the meaning of the word.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter, because it allows me to refer to an answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, when we were dealing with an Amendment to this clause. Let me say, frankly, that my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was wrong and, in consequence, I unintentionally misled your Lordships. Having said that, I should now like to answer the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and probably give a much more satisfactory reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, although it is not in keeping with what I said originally.
I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, that the words, "proposals for the progressive revocation of … authorisations" mean precisely what they say. Each submission which the Board makes to the Secretary of State must contain some proposal, or proposals, for revocation, if the Board is satisfied that it cannot propose authorisation because the criteria specified in Clause 4(7) cannot be met. If that is the case it will report its reasons accordingly to the Secretary of State. I believe that should answer the noble Lord. Once again I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton.
Viscount KEMSLEY: Before we leave the clause, may I refer to its drafting? I do not want to go over the ground already adequately covered by my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Sandys, and,

489
indeed, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I want to limit myself to something which occurs no fewer than eight times in the last two subsections of the clause; namely, "reasonable" or "reasonably". In five cases it means something quite different. I have taken the trouble to study a dictionary for the possible meanings, because there is no definition in the Bill which would adequately cover the use of those words. The first part refers to,
"a reasonable demand for accommodation".
"Moderate" is one synonym for "reasonable." I believe "moderate" might suit there. In the next subsection we have,
"facilities reasonably available".
I suggest there the words in the dictionary "not expecting too much" would cover that position. In the next section we have,
"all reasonable steps to provide".
Again the dictionary helps us with, possibly, "sensible" to substitute "reasonable". In the next line we have,
"reasonable accommodation ",
which might possibly be covered by "not absurd," which is another definition of the word "reasonable". Finally, in subsection (9) we have,
" such information as it may reasonably require".
There I suggest the words "not greatly less or more than might be expected" could be substituted. Finally, I request the noble Lord to ask those responsible for drafting Bills to bear in mind this matter, which would seem to me to be "essentially reasonable". That is to say, "moderate", "sensible", "not absurd", "not greatly less or more than might be expected", and, "not expecting too much".
Lord HILL of LUTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the correction and the way in which he supplied it. However, I am still puzzled. As I understand it, taking the previous example, radiology, at the end of the 12 months period, following the initial period, the existing services outside the hospital having been scrutinised, the requirement is that "there shall be a proposal". As I understand his words, "proposal" must mean action in the direction of the reduction of private facilities. He so defined the word. Indeed, subsection (7) says that each set of proposals under the clause shall specify the accommodation and services authorisation which should
490
be revoked. In other words, at the end of a certain period, whether the alternative services are available or not, there shall be a "proposal". I now understand it that that "proposal" must involve the revocation, the destruction of existing private facilities.
This is a curious situation based, I venture to say, on the noble Lord's recent statement. Is it really intended that at the end of a 12 months period, the alternative facilities having been examined and found to be inadequate to justify the destruction of the private facilities, there must be a "proposal" which withdraws the existing private facilities in the hospital? Does the noble Lord's answer mean that whatever the alternative—whether it be a good, a had or a non-existent one by way of private services—the services within the National Health Service hospital are to be destroyed at the end of that time period? I believe this to be a fundamental question that is related to the proposition that only when alternative facilities are known to be available shall the existing facilities in National Health Service hospitals be destroyed.
10.55 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: First, may I say to the noble Lord who raised the question of the wording that I should like to discuss it with my right honourable friend. I am not saying whether there is something in it, but take the noble Lord's point. Other noble Lords have also made comments about the drafting during the debate. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to deal with it in that way to see whether anything can be done along the lines he has suggested.
With regard to the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, he will realise that only recently have I discovered that I was wrong in my answer to him. Therefore I am not going to venture to answer his question now. Tomorrow I should like to read carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord has said, take advice and then write to him in the hope that he will get my letter before the Report stage, so that if it is unsatisfactory in some way he can say so.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy, but would he go a step further? If I may say

491
so, a letter to me is not a sufficient answer to the point that I have raised. Will the noble Lord go so far as to say that if my interpretation of his answer is right, the matter will be reconsidered before a subsequent stage of the Bill is reached? This is a crucial issue that should not be dealt with in private exchanges, however courteous and well-informed. It should be dealt with publicly before finally we dispose of the points in this clause.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I take the noble Lord's point. My difficulty is that we may examine it and come to the conclusion, on advice, that it is not necessary to do anything, in which case we would reach the Report stage and there would be nothing there; then we should have to go through this again. It would be much more satisfactory from the noble Lord's point of view—and perhaps from the Government's point of view—if I wrote to him quickly to let him know our comments and observations so that, in the event of it not being satisfactory and the noble Lord wanting to do something about it, he would be free to do so.
Baroness YOUNG: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and I, too, would like a copy of the letter. The point is very important because it arises in conjunction with the Amendments which we carried to leave out the important lines, from the noble Lord's point of view, lines 29 to 33. The confusion has arisen because this section of the Bill was added by a Government Amendment at the Report stage. I believe the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, to be precisely right. We are concerned about the Government's second thoughts on the matter. Now that the noble Lord has explained them more fully, we understand—as I believe to be correct in the first instance—that the services of diagnostic pathology and diagnostic radiology will be phased out within 18 months of the passing of the Bill, regardless of whether alternative facilities are available, and that the only service which will not be phased out within 18 months will be radiotherapy, on the ground that it would be impossible for private nursing homes to produce alternative facilities within a very short period of time.
492
We have asked the Government to put back the Bill to what it was when it was originally published. Then, if I may say so, they had a much greater understanding of what was intended by the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he spoke about equal private facilities being made available for the private practice of medicine.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restrictions on Secretary of State's potters under ss. 1 and 2 of 1968 Act]:
11 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 42, leave out from ("granted") to end of line 45 and insert ("or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, which is consequential on Amendment No. 17.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I imagine that the noble Baroness would feel that we might take Amendments 52, 53, 54 and 55 together. I find myself in the position of having to recognise that these are consequential Amendments, and had the previous Amendments not been carried I would have asked your Lordships to resist these, since I am advised that they would allow the Board to recommend the granting of new authorisations of facilities for private patients in National Health Service hospitals.
There is one matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Baroness. As your Lordships know, the Government take the view that the purpose of the Bill is the progressive withdrawal from National Health hospitals of facilities for private medical practice, not its extension and certainly not its maintenance. However, I accept that for the time being your Lordships have decided otherwise and that consequently the logic of the position in which I find myself is not to resist this particular group of Amendments. However, I must point out to the noble Baroness that as they stand the Amendments, I am informed, are defective inasmuch as Clause 5(3)(b) as it is proposed to amend it, refers to "subsection (2)(b) above". If the noble Baroness will study Amendments Nos. 52

493
and 53 she will see that she is proposing to remove subsection (2)(b) altogether and amalgamate it with subsection (2)(a). Perhaps at some stage the noble Baroness would look at that.
Baroness YOUNG: I am always, of course, prepared to look at the drafting of Amendments. In my experience it is impossible for anybody to draft an Amendment which is ever acceptable to any Government of any colour, even when the Amendment is professionally drafted, as was the case with this particular Amendment. However, I will accept that and I will certainly look at the point made by the noble Lord. I am glad the noble Lord appreciates that these are in fact consequential on Amendment No. 17.
Once again it is an important matter that we should consider all these Amendments, because Amendment No. 17, which would give power to the Board, if it so wishes, to increase the provision of private beds as well as to decrease them in National Health hospitals, was one of those Amendments that was tied on a vote in Standing Committee in another place, guillotined on Report, and once again it is only this House which has the opportunity to debate it. We shall be the only House of Parliament debating this matter because no doubt it will be guillotined once again when it goes back to another place. I do not think the Committee will want me to go over all the arguments on this matter again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 en bloc:
Page 6, line 48, at end insert ("or subsection (4) below, or on a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below.").
Page 7, line 3, leave out from ("granted") to ("to") in line 6 and insert ("or").
Page 7, line 7, at end insert ("or subsection (4) below, or on a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below.").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
11.5 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert—
("(c) proposals for securing that in any case where, after the passing of this Act, any new
494
NHS hospital is put into service, a number of beds are authorised under section 1(1) of the 1968 Act and accommodation and services are authorised under section 2(1) of that Act sufficient in each case to satisfy any reasonable demand for accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry in the district served by the hospital in question which is not already met by accommodation and facilities which are otherwise available at a satisfactory standard and at reasonable cost, and are reasonably accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice;").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment in effect follows on from Amendment No. 17 and might in some respects be regarded as an alternative to that Amendment. The point of it is that where there is an area in which there is a growth of population and in which there might well be a National Health hospital which includes pay beds, if those same pay beds arc pleased out, there might not be a population sufficient to justify private nursing facilities and therefore in those particular circumstances the Board would not have to authorise the phasing out of the pay beds.
I am thinking, of course, quite particularly of new towns. For example, if one takes a situation where the population has moved out of the centre of London and gone to Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead or Bracknell, or even to Peterborough, as I see the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is to reply, and the population is building up, obviously included within the new town facilities will be a hospital. It might well be one in established use in a nearby town, with private beds in it. If those beds were phased out it would be some time before the population would justify having a private nursing home. Therefore, we would leave a case in which the private facilities could not be produced because the population did not justify it, and the principle of the Bill that the private facilities should be available to those consultants who wish only to work part-time in the National Health Service and to have the opportunity to leave private practice, would not therefore be available. It seems to me that there are a number of places where this particular circumstance could apply. Therefore, it seems that it would he useful to have this Amendment included in the Bill. I beg to move.
11.7 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, this

495
Amendment would require the Board to ensure that, whenever a new National Health Service hospital is commissioned, facilities and accommodation will be set aside for private patients if existing facilities in the district served by that hospital are inadequate. A new hospital would be placed therefore, at least for the time being, in a privileged position compared with other hospitals in the National Health Service. The principles which the Amendment proposes to apply to such a new hospital would so far depart from the criteria in the proposals of 15th December 1975 that the burden of meeting any demand which might exist locally for private practice would be laid either wholly, or to a significant extent, on the new National Health Service hospital rather than, as is intended by this Bill, wholly on the private sector. Furthermore, the Amendment lays on the Board the duty of causing the Secretary of State to set aside in a National Health Service hospital facilities for private patients which that hospital may not set out to provide for its own National Health Service patients.
The Health Services Board is not the guardian of standards either in the National Health Service or the private sector. This is for the professions and for those providing services to patients, subject in the case of private nursing homes to the requirements of the Nursing Home Act 1975. Nor would the Board be in a position to determine what is a reasonable cost in the private sector. Do noble Lords opposite really expect the Board to employ the inspectors who may be appointed under Clause 16 in assessing whether private patients are getting value for money in private nursing homes and hospitals? I question whether it is necessary for the Board to do this at all; surely if the cost of treatment in a private nursing home is unreasonably high, the managers will soon find the demand declines. Equally, I suggest that if standards are regarded as inadequate consultants will not be prepared to practise at that nursing home, and consequently patients will not go there either.
The failure of the private sector to measure up to the requirements of its potential clientele is no reason for seeking to make good that deficiency in National
496
Health hospitals at the expense of the taxpayer. The purpose of the present Bill is the separation of private medical practice from National Health Hospitals: it is not to ensure the indefinite continuation of present arrangements. As to the case of new towns such as the noble Baroness referred to, in those new towns of which I have any knowledge she would find that the development corporations were extremely co-operative with the local doctors and consultants, and would go out of their way to help by every possible means if there were a need and demand for private nursing homes or hospital facilities.
The Government Amendment agreed to in another place enables the Board to recommend transfer of authorised facilities from hospitals which are closed permanently and which are not authorised as part of a group. But the Government Amendments w ill not enable the Board, nor was it ever the Government's intention that they should, to expand private practice in National Health Service hospitals as would the present Amendment. Therefore, it is the Government's view that the Amendment is inconsistent with the whole purpose of the Bill and I cannot commend it to your Lordships' Committee.
Lord AUCKLAND: I have listened with care to the reply of the noble Baroness, but I find it rather puzzling. One of the inherent weaknesses of the Bill is the extent to which little consideration seems to have been given to development areas such as new towns. I shall, of course, read very carefully what the noble Baroness said. At one time I lived near the new town of Stevenage and it is only recently that a new hospital has been built there. There are new towns where National Health Service hospitals are scarce. Indeed, with the shortage of money and the capital outlay, that situation is certainly not likely to improve in the near future. I do not necessarily suggest, and I do not think that these Benches suggest, that new towns should be made a special case, but there is the matter of planning permission, which relates back to Clause 4. There are new towns and particularly potential new towns where planning permission may be ear-marked for items other than hospitals, vital though we all recognise hospitals to be.

497
I should like the Government to reconsider, particularly in relation to new towns at present under construction—and I instance, for example, Milton Keynes and any others which the Government have in mind—the terms of the Amendment which my noble friend has moved. The Government should give those towns rather more consideration than, admittedly, the areas around London where the problem may not be quite so acute.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I ask the noble Baroness to bear one matter in mind. From all the discussions we have had, all the Amendments moved and replies given, it seems that more responsibility has been placed on the Board, which means that it will have a great deal of work to do. An Amendment was moved earlier on the number of professional people there should be on the Board. We did not believe that there was a sufficient number of professional people on the Board who could do all that was required of them. That Amendment still stands, which I think is very wise, although it has to go to another place.
I wonder whether the Board will have either sufficient people on it or sufficient staff to deal with everything with which it is supposed to deal. The same applies to Secretaries of State; they have been given more responsibility. As I said previously, they will all drop dead as a result of all the responsibilities that they are asked to undertake. On Report it might be worth while to consider increasing the membership of the Board if we are to have a reasonable Bill, which is very necessary in the Health Service.
Baroness STEDMAN: If I may reply to the noble Baroness, of course we have discussed the question of the number of people on the Board, and I am quite sure that when the Bill gets back to another place they will have further discussions on it. I would draw her attention to the fact that the Amendment we are discussing would, if passed, put another responsibility on the Board.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: That is what I am asking the noble Baroness to remember.
Baroness YOUNG: I appreciate the trouble the noble Baroness has taken
498
in replying to this Amendment. She has I not, of course, really answered the question as to what will happen in new towns except to say that the new town corporation will he very sympathetic to somebody wishing to provide facilities. The point is that if there is not sufficient population it is very difficult to envisage the facilities being provided and therefore people in new towns will have to do without. Weil, perhaps you may regard this as good for their characters; I do not know. It is the part-time consultant who will do without; he may not be able to get a full-time consultancy, and he could, therefore, be in trouble. When the noble Baroness comes to read her reply in Hansard she will see that quite a lot of it was addressed to a question that I did not ask at all. The reason why my Amendment is drafted as it is is that we on this side believe that we should write into the Bill the qualification to the alternative facilities that Lord Goodman suggested at Second Reading. So when we talk about alternative facilities we are talking about facilities at a satisfactory standard; we think no one would want facilities at anything but a satisfactory standard, facilities that are reasonably accessible to patients and to practitioners of their choice, and, of course, at a reasonable cost.
We have been over all that ground again, but nobody is suggesting that the Board should look at the failure of the private sector. The great thing is to see that there cannot be a failure because the alternative facilities would not be suitable under this Bill unless they were at a satisfactory standard. We have discussed this Amendment at considerable length. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and tomorrow I shall read it carefully in Hansard to see whether this is a matter to which we should return at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.18 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: This is again an Amendment which was a tied vote on

499
Standing Committee in another place and was guillotined on Report. So again this House has an opportunity to debate it which has been denied to another place. It is one of a series of such Amendments. As we know, our deliberations are already being guillotined again, so this will probably be the only opportunity to discuss it. It is an important matter. It is again an Amendment to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may". This clause, in this subsection, is concerned with the situation where hospital accommodation is temporarily closed for whatever reason it may be, whether by the Secretary of State or what an insurance company would call, I suppose, an act of God. The subsection says:
"… the Secretary of State may, without the need for any proposals by the Board, grant on a temporary basis such authorisations";
that is to say, in those circumstances the Secretary of State may say that these beds need not be replaced. It seems to me that this is a very important matter. If something like this happens, I should have thought that in order to fulfil the understanding of the Goodman agreement the Secretary of State ought to replace the beds temporarily out of commission but not yet phased out.
That is the point of the Amendment. It would be useful to know in what circumstances the Secretary of State would not replace beds that are lost, but not yet phased out; and what the Government regard as "temporary". Obviously no one will concern themselves if they are closed for one day. However, a situation could arise which meant that the spirit of Goodman was not being fulfilled. As that appears to be the object of the Bill, I hope that the Government will consider this Amendment favourably. I beg to move.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I hope that this will be one of the occasions when we shall have an Amendment granted. This is the old story that we have gone over before with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as regards where "may" and "shall" come into the picture. I believe that in these circumstances the Secretary of State ought to be obligated to grant this Amendment.
As regards the previous discussions we have had on this "flexibility", as it is
500
described by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, reference has been made to giving instructions, or guidance at any rate, to the Board. However, it may well be that for a temporary period, once this is temporarily out of existence, we may have a Secretary of State with views that are not in accordance with those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I do not think that in such instances an area should be robbed of very essential services. This is an occasion when an instruction ought to be given to any future Secretary of State that in certain circumstances such as described in this paragraph, he shall replace it rather than give him the "flexibility" which may rob an area of something which is truly essential.
Your Lordships' House is quite different from the one that I experienced for very many years. The one thing that surprises me as regards the Government wishing to get their legislation on to the Statute Book is that they do not see the great value in giving in—of occasionally saying, "Yes". I should have thought that in order to be obliged on some of the other matters that will arise later, it would be extremely helpful to be able to say, "We gave way on this. We recognised your point of view."
Give and take is part of the method of getting legislation on to the Statute Book. I do not know what has happened to these modern Governments who think that the only way they can do it is to bulldoze these things through in the belief that it shows a sign of strength by never agreeing that the other side has a valid point of view. This is not a big point, but it is an important one. I should have thought it would put the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in a better friendly relationship enabling them to get away with things they ought not to get away with if, on this occasion they said, "Yes". This is a good example.
Lord AUCKLAND: It is fair to say that most Secretaries of State are men and women of discretion and—to use a word we have heard a great deal of during this debate—of reasonableness. However, there are times when we must consider what may be viewed by some as almost nit-picking Amendments. One must consider the situation of a hospital—especially some of our older hospitals—which is severely damaged by fire, a boiler bursting

501
or some fairly considerable reason for damage, bearing in mind the problems of the construction and repair industry these days, even by direct hospital labour. There is not always the opportunity for a job to be done quickly. Therefore, bearing in mind the need for medical services to be continued expeditiously and efficiently, an Amendment of this kind is certainly not unreasonable. I hope that the Government will consider it very carefully.
Baroness STEDMAN: There really is not any good reason for making this permissive power mandatory. Can we look at the hypothetical situation; a hospital with perhaps one pay bed whose authorisation the Board has not yet decided should be withdrawn which is suddenly closed because of an infection or a fire. If the local management, having regard to the current demand for pay beds in their area, is satisfied that it can meet the foreseeable demands for private patients without the need for a temporary authorisation, it would be a waste of everyone's time if my right honourable friend was compelled nevertheless to issue a temporary authorisation.
What we are considering here is essentially a short-term impermanent measure. To make the granting of a temporary authorisation obligatory irrespective of the local circumstances is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. More years ago than I care to remember I was told that when a lady says, "No" she means, "Maybe"; when she says, "Maybe" she means, "Yes"; and when she says, "Yes" she is no lady. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will take my point if I say that perhaps I am still a lady and I cannot say, "Yes" in spite of his blandishments.
Lord SANDYS: I think there is a point here despite the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, which the whole Committee has appreciated. Under Clause 5(4) there are arrangements where the Board may submit to the Secretary of State proposals when one or more beds authorised under Section 1 of the 1968 Act cease to be available. That is a temporary situation also. There the Board is acting under a permissive power. The present Amendment relates to the different situation where the Secretary of State may act
502
on his own without advice from the Board. We believe that the Bill should include a compulsion for this reason; we suggested in Amendment No. 46 that there should be an authorisation, and here the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said:
"It was not included in legislation because it was a function of the Secretary of State".
I use his exact words. If it is the function of the Secretary of State under Clause 4 could it not be phrased in a clearer manner? I think we have a strong element of the right side of the argument here because the Secretary of State is given permissive powers but very few mandatory powers to increase the limits of private beds.
Baroness YOUNG: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. Site is the first on either side of your Lordships' Committee who has been able to answer my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Perhaps it is because they both come from Peterborough that she has been able to effect this remarkable achievement. I am not as happy about the rest of her reply because it is not just a question of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There have been quite a number of cases in which, for one reason or another, there has been a fire at a hospital, or some reason why beds cannot be used. Therefore, it is not really one of those circumstances which is unlikely ever to arise. I feel that it would be to the advantage of the good faith behind this Bill if it were to be made obligatory on the Secretary of State in these circumstances to replace pay beds that are temporarily out of commission. I believe that this is one of those Amendments that I should press.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Sale for use for private treatment of premises no longer usable by NHS
.—(1) If and so often as the Secretary of State is advised by the Board that, by reason or in consequence of the revocation, pursuant to any provision of this Act, of any authorisation under section 1(1) or 2(1) of the 1968 Act any premises vested in the Secretary of State have become incapable of further use as, or as part of or in connection with, any NHS hospital, the

503
Secretary of State shall offer such premises for sale by tender for use as premises for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness under private arrangements.
(2) Part III of this Act shall not apply to any premises sold under subsection (1) above.
The noble Viscount said: We now come to the question of the sale of premises no longer usable by the National Health Service, and the first thing we should like to know is how soon and how many of these premises will come on the market. When a property is wound down by a Government Department it usually passes from one Department to another, for months or perhaps two or three years, and during that time it generally gets in a very had state, possibly with water leaking in, windows being broken and so on. We hope the Minister will persuade his right honourable friend to hurry up the process of getting these properties on the market. We have seen how these properties quickly deteriorate—this is especially so with Ministry of Defence property such as airfields and hangars—if they are not looked after. May we also be assured that when these properties come on the market they will be put out to tender so that everybody has a chance of buying them; that is, after the Departments have said they have done with them? If we could be given that information we should feel happier that these properties will not just be left to rot.
Lord O'HAGAN: I support the Amendment. I speak from experience, having been a member of the management committee of a housing association which had charitable status and was recognised by the Housing Commission. The association of which I speak commended itself to the Government and I wrote to the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Crosland, on the subject and he replied that he hoped it would act as a pioneer for the use of accommodation that could not be put to other useful purposes. The association attempted to use for housing purposes buildings which had been condemned or had been taken over by the local authority under compulsory purchase powers but which would not be pulled down immediately. The noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill for the Government may recall that I wrote to him insisting that he come and see the work of the association and the way in
504
which it was contributing to the housing stock by using buildings which were otherwise useless. In its endeavours the association received co-operation from local authorities in London of both Conservative and Labour persuasion.
So far, the Committee may consider that what I have been saying is not strictly relevant to the Amendment, but the point is that this housing association wished to acquire some permanent accommodation of a fairly large character and one of the buildings we were particularly interested in was a redundant hospital. This had not been used for some years and we applied to the Department of the Environment to see whether we could get our claws on it, because it was very suitable for the type of person for whom we were trying to provide. There was a paper chase from Department to Department trying to track down whether any conceivable Government body might still be interested. So far as I could make out, it was not a question of whether any Department definitely wanted it: every Department had to say definitely that it did not want it before a charity, how ever worthy, was allowed a sniff at it.
I believe that there is a very real point in my noble friend's Amendment: it is that if some of these buildings are no longer to be used in the National Health Service, they should be offered to others who are prepared to make use of them for the care of patients. I hope that the process whereby these buildings are released can be speeded up so that, as my noble friend said in moving the Amendment, the buildings do not deteriorate so much in the meantime that they become virtually worthless or extremely expensive to use.
In the particular case of which I had experience, the number of years that had elapsed since the building had been used as a hospital was seven or eight. If that sort of thing goes on, these buildings will become useless and the Government will get less money for them than they otherwise could. I beg to support the Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Amendment occasions us some surprise for a variety of reasons, not least among them the fact that we have no idea at this stage whether any hospitals will be declared

505
redundant or no longer necessary for NHS purposes. It is therefore very difficult to give a reply based on a sound judgment. I am further surprised because, if I understand the situation correctly, this is an Amendment that was moved in identical terms in another place in the Standing Committee. If that is so, the Minister of State said in the Standing Committee,
"This new clause is defective in certain respects."
If it is defective in certain respects— and I hope to satisfy your Lordships that it is—I do not understand why it has been put down in this Committee without the defect having been removed. It does not, for instance, say what is to be the position if no person comes forward to tender for the premises in question for use as a private hospital. It cuts across the established convention that all surplus Government property—and that includes National Health Service—should be offered first to other Government Departments, secondly to local authorities and then to housing corporations before it can be offered for sale on the open market, and it effectively removes from local management responsibility for determining whether pay bed accommodation could be converted to other National Health Service use.
The clause overlooks the practical difficulties of disposing of an integral part of a hospital, which pay bed wings often are. More often than not, such premises are not readily separable from the main hospital, inasmuch as they depend on the main hospital for various essential services such as heating. There may also be problems in disposing of part of a property in that this could affect the future development and the value of the site. A lease, limited to the expected life of the buildings, is normally to be preferred to a sale in such cases.
Most important of all, it is likely that there will be a further NHS (though not necessarily a hospital) use for most vacated pay bed wings. Only rarely—I would go so far as to say if ever—would we expect there to be no further NHS use; and then probably only when the hospital is being run down for redevelopment or subsequent disposal, which would tend to preclude a sale of part of the premises as I indicated earlier. These practical considerations make it quite inappropriate for the Health Services
506
Board to decide when land or premises are surplus, and for the Secretary of State to be bound, by their decision, to dispose of it in a particular way. With the greatest respect to the Board, I do not believe that it can ever be sufficiently conversant with local needs, local circumstances, and local authority development plans to make an informed judgment of this kind. We really cannot accept the Amendment. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that having regard to the fact that these defects in the Amendment were explained in another place, I should have thought that he would feel that this ought to be withdrawn and looked at afresh.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: This is not altogether a hypothetical case. I vividly recall making great efforts to try to preserve a small hospital, which was being used for geriatric treatment, and which was being closed because a new, bigger hospital had been built a few miles away, and it was felt that for pure administrative good sense this hospital could be closed because the service it was giving could be dealt with in the bigger, new hospital. But the small hospital, which would be well known to the noble Baroness, was giving good service, and while it was old it was in very good condition indeed.
We did not have the Bill in front of us at that time. We did not have these shackles put on the provision of good health and hospital services. Had the Bill then been in existence, then the case to which I refer would have been an ideal instance of where it would have been sensible and right, if one had good health and the preservation of good health and hospital treatment in mind, to have handed over to the private sector, which under the Bill is still to be allowed.
I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on one point. I would amend the Amendment so that it was not possible for the premises to be sold by tender, because I agree with the noble Lord that it would not be right, if premises become vacant, for the kind of reasons I have described, that they should be sold to a limited group and so reduce their true value. The proposal might be amended so that the premises were sold at a figure fixed by the district valuer or on the basis of some other assessment

507
as to the true value, and whoever wanted to set up a private hospital under the part of the Bill where this is allowed, ought, if they were prepared to pay the price, to have the premises.
This is an instance where the premises ought not to be offered to other Government Departments—if that is the defective part of the Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, refers. I remember having very many arguments with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, when he presided over a sub-committee which was responsible for doing just this. He had to decide whether various other Government Departments had had an opportunity to take over Government premises. The noble Lord did the job very well, but not always in a way which some of us thought was right, when it affected our particular constituency. But let us consider a case such as the small hospital I have described, which is perfectly capable of continuing to give a hospital service under the private sector, and is being relieved by the National Health Service only because the National Health Service itself, in showing good administrative sense, says that there is no point in continuing it, with all the expense involved, when a more modern hospital has been built in the same catchment area.
In those circumstances, I believe that we ought to write into this clause, as the noble Lord will see that we can if he looks at it again, that where it can be preserved as a hospital and it can be done at a price which takes into account its true value (to meet the very proper point that he made) then it should be done. It would not really be robbing the Government Departments, because the particular premises I have in mind—and I have no doubt that there are many like it—would not truly be satisfactory for any other Government Department so far as I can see. I am not saying that certain Government Departments would not use them, because they have nothing else; but it would be doing more service to the community by remaining a hospital than by being used for those other things. I merely wanted to intervene to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that this is not a hypothetical case. I have certainly one set of premises in mind, and I have others in mind which I would imagine would be very similar in certain
508
circumstances. It would be doing a real, good service to the cause of preserving hospitals in areas where they are needed if he could look at this again once the one point on which I agree with him, in terms of getting the true value, is covered by a district valuer's figure being the one which has to be accepted.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is not for me to look at it again. It is not my Amendment. I have said that the Amendment is defective. It was put forward in Standing Committee in another place, when it was pointed out that it was defective, and it now comes before your Lordships' Committee unchanged. I think, therefore, that I must ask the noble Viscount, Lord Long, whether he does not feel that this is a matter that perhaps they ought to look at themselves.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My noble friend may deserve chastisement for not having looked in detail at what went on in another place, but that does not alter the fact that, if a good idea has been produced now, then, even though somebody has been remiss—and I am told that in the other place it was a case of the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee having to decide it; it was as near as that—the sort of answer I should like to hear from the Treasury Bench is, "Yes, the idea is right; the words do not fit in, but we will have another look at it and will produce the words that put the good idea into practice". Why not try it?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: If I heard aright, I think the noble Lord said that it was unlikely that any good hospitals would now be closed. I just want to put on the record that in Newcastle-on-Tyne the Fleming Hospital, which is in very good condition indeed, is being sold. It may have already been purchased for all I know, but it is certainly being sold. The other one, of course, was the Sanderson Home, to which I referred, which, so far as I understand it, is more than likely to be sold. I thought I should like those two on the record, because I never believe in letting anything pass which is helpful to the cause that I have in mind.
Lord HILL of LUTON: May I say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just said? I am not going to follow him in his

509
nostalgic reminiscences about the aftermath of Crichel Down; and I am not going to accept the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, seeks to put by a repetition of the word, "defective". The notion in this is perfectly simple and straightforward. Here is a building which is incapable of further use as, or as part of, or in connection with, any NHS hospital. The Hospital Service does not want it. Surely it is reasonable that that hospital shall be on offer to private bodies who would continue to use it as a hospital. Why is common sense so often opposed by the use of such words as "defective"? It is a perfectly sound notion, in the case of a building which has been part of hospital premises but which is no longer needed in any part of the NHS, to use that building or to offer that building to a body that seeks to continue its use for the purpose of treating patients therein. Surely that makes simple, sound sense. I am not going to follow Lord HarmarNicholls into the mode of sale. He knows about these things and I do not; but the simple notion here cannot easily be dismissed without denying the fundamental sense which lies behind such a proposition.
11.50 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: It seems to me that the substance of this Amendment to some extent depends on how many hospitals the Government propose to close over, say, the next six or 12 months. I say this because there is a Sword of Damocles constantly over certain cottage hospitals. There is one in Surrey, very near where I live, which has been under at least veiled threats of closure several times. There is no indication as to what the Government, of whatever Party, would do with that hospital if it were closed. As it happens, they are the kind of premises which would be very suitable for the terms of the Amendment. While not being entirely happy about this Amendment in every respect, I would say that, of course, the National Health Service should have every priority if the usage of the hospital is to be altered.
However, there are times when hospitals are closed or threatened with closure and nothing happens to them for a long time. I am thinking particularly of a case, several years ago, of a famous children's hospital in Chelsea of which my late father
510
was chairman for nearly 30 years. I was on the house committee for several years. That hospital was unused for a very long time. During that time it could easily have been taken over as a diagnostic unit or something of that sort. But that is past history and we are looking to the future. Much of this must depend on the future policy of the Government in dosing or redesignating hospitals. One hopes that the Government will have proposals fairly soon so that there is not the situation of hospitals, be they cottage hospitals or not, not only having the threat of closure over them hut, when closed, lying fallow for long periods of time.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am quite prepared to envisage that with the passing of pay beds, when they are finally gone, we may have property on our hands that we cannot put to proper use. There seems to be this anxiety always to write something into a Bill. The acid test must be always whether it is necessary to do so. I am quite prepared to believe that hospitals occasionally have stood empty for some time; but the references in the debate have always been to somebody or something that happened years ago. We are talking about the present moment. What I was saying is that the proposal cuts across the established convention that all surplus Government property, including NI-IS property, should be offered to other Government Departments and to local authorities. This convention has worked extraordinarily well in the past. There will be the occasional property that is not wanted immediately; but in these days, taking into account the costs of replacing buildings, it might be worth hanging on to property if it is to be used, say, 18 months or two years later. If the convention had not worked, it would have been a different matter; but why replace a convention which has worked very well by something that we do not know to be necessary?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It would relieve me very much in terms of good Government if the noble Lord could say that his right honourable friend who is responsible for the health legislation of this country has said he has tried to get something like this in the Bill but other Government Departments would not let him do it for the technical reasons that the noble Lord has just maintained. I should like to see a Minister of Health

511
battling for his Department, saying that the good health of this country, and good hospitalisation, is much more important than keeping to a convention or offering things to Government Departments, just because it has been neat in the past. If he can tell me that this has not been done because he has been overruled by Cabinet colleagues for bigger and wider Governmental reasons, I would feel happy. I should like to see a battling Minister of Health who on good, common sense grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said, is prepared to go a little against convention and ask for an amendment of something which is rigid if, in the overall, it is better for the nation. In this instance, I believe that it is.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord is completely out of touch with reality. Is he is saying in this Committee that we have not a Secretary of State in the Health and Social Security Department who is battling for health? If he is, I take exception to that.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I did not say anything of the sort. I asked the noble Lord a question. The answer he gave gives the impression that we have a Minister of Health who is not prepared to battle as hard as I should like him to battle. The answer he gave was not a Minister of Health answer; it was a Governmental answer, and if such an answer relating to health gives the impression that we have a Secretary of State who is not battling as hard as I should like him to, then I should like to know why. This Governmental answer does not give the impression that on this instance we have a battling Minister of Health.
Viscount LONG: We turned up a tricky one there. I do not apologise to the noble Lord because suddenly we found something which was rather important to discuss on property. We were quite right to air this particular Amendment simply because we always leave it to the last moment regarding a particular building, and then we look round to find that the roof has fallen in. Your Lordships have aired this point extremely well. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I had not seen that
512
this point was raised in Standing Committee D. I have looked it up since and I found that when it came to a vote it was tied. So it was obviously left for us to have another look at it.
I am convinced that we already have enough office blocks for Departments. In these days we need to cut down on public expenditure. Rather than sell some of these buildings when they become vacant to the different Departments, they could be moved on to the market immediately. We might have a little tax rebate, because the Ministry might find they can sell a good property in the middle of a town. If there is a building which is for sale, it should be sold as soon as possible and not he left until the last moment when the roof falls in. I am grateful to my noble friends and to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I did not realise that so many speakers were going to take part. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Recommendations on arrangements for securing use of NHS facilities on basis of medical priority]:
12 midnight
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
("(4) The Board shall make no recommendation which (were it to be carried into effect) would or might require any medical or dental practitioner to disclose to any person any information obtained by him in confidence from any patient (whether resident or non-resident and whether private or not) and the Secretary of State shall not carry into effect any recommendation which would or might require any such disclosure.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee now moves to Clause 6, and we start to consider a new aspect of the Bill. I shall not attempt to cover the whole of the ground to which this clause refers, but in moving the first Amendment on this clause I must try to give some pointers to the way in which my Amendment fits in with the rest of the clause. Clause 6 concerns the recommendations on common waiting lists. I do not want to use emotive phrases such as cheque book and queue jumping, nor to pre-empt any wider debate that we may have on the Question that the clause shall stand part

513
of the Bill. But before dealing with the Amendment itself I should like to make one or two points.
The key proposal in Clause 6 is that from now on admissions to NHS hospitals must be on the basis of medical priority alone; whether patients go in as private or NHS patients that shall be the sole criterion. It is this objective of medical priority and nothing else that this clause is striving to reach. The device by which the Government are attempting to achieve this objective is the common waiting list. A common waiting list does not mean, as one might imagine when looking at the phrase for the first time, that any particular hospital will have one overall waiting list. It would be ludicrous to have a waiting list that covered every single type of complaint. There will be a list, based on medical priority alone, for each specialty, to cover all those who are in need of that particular treatment. I hope what I have said so far in attempting to explain the basis for the clause raises no controversy.
This Amendment raises a matter of principle which flows from the device which the Government have chosen in order to achieve their objective of ensuring that admission is on the basis of medical priority alone. But who is to judge the medical priority? Only a doctor can judge whether somebody deserves treatment urgently, whether it is an emergency, whether the priority to be given to an applicant, private or National Health, should be high or low. The Amendment I am moving on behalf of my noble friends is an attempt to preserve the confidential relationship between the doctor and his patient.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, intervened earlier to comment on the use by one of my noble friends of the word "Catholic". I am not a Roman Catholic, but, to take a religious paradox, this Amendment is trying to preserve the confidentiality of the confessional, the privacy of the relationship between the patient and the doctor. If the question of priority is raised by other than doctors, there may be someone who says: "We do not believe this is a matter of medical priority or that such-and-such a patient is in urgent need of treatment. We believe that someone else is in more urgent need and has a higher priority. Why have you given this particular person a lower or higher priority than he deserves?"
The danger is that, without the safeguard my Amendment seeks to provide, there will be access to information that has been given in confidence, when that information should not be accessible—I am thinking of people who are not involved in the medical process—and the whole principle of confidentiality could be breached. It may be that the noble Lord dislikes a word, a phrase or a comma in this Amendment, but I hope he will agree that this principle of confidentiality is at the very root of the relationship between the doctor and his patient and that it is something that we should seek to preserve. Without this Amendment it could be at risk. I therefore hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Lord PLATT: I have had some difficulty in understanding Clause 6. So far as I can see, it has the apparently excellent intention of medical priority only. Let us take a man who is a clerk in an office. He has a hernia and is told: "You will have to wait a long time but there will be a bed eventually". He then gets a telegram saying: "Come in on Monday, 25th: we have a bed for you". Such a man is probably in a position to say to his chief: "They have got a bed for me now, so I'm going into hospital". But supposing he replies: "I am going to Paris on that day for a meeting of Foreign Ministers. I'm sorry"—is that a medical priority or a social priority? It is impossible, I think, to stick to medical priorities only.
Then there is the other point: a common waiting list, presumably between those who are going into a pay bed ward and those who are going into the National Health Service part of the hospital. Again, that is surely an impossibility, because the beds will be available at totally different times, and if I have my name down for a bed in a pay bed ward, that may come up early or late; it will depend on whether there is a vacancy in that particular part of the hospital. Again, it is quite impossible to have a common waiting list. Having said that, of course, I understand that there is abuse. I am not trying to say that the medical profession is entirely innocent in this, because I know it is not. But I do not think this is the right solution to the situation.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My right honourable friend gave an assurance that

515
the situation which will exist in respect of the necessary handling of confidential information about patients by hospital staff will not be different, as a result of this Bill, from that which already exists. I should like to repeat that assurance. There are many complex aspects of operating a common waiting list to which the Health Services Board will have the responsibility of turning its mind.
In making their recommendations, it will be fully aware of the indignation which queue-jumping has provoked and the desirability of having a system which ensures, as far as practicable, that justice is not only done but—what is much more important—is seen to be done. It will also, as a result of its balanced composition, be aware of the need to ensure that this "openness" is not achieved at the expense of undermining public trust in the confidentiality of information which patients impart to their doctors, or of eroding the principles of clinical judgment which the professions rightly value and which the Government would wish to see preserved. These are difficult and important matters and, in the final analysis, any system of common waiting lists must rely upon trust, and upon the integrity of those concerned with making the decisions which influence the determination of priority between many seemingly equally deserving cases.
I recognise and respect the spirit of the Amendment. It would, however, be impracticable to operate any waiting-list system and to provide for the effective treatment of patients without some other members of hospital staff having access to whole or part of a patient's medical record. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will know that some considerable time ago we had a very long debate on the confidentiality of records, as they were affected by the changeover of medical social workers into the employ of local authorities. A large number of people have access to records, but, as far as I know—and I speak with some experience of the field—there has never been any serious breach, although I will not say that there has been no breach at all. Furthermore, it is not merely doctors and dentists who receive confidences and, if they will not mind my saying so, they are not the only people who can keep confidences.
516
There are plenty of people in the community who recognise the importance and value of confidence, and the most junior nurse may often have to exercise considerable discretion about information which she receives in the course of her duty; whether, for instance, she should keep it to herself or, if it seems to have a bearing on her patient's treatment, whether she should pass it on to her superiors.
All information obtained from the patient—including his name, address and age—is confidential in some degree and treated as such by the NHS. Some information one patient may be more reluctant to disclose because of his circumstances than another. Some information is needed only by the doctor; some is essential to the whole treatment team. Only professional judgment can discriminate the one from the other. It cannot be done by Parliament through legislation. I do not know how it can be done. No legislation has ever been before Parliament in respect of confidentiality of medical records of patients, whether private or NHS. The issue is one over which the health professions, in accordance with their ethics, exert various safeguards. We do not think that the Amendment is necessary because, for the reasons which I have given, we believe that it will be very difficult to draft legislation on this matter. So noble Lords must decide what they want to do.
Baroness YOUNG: I rise to support my noble friend Lord O'Hagan who has moved this Amendment so ably. I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will agree, that we are very fortunate to have him with us and speaking to so many points in this Committee. I very much welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has replied to this Amendment, because he recognises, as we do, that there is a very real problem of confidentiality. The whole principle of confidentiality between doctor and patient must be the oldest of the medical ethics. I speak as someone who supports Clause 6 and the principle of common waiting-lists. It would be unfortunate if something which I believe would be useful should falter because people believed that medical confidentiality was or could be broken.
I have had my attention drawn to what Dr. Owen said in another place, that, as

517
they would discuss later, there are great problems in preserving both the doctor and patient relationship and the confidentiality of information; this is an area for which it is incredibly difficult to legislate; we must be clear about that. If it is not to be written into legislation then there must be some other way of getting the confidence of all patients because everybody will be on the common waiting-list. I do not know what my noble friend is proposing to do, but it is a matter about which we on this side feel strongly. If he felt inclined to press the issue, that would be my advice to the Committee.
Lord O'HAGAN: I read what the right honourable gentleman told the Committee in another place. Of course, I accept that the Government have given an assurance on this point. I hoisted in fully the various predations into confidentiality with those involved in treating the sick, and into access to the confidential information that they must have. I accept that there must be a sliding scale of access. Nevertheless, I believe this is a fundamental matter. It is important we should make it clear by inserting it into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, did not say there was anything which really stood in the way of embodying this matter in legislation. He said it had not been done before and gave assurances that it was not necessary. I believe it would restore confidence all round if we had it in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HILL of LUTON: Before we leave Clause 6, may I underline what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said? We all agree that we should seek to give medical priority as the basic criteria. But it is not that simple. It will not work universally. I cite a simple example of a man or woman with immense public responsibilities, Minister or other. Are we really saying he or she must take their place on a long waiting-list regardless of their commitments and all the burdens upon their time and effort? It cannot be the whole story. I do not dissent for one moment from the general purpose of medical priority, but it would be unreal to suggest that in the world
518
in which we live there must not be other considerations from time to time related to the individual, his burdens, timetables and demands.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
12.20 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Reduction of waiting times for admission or access of patients to NHS hospitals
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Board to submit to the Secretary of State from time to time in accordance with this section proposals for the progressive reduction of waiting times for the admission or access of resident or nonresident patients to accommodation and services at NHS hospitals and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to all proposals so submitted.
(2) The Board—

(a shall submit its first proposals under this section within the initial period or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow; and

(b) shall in the six months beginning with the date on which the first proposals are submitted, and in each successive period of six months thereafter, submit further proposals under this section or, if in all the circumstances it decides that the submission of further proposals in any particular period of six months is unnecessary, shall instead prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a report explaining the Board's reasons for that decision.

(3) In formulating proposals under this section the Board shall consider any representations made to the Board by—

(a) the Secretary of State; and

(b) any body which is representative of medical practitioners or dental practitioners or of persons employed in or concerned with the interests of patients at hospitals; and

(c) any other person having a substantial interest in the proposals;

and in deciding what advice to give the Board in connection with the formulation of any such proposals the Scottish Committee and the Welsh Committee shall likewise have regard to the said principles and consider any such representation made to the Committee.
(4) The Board in formulating proposals under this section in respect of accommodation or services at any particular NHS hospital or hospitals, and the Scottish or Welsh Committee in deciding what advice to give the Board in connection with the formulation of any such proposals, shall have regard to the purposes and specialties for which the accommodation or services in question are available or required for use in connection with the treatment of resident or non-resident patients, and the Board shall formulate separate proposals in respect of different purposes or specialties.
(5) Each set of proposals under this section shall specify—

(a) whether any accommodation or services should be authorised under section 1(1) or 2(1) of the 1968 Act or whether any such authorisation should be revoked; and

(b) the date before which any such authorisations or revocations should take effect,

and may specify different dates for different accommodation or services so specified.
(6) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to furnish the Board with such information as it may require for the proper discharge of its functions under this section.
The noble Baroness said: I tabled the Amendment because it seemed it would be valuable to have a debate on the whole question of waiting-lists. The purpose of the Amendment is to require the Board from time to time to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for reducing the times for admission to National Health Service hospitals.
As I have already indicated, I am one of the people who welcome in principle Clause 6. I think that there is a great deal to be said for having common waiting lists between private patients and National Health Service patients, and I hope very much that these will work. However, the ostensible reason for the Bill is that there has been a great deal of what has been described as cheque book queue jumping.
I am not a medical practitioner and I may not be fully conversant with all the circumstances, but I understand from my reading that there are three groups of people. First, there are the people who have some kind of minor ailment which eventually cures itself so that nothing needs to happen to them. Nearly everybody in your Lordships' Committee seems to be suffering from colds or from sore throats and we hope that we shall all get well again. Secondly, there are those people who do not need to go into hospital. Thirdly, there are the emergencies, and if you are an emergency it makes not the slightest difference whether you are a National Health Service patient or a private patient. You will be carried off to hospital, you will get a bed, just like that, and everybody will agree with it. I believe that the same applies to obstetrics, where at least it can be said that one has nine months' notice that one will be going into hospital. Therefore the queue can be ordered quite sensibly.
However, there are a great many cases in between where somebody is not an emergency but requires hospital treatment, and it is only these cases about which at any point it can be said that there is any question of queue jumping. There are all kinds of reasons why one person would get to the top of a queue rather than another. The kind of reasons I am thinking of are mothers with children. It might be much more convenient for them to go into hospital while their children are at school rather than while their children are on holiday. It might be much more convenient for school teachers, on the other hand, to go into hospital during the holidays rather than during term time. If I may venture to say so, it might be much more convenient for Government Ministers to go into hospital during the Parliamentary Recess rather than when the House is sitting, although at this stage I should think that many Members of your Lordships' Committee feel that they would welcome a hospital bed—pay bed or otherwise!
The point of these illustrations is that there are innumerable reasons why some body might need to have priority over somebody else, and would find himself moving up the queue rather than somebody else for whom no particular circumstances could be made out. I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, have said: that the question of queue jumping and of queues is not straightforward. It is not a kind of ladder, with everybody moving up it at exactly the same pace. There are a great many special circumstances which could arise and which quite justifiably could mean that one person would get to the top of the queue rather than somebody else.
It is my own belief, and I am sure that of my colleagues, that the real scandal is that there should be any queue at all. Probably the most disgraceful reason of all is that I believe that, with the notable exception of Sweden, we are the country in Europe with the longest queues for hospital beds and we should take steps to do something about it. I am bound to say that I find it very difficult to believe that the phasing out of 1,000 pay beds will make the slightest difference to the National Health Service queue. It is only likely to put the people who might have been in private beds in the queue as well,

521
thereby lengthening rather than shortening it, so we may well find that the phasing out of these pay beds will not achieve what it sets out to achieve.
The purpose of the Amendment, as I have indicated, is to require the Board to make recommendations on how the waiting times could be made shorter. I think it would be very helpful to the Committee to hear what the Government think about the matter and what ideas they have about reaching decisions on these important matters. I beg to move.
Lord PLATT: May I just ask one question: when we have finished with all this what will the Royal Commission have to do?
12.25 a.m.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support this Amendment because it is positive and it supports the proposal that waiting lists should be reduced if possible. But there is one basic problem. We believe that the Government are suffering from an illusion which in the words of Voltaire is that faste of pleasures, because there is not a single waiting list, there are dozens of waiting lists—waiting lists divided into the various categories which your Lordships must know much better than I do, and with different priorities within those categories. For instance, there are hernias, spare part surgery, hip joint replacement, every kind of neuro-surgical operation, obstetric operations, varieties of operations which are non-urgent. One can go on at very great length, but the concept of a single waiting list is really an impossibility. If it is an impossibility we should be glad to hear what the Government's notion is on this: whether it is possible to divide the waiting list into, perhaps, a few categories of different varieties of operation or whether they have some other scheme to enable this to be a practicality.
Of course it is a scandal that there are very long waiting lists in Britain, and this is not the only country where there are long waiting lists. It is rather interesting to note that the other country in Western Europe where there are long waiting lists is Sweden. I do not know what conclusion one can draw from that scant piece of information. I have not examined the Swedish waiting list; I do not know what
522
types of waiting list they adopt or what schemes they promote, but I believe there may well be some lesson to he drawn from the Swedish experience and there may well be some lesson to be drawn from our partners within the European Economic Community. So I wait with interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has to tell us.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I might add a word about waiting lists in general because I believe that in the last clause, Clause 6, and in the new proposed clause we have in fact arrived at the only area in which there was a substantial need for some kind of Government action, because I think that with private practice and National Health Service practice existing side by side in the same hospital it was perhaps necessary that somebody should try to do something about the possible abuses which arose.
I said earlier in this Committee that Nye Bevan believed that it was important to keep private practice in the National Health Service hospitals because that was far preferable to creating a separate private service outside. We are now of course going back to do precisely what he said we should not do. But what was necessary, I am sure, was to do something about the apparent abuses, and I think it was these apparent abuses which stimulated people to introduce this kind of legislation: the fact that some people appeared to be jumping queues, and so on.
I support fully the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that one cannot judge waiting lists solely on medical priority. All sorts of factors creep in. My experience as a general practitioner, still practising medicine, sending people to hospital, putting people on waiting lists, is that the speed with which any patient gets into hospital varies according to a whole number of factors: perhaps first of all, where he lives, which is a very important factor indeed. You can send people to certain areas in which waiting lists are very short, whereas you know that in certain other areas the waiting lists are very long and the patient will inevitably wait a long time.
It depends, too, on the nature of the complaint and the particular waiting list in that area for that kind of medicine.

523
It depends quite substantially on the energy, enthusiasm and initiative of the general practitioner. Perhaps the general practitioner has influence with local consultants, with waiting lists and those who control them, because there is no doubt that the general practitioner, where he sees that a patient is suffering substantially as a result of waiting, can very often bring perfectly proper pressure to bear in order to get that person elevated up the waiting-list. The general practitioner often does that, and he points out to the consultant in charge that this particular patient has this particular problem, which may not only be a medical problem but a social problem of some kind as well, and therefore there is justification for that person being elevated up the waiting-list. That happens quite frequently and is necessary. This has to be encouraged.
But the point in referring to waiting-lists in general—and I see no reason why we should not refer to them, since we are having an extended debate on "Clause stand part", a Clause that is already standing part; it is in addition to Clause 6—is that what has struck me over and over again is that our waiting-lists are longer than in many other countries, and many of these waiting-lists remain precisely the same year after year. Therefore, one has the feeling that if one eliminated waiting-lists there would be no waiting-lists at all. It is a matter of resources. In certain areas, a waiting-list accumulates, and if it remains the same length year in and year out, substantially we are keeping pace with the workload. If only we could somehow provide the resources with which to get rid of the waiting-lists with which we are faced, we would have no waiting lists at all. I can quote examples of specialists and consultants who have sometimes made special efforts to eliminate waiting-lists by various means, manipulating the resources at their disposal to have a bigger throughput of patients so they could eliminate the waiting-list. I am sure that with concerted action we could get rid of the waiting-list in many ways, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this question in general, because that is what the noble Baroness has asked us to do.
Looking at the new clause, it would appear that it transfers all the responsibility
524
for these matters from the Secretary of State to the Board. Whether that is a wise provision I am not entirely sure, but at least it directs attention to something with which I am quite satisfied—and I am speaking now as a general practitioner practising medicine—is an important cause of frustration, resentment and of general dissatisfaction.
I feel it necessary before I sit down to say that this is not wholly a matter just of private patients. There is no substantial evidence that private patients get into hospital more quickly. There is a suspicion that private patients get into hospital more quickly, and this suspicion often causes many of the difficulties. If I as a general practitioner ring up a consultant in a particular hospital and say, "This child is waiting to have the tonsils removed and has had a number of severe attacks. I really do think you should get this child into hospital more quickly", and if he does so, immediately there is the suspicion by all who are down the queue that somehow some kind of corrupt practice has entered into the business.
Here we are not concerned with private patients within National Health Service hospitals, but with the area in which patients have private consultations with consultants, and merely go into the consultant's rooms to be examined; he then decides perhaps that the patient needs admission for an operation at a later stage, and the patient is put on the waiting-list. There is a widespread assumption that patients who merely pay a private fee for a private consultation somehow manage to elevate themselves up the waiting-list. I myself would have said that that particular practice is not all that common, because I think there are watchdogs at the hospitals in the form of registrars and other people who do not like that sort of behaviour. If they see a consultant trying to manoeuvre his private patients up the waiting list, they will tend to take counteraction which will be effective, so I do not think it is all that common, but the suspicion of it is deeprooted and damaging to our Health Service.
Anything that can be done (and I do not say it can be done by this Bill or by this new clause) to remove the suspicion and to make it clear that patients are admitted to hospital in order of some kind of acceptable priority is a good thing. I

525
agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that it does not have to be a wholly medical problem; it could be partly social; it could arise in certain other legitimate and quite proper factors. Anything which can be done to that end would, I am sure, be to the benefit of our National Health Service.
Baroness YOUNG: We have had a most useful debate on this subject and it has been very valuable to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. One of the facts very much drawn to my attention is that this question is not only a matter of medical priorities; there are also a great many social reasons why someone may require to come to the top of the queue. The practical fact of the matter is that it is not so much a shortage of beds which makes the length of the queue; it is frequently shortage of staff, or time in the theatre, or shortage of time of the consultant. This is not an Amendment I had intended to press; it was useful to discuss it in order to test the view of the Committee. The concern about the National Health Service queue has been the reason for this Bill, and therefore it is right that we should debate the queue and whether it is possible to do anything at all about it.
There is one last point I would make. In preparation for this debate, I discovered that the one country in Europe which, so far as I know, has a full-time salaried service of consultants—Sweden—is the country which has the longest queues, and it is the service at the maximum cost; it is a 24-hour service with consultants working an eight-hour shift. The result is that there is always somebody there. It has become extremely expensive and thoroughly inefficient. That may be one of the consequences from which we shall suffer if we are pushed into the position where everybody has to become a full-time consultant. One conclusion to be drawn is that it is not just phasing out pay beds which will shorten the queue; it is a much more complex question which deserves a great deal of study, and I hope it is something to which the Government will address their minds. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Secretary of State's powers to provide services etc. otherwise than for purposes of services under National Health Service Acts]:
12.38 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 9, line 19, leave out ("satisfied") and insert ("advised by the Board").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in the particular circumstances of the provision of services it is the Board and not the Secretary of State who will decide whether or not the services should be supplied to private patients. This seems to me an Amendment which follows naturally from the other Amendments we have moved, because the fact is that if the Board is to be truly independent and is to perform some useful function then it would be right that the Secretary of State should exercise the powers described in this clause, and indeed in Clauses 8 and 9 on the advice of the Board rather than whenever he himself is satisfied. This is very much the kind of point that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has been concerned with.
Whenever we read the words, "when the Secretary of State is satisfied" everybody immediately becomes alarmed, because we do not quite know under what circumstances the Secretary of State will be satisfied or not satisfied. The fact remains that in this clause, where we are concerned with the use of NHS facilities for private patients, it would be in keeping with the functions that we believe the Board should have that the Board should advise the Secretary of State on making provision for facilities in the National Health Service to be used by private patients. I hope that the Government will consider this Amendment favourably. It is an Amendment to which we attach some importance. It is important at all stages that the Board should have a power to advise the Secretary of State, as it is meant to be objective in its assessment whereas the Secretary of State, even if he should wish to be objective, will not be seen to be objective in the same way that the Board will.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.41a.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("to a significant extent") and insert ("substantially").
The noble Viscount said: May I move Amendment No. 62, and speak to Amendments Nos. 63, 93, and 94. In moving this Amendment, we are looking for more satisfactory words to use than the words, "to a significant extent", and we move to insert "substantially". We believe that if the Secretary of State has easier wording, he would be able to act more clearly in his mind as to how to operate this clause. In my view, the words "to a significant extent" are quite new, and if "substantially" was placed in the clause perhaps he would find it much easier. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to support my noble friend. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the phrase "to a significant extent", which occurs here for the first time but recurs frequently later in the Bill, is not an expression which is familiar in law. Whether something is significant presupposes a human observer to whom it signifies something, and it is therefore applying a subjective test. That is why the law has, in similar situations, preferred an objective test of whether something has substance. It is for this reason that the Amendment has been drafted in the way that it has.
I have already referred on several occasions to the numbers of instances in the Bill in which the lawyers will make a lot of money out of it, and I think on this matter the Government might feel that it is worth looking at. It will not in any way go against the principle of the Bill, but it will at least make it clearer to those reading it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps I could take Amendment No. 62 with 63. The effect of both these Amendments would be to enable the Secretary of State to use his powers under the provisions noted in Clause 7(1) and (2) only if he is satisfied that to use them would not substantially interfere with his duties under the NHS or substantially operate to the disadvantage of patients seeking or afforded access to NHS facilities, as
528
NHS patients. The purpose of Clause 7 is to ensure that the Secretary of State exercises the powers to provide and make available to the private sector certain NHS facilities, services and goods, substances such as blood and other substances and human tissue, in such a way that NHS patients are not thereby disadvantaged. It also gives effect to that part of paragraph 3(e) of the proposals of 15th December which said:
"The Bill would propose to allow health authorities to provide and charge for such specialised services for patients provided that they can satisfy the Secretary of State that there will be no disadvantage to NHS patients"
and seeks to remove as far as possible any advantage which paying patients using or seeking to use the NHS might have over non-paying patients, as a result of having more rapid or assured access to the facilities provided by the NHS. The powers listed in Clause 7 are all powers to provide for people who are not NHS patients, services or facilities or goods which are provided for NHS patients as well: the aim of the clause is to ensure that in using these powers the Secretary of State does not in fact detract from the availability of these services, facilities or goods to NHS patients.
The substitution of "substantially" for "to a significant extent would increase the amount of interference or disadvantage which the Secretary of State could allow to result from his use of these powers, although not providing any clear provision as to how far the amount would be increased, or what would be the limit. The use of these powers would almost invariably have some slight effect, either directly or indirectly, on the service available for NHS patients; but the words "to a significant extent" are intended to ensure that the Secretary of State is not bound to take account of minimal effects, but must be guided by whether or not there would be noticeable and effective interference or disadvantage.
On Committee in another place the then Minister of State said that it was a matter of judgment how" no disadvantage to NHS patients" should be interpreted, but his judgment was that "to a significant" extent was a more accurate interpretation than "substantially". He then said that the word "significant" gave the Secretary of State just that edge to allow some impairment while giving

529
him enough freedom to make an overall decision which was to the advantage of the NHS, whereas "substantially" would significantly alter the pattern—in terms of what the layman thinks of the two words—but it would not make much difference as to how the Secretary of State would make his decision. It is clear that that explanation was acceptable to the Opposition because the Amendments which were being debated, which were in exactly the same terms as these Amendments, were negatived without the Opposition pressing them to a Division.
Viscount LONG: I was amazed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, say that in his view the word "substantially" in this context was not strong enough. Once again I feel that the Secretary of State may over-ride the Board and will not take their advice. I appreciate what the noble Lord said about various goods—blood and so on—but in view of what my noble friend Lady Young said about the present wording, it is clear that we need something stronger, more definite and more exact. I feel strongly about this and unless Lord Wells-Pestell can produce more information, I shall have to urge my noble friends to press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("to a significant extent") and insert ("substantially").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.51 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("otherwise than as private patients").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the disadvantages to private patients when caught under Clause 7. The Amendment suggests the deletion of the words, "otherwise than as private patients". I believe that it is self-evident as it stands, but, if we look back to subsection (2), we see that the Secretary of State is given two warnings. He is told not to interfere to a significant extent with arrangements to provide accommodation or services; then he is told that nothing which he proposes to do or allow must operate to a significant extent to the
530
disadvantage of persons seeking accommodation or services at National Health Service hospitals.
In suggesting the Amendment, we seek to ensure that the provision would operate very much more satisfactorily. As your Lordships are aware, private patients will be admitted to out-patient facilities after the Bill becomes an Act, but there is this caution here and it militates against the provisions of previous Acts—notably Section 31 of the 1968 Act—where services are provided by virtue of the powers granted in previous Acts. There is a re-enactment of the 1946 Act.
I believe that the Government will have to justify subsection (2)(b) because it seems an unnecessary phraseology which tends to threaten the private patient when seeking to make use of facilities that are made available in an earlier part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of this Amendment would be to delete the words "otherwise than as private patients" from Clause 7(2)(b). Thereby Clause 7 would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the powers referred to in the clause only if satisfied that doing so would not operate to the disadvantage of people seeking admission to National Health Service hospitals either privately or as National Health Service patients. If, as we think it must be, the principle is accepted that NHS patients must not be put at a disadvantage by the provision or sale of vital services to the private sector, the Amendment seems wholly irrelevant.
The Amendment seems to suggest that a private patient who is admitted to a NHS hospital under the "occasional arrangements" procedure needs some kind of statutory protection from disadvantage. There can be no discrimination against such a private patient because he will have been admitted on exactly the same basis as any other NHS patient for a specialised facility that is either not available in the private sector or, if it is, is not reasonably accessible to him, or because it is to the advantage of the Health Service for him to have his treatment in a NHS hospital. He will not be denied any treatment, facility or service that he needs. In that case, we feel that the Amendment can be regarded as unnecessary. It is also contrary to the

531
basic aim of the Bill which is that National Health Service patients should have first claim on the resources of the National Health Service.
It is also contrary to the basic aim of the Bill, which is that National Health Service patients should have first call on the resources of the NHS. Any citizen of this country who needs treatment is entitled to receive it in the NHS in accordance with his medical priority, whether or not he has hitherto sought treatment in the private sector. No one, therefore, need fear that he will not receive any treatment he needs in accordance with his medical priority. If the NHS is to have first call on its own resources, it is frankly impracticable at the same time to guarantee that those who prefer to seek the treatment they need privately will never in any circumstances be significantly disadvantaged within NHS hospitals. There is no intention of deliberately refusing to provide a service or a facility which the NHS has undertaken to provide to the private sector when it is essential for the preservation of life. Nevertheless, the NHS cannot be put in the position that it is bound in all circumstances, and irrespective of considerations of relative medical priority, to supply the needs of the private sector. The Health Services Bill seeks to re-affirm the principle that the health services which this country provides should be freely available to all who need them on the basis of medical priority alone. I suggest that the Amendment is not compatible with that aim.
Lord SANDYS: I recognise what the Government have said: that they would make an exception of a situation where the preservation of life is concerned, but I think that there are situations which the Government should consider with some seriousness. There is, for instance, the question of the purchase of goods and supplies. Let us take a simple and quite ordinary example of the purchase by, say, a private charity of a quantity of serum or blood plasma from the National Health Service for use in an emergency situation, such as a disaster. The noble Lord will say that that involves the preservation of life and that therefore they would make an exception. But it so happens that charitable bodies and certain private bodies like to make purchases when there is not
532
the immediate threat of the kind of situation I have mentioned; that is to say, it is not a designated situation in which a disaster or some other happening has occurred. In other words, these bodies are creating a stockpile against a future possible emergency.
Alternatively, it is quite possible that goods or supplies may be purchased for immediate use in the private sector, for a nursing home, or for some circumstances of perfectly ordinary administration. I wonder whether there is a case here for arranging the situation rather better, because it has come to my notice—and, I am sure, to the notice of many of your Lordships—that in a Sunday newspaper a few months ago there was a report that the National Health Service had stockpiled on certain very expensive items which it was unable to dispose of satisfactorily, and had sold at a price which was not beneficial.
I believe that the National Health Service, like a number of other national bodies, should trade and should stockpile, and should reduce stocks, and should manage its supplies in such a way that it does not have supplies of, for instance, special splints or other equipment, which are deteriorating, but that it should make goods available for sale on a turnover basis. This may not be a suitable moment to mention a matter of this kind in this connection, but I think it helps to illustrate what we are talking about. I do not think that the noble Lord's reply was particularly helpful in this regard. I think that he was concerned that the retention of the words "otherwise than as private patients" refer merely to the possibility of pay beds. It goes very much wider than that; it creates rather different circumstances. I hope your Lordships will feel able to support me in pressing this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
1 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Interference with treatment of NHS patients by treatment of private patients.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Board to investigate the extent (if any) to which the

533
treatment of persons at NHS hospitals as resident or non-resident private patients has interfered with the provision of full and proper attention to persons seeking or afforded access otherwise than as private patients to any services provided under the National Health Service Acts.
(2) The Board shall submit to the Secretary of State not less than once in every period of twelve months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed a report setting out the results of its investigations during that period, together with its recommendations of measures for the reduction or elimination of any such interference as the report may disclose.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not carry out the reduction mentioned in section 3(1) above or revoke the authorisations mentioned in section 4(1) above except to the extent that such reduction or revocation is recommended in such a report as such a measure.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, again, is one on which we should like to test the feeling of the Committee. It suggests a new clause, and the purpose of the Amendment is that the Board should have a duty to investigate abuses of private practice within the National Health Service and that there should be no phasing out of the pay beds until it has undertaken this investigation. As in the case of the other Amendment which we moved, which was after Clause 6 and was concerned with hospital waiting-lists, this is an Amendment to discuss what we understood to he one of the main reasons for the Bill, which is abuses by way of queue-jumping and abuses within the National Health Service. In this Amendment, under subsection (1), it would be the duty of the Board to investigate the extent, if there is any at all, to which the treatment of persons in National Health hospitals as resident or non-resident private patients has interfered with the provision of services to patients who are in hospital as National Health patients; and under subsection (2) the Board would submit to the Secretary of State annually a report on the results of those investigations.
I think that one of the ways in which it is possible to overcome public concern about abuses, and indeed to identify whether or not there are abuses at all, would be if some outside organisation looked at the question and was obliged to produce a report upon it. This seems to us a function which could well be carried out by the Board. The Board, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said on more than one occasion, is an independent Board. It is charged, it is
534
true, with the rather narrow function of phasing out pay beds from the National Health system, but it would by no means he contrary, I think, to its terms of reference if included among those was the duty of looking at abuses, as to whether or not having private patients within National Health Service hospitals in any way affected the medical care of National Health patients. Rather like the problem of the queue and of queue-jumping, this is an Amendment to probe the view of the Government on this issue, to find out whether or not they have considered it and, if they have, what proposals they intend to make to do anything about something which seems to have been one of the major reasons for this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We do not feel able to accept this Amendment, and I hope that perhaps I might be able to say something useful in support of that view. This new clause seeks to impose an additional duty on the Board; namely, to investigate the extent to which the treatment of people as private patients at National Health Service hospitals has interfered, if it has so interfered, with the provision of services to National Health Service patients. It would require the Board to report annually on its investigations, making recommendations for reducing any such interference. Additionally, it would prevent the Secretary of State from carrying out, except as a result of recommendations made in such a report, the reduction of pay bed authorisations by 1,000, as provided in Clause 3(1), or the revocation of authorisations, as provided in Clause 4(1).
This new clause refers to all treatment of private patients in NHS facilities, and therefore includes their treatment in pay beds or private out-patient facilities authorised under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act, as well as their treatment under Clause 8. Its effects would therefore be to require the Board to monitor the extent to which the use by private patients of authorised pay beds, authorised outpatient facilities or facilities made available under Clause 8 of the Bill interfered with the provision of services to NHS patients. It would also require the Board to report the results of these investigations annually to the Secretary of State and to make recommendations for lessening or eliminating such interference, and, further, to prevent the

535
Secretary of State reducing by 1,000 within six months of Royal Assent the total number of authorised pay beds, and to prevent him revoking authorisations of pay beds on the recommendations of the Board, unless such reduction or such revocation was recommended in one of the Board's reports as a measure for reducing interference with services to NHS patients.
In so far as this clause relates to private patients being treated in NHS facilities authorised under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act, and especially paragraph 3, it is manifestly absurd. It would completely alter the fundamental provisions about the phasing out of pay beds in the Bill which in turn aim to embody in legislation the proposals negotiated with the medical and dental professions and announced by the previous Secretary of State to the House of Commons on 15th December. It therefore cuts right across what we have come to call the Goodman proposals. The parts of those proposals relating to pay beds were set out in paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) and 3(d) which read:
"Subject to Parliament's decision, it is accepted that there are some pay beds and facilities which could be phased out without undue delay, there being already reasonable alternative beds and facilities; and that the Government will publish in a Schedule to the Bill the location of 1,000 pay beds to be released to general NHS service within six months after the Bill has been received".
It is clear that the Government could not possibly accept the new clause in its application to the use of authorised private facilities. However, the intention behind its application to the use of private patients of NHS facilities under Clause 8 draws more sympathy from the Government. In discussions with officials of the Department, the profession raised a question about the possibility of the Board being given a duty, or perhaps simply a right, to receive from people in any particular area or hospital—for example, health authority staff, doctors and other NHS staff—requests to examine retrospectively the working in that area or hospital of the arrangements for admissions under Clause 8, and advise informally by improvements it could suggest. The Department undertook to look at this suggestion. Clearly there might be incidental advantages to NHS staff and authorities in this: the help of an impartial but experienced body, who might be able to give helpful and clear sighted
536
advice, could then be made available to local staff and managers who might be anxious, aggrieved by or dissatisfied with the working of the Clause 8 system. However, Ministers are anxious not to extend the scope of the Board's statutory functions to include this additional duty imposed on them by the Bill. One of the essential characteristics of the system of admissions under Clause 8 is that it is to be operated locally, and it is to be operated by the health authorities, to whom the Secretary of State's powers will be delegated.
The Department made it clear in a discussion paper on Clause 8 which has been considered by the professions and by the National Whitley Council Staff Side, that there will he discussions locally among the medical profession, other staff and the health authorities to determine the local operational policy in each area. After this policy has been established, the actual procedure for admissions will of course be implemented by the consultants; but it will be the responsibility of the health authority to monitor, retrospectively, how well the system has been working. We can well understand that if local problems or dissatisfactions arise which cannot easily be resolved by the local bodies involved, these bodies might welcome an independent source of advice. However, it would not he possible, under the Bill as drafted, for the Board to be able to take on this task if asked to do so on a particular occasion. The only way of achieving this "permissive" position would be to amend the description in Parts ft and HI of the Bill of the functions of the Board, and under them to include this.
We do not think that it would be appropriate to give the Board a statutory function in relation to the Clause 8 system, in view of the fact that responsibility for making available NHS facilities in the circumstances which satisfy all the conditions in Clause 8 will rest entirely with health authorities. Because of that—and I have gone through this very fully, because of the nature of the Amendment—the Government must resist this Amendment if it is pressed.
1.12 a.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: I followed the explanation of the noble Lord as well as I could at this hour of the morning. He

537
went through in great detail the various provisions that my noble friend seeks to introduce after Clause 7 and explained the reasons why the Government did not see fit to accept them. He went on to say that, notwithstanding the view of the Government on this particular Amendment, they considered that there was a need to examine how the system set up under the Bill was working, and they would be taking advice from the various Area Health Authorities which would act as a monitoring system for keeping the working of the Act under review.
The noble Lord did not answer my noble friend's question. She moved this Amendment in a spirit of inquiry, to find out how the Government proposed to check whether the existence of private care was damaging the National Health provision. My noble friend specifically asked how they were going to check the consequences of the continuation of the private system, to which the noble Lord has committed the Government on various occasions, for the National Health patient if this Amendment were not accepted. The noble Lord rejected the Amendment. He gave an undertaking that there would be an informal system on the Area Health Authority level. But he did not appear to respond to her inquiry as to how the overall pattern and the effect of the continuation of the private sector would be kept under review by the Government. That is an important point, because many of the abuses which have been alleged from time to time have not been fully substantiated.
There is in this issue a great deal of emotion, as the noble Lord will recognise, and in order to prevent the sort of controversy that gave birth to this Bill—which is a legislative expression of a compromise achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in order to prevent the need for this sort of Bill recurring—surely the Government should be bending their minds as to how they are to keep themselves informed of the effect of the continuation of the private sector, to which they have committed themselves, on the provision for the National Health patient. I wonder whether the noble Lord could respond to that inquiry, because I do not think he has done so as yet.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It can only be done by the Area Health Authorities.
538
It must be their responsibility. They are going to deal with the situation, as they are with people who want to he admitted to hospital. They will have the responsibility for the waiting-list, and the monitoring of the other things mentioned by the noble Baroness must be at that level.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord says it must be at that level: but is it really going to be at that level? That is the point, because if in fact it is not at that level, then no one will monitor the abuses, and we shall never know whether the allegations are true or false, or whether this Bill is not based on fact at all. Although it is quarter past one in the morning and I realise it is tiresome to have to address one's mind to this point, as we have been told we have been presented with this Bill because there were so many abuses of the National Health Service queue I think we ought to have an answer to the question.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have given an answer. I said it was the responsibility of the local health authorities.
Lord O'HAGAN: The noble Lord is expecting a process of continual spontaneous combustion. He seems to be expecting the Area Health Authorities to take it into their heads to see the development of the Health Service in the national context from the point of view of both the private sector and the National Health Service, and to be observing how these developments are going on, comparing one with another and, on their own initiative, making reports to the Secretary of State, or whoever it may be. He seems to expect that they should carry out these duties when they feel like it, without any guidance and without any regular duty being imposed on them to do so. I wonder whether that is good enough.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I did not say without any guidance. The noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that at all. Obviously, when this Bill is on the Statute Book a good deal of guidance has to be given.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I am sorry to intervene at this very late stage in this argument, and I hope the noble Baroness will not consider it impertinent of me if I

539
ask her quite sincerely to withdraw the Amendment. I say that because she is seeking to establish elaborate machinery for seeking out something which does not exist. She knows it does not exist, but she wants everybody to look for it so that she can say afterwards: "There, you see, there isn't any!" We must get away from the idea that one person can have treatment only at the expense of some other person, and that private patients are all having unnecessary operations or unnecessary blood tests, which are preventing other people from receiving proper treatment under the National Health Service. The plain fact is that we have a total global volume of work to be done, and, unfortunately, the present resources with which to do it are inadequate. No amount of administrative manoeuvring within the shortcomings of our present inadequacies will put that right, and whether it is called "private" or "public" it does not itself create new resources. You will create new resources by getting rid of private practice only if you assume that private patients are having unnecessary treatment.
A private patient having his appendix out does not occupy two beds; he occupies only one, and to say that having his appendix out is somehow detrimental to somebody else who is not having his appendix out is nonsense. I accept that if I, as a doctor, spend five minutes with one patient, I cannot see another patient at the same time, so that anything that anybody does for anybody else is detrimental to a point. But I do not think that we should give credence to rumours of this kind, which are without foundation. Some people have treatment as patients under the National Health Service, while other patients have treatment privately. Let us accept that they all have to have treatment.
It is a point which even Nye Bevan acknowledged in the Second Reading debate way back in 1946. When one of his honourable friends objected that private patients should go along to laboratories for blood tests, his reply was, "Yes, and they can go along for the same blood tests as National Health Service patients—free", and he was right. If anybody is having treatment as a private patient, the presumption is that he can have exactly the same free treatment as a
540
National Health Service patient. So where do we stop? Do we look at all the other patients, and see which patient is having treatment to the detriment of somebody else who is having to wait? I understand entirely the noble Baroness's reason: Let us have an inquiry to show that the reasons behind some of the things in this Bill do not exist. I accept that they do not exist. But to set up elaborate machinery gives credence to the rumours, rather than the reverse.
Baroness YOUNG: I might consider withdrawing my Amendment, but I certainly shall not do it after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, if he does not mind my saying so, because I was quite unconvinced by his argument. I will refresh my argument with what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said was the purpose of the Bill—which I am sure was absolutely correct from his point of view—which was:
"The National Health Service exists to provide a comprehensive health service for all citizens, irrespective of their means. It is not, therefore, in business to meet the special needs of private patients. The fact that it has continued to set aside some of its resources for the benefit of private patients is regarded by many of the most ardent supporters of the Health Service as morally objectionable, socially unjust, and a potential source of abuse".—[Official Report, 21/10/76; cols. 1473–74.]
Those were his words on Second Reading. My Amendment is simply designed to find out whether there is any abuse—for somebody should find this out, and as long as the Government go on talking like that everybody will think that there is abuse.
I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that there is no abuse. Obviously, there will be some cases. We are all human and open to sin—even the consultants, the administrators and, dare I say it, the Government. But, on the whole, there is not the kind of abuse that has been talked about on this Bill, and all that my Amendment was designed to do was to provide a system for looking at abuse, to see whether there is any, and for investigating complaints. However, I take the point—the noble Lord will be pleased to hear—that subsection (3) of the Amendment is defective and would, in some respects, go against the principle of the Bill. I think I have made my point. We have had a good debate on abuse, and I think I may leave the Government with the thought that this is a matter to which

541
they should turn their attention. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Restrictions on power under s. 31 of 1968 Act to allow use of NHS facilities by private patients]:
1.24 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("satisfied") and insert ("advised by the Board").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 8 is, in my view, one of the most important clauses in the Bill. This is one of the clauses put in at once to meet the basic concept of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that there shall be facilities within the National Health Service that will be available for use by private patients. Clause 8 states in subsection (2) that the Secretary of State will not exercise his power to phase out these facilities unless he is satisfied that the accommodation or services are required for the purposes of investigation or diagnosis of treatment, which is either of a specialist nature or is not privately available in Great Britain or in a place that is reasonably accessible to the patient. The point of my Amendment is that this is not a matter which should be left until the Secretary of State is, or is not, satisfied that these facilities exist. Once again we are on an important matter of principle in which it seems to us necessary that, when the Secretary of State is considering these criteria, he should be convinced by the Board and not simply himself be satisfied that certain circumstances exist.
As the Bill stands this is a vital matter, to which of course the consultants attach a great deal of importance—that their right to use private facilities in the National Health Service rests entirely on whether or not certain circumstances are satisfied in the opinion of the Secretary of State. In a sense this is another of what I might describe as Goodman Amendments. We believe it is important that in making these decisions the Secretary of State should be advised by the Board, and not just be satisfied himself that certain circumstances are fulfilled. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 9, line 41, after ("skills") insert ("or that the need for specialised equipment or skills is reasonably likely to arise during the course of treatment for another condition").
The noble Baroness said: I find myself in somewhat strange circumstances. Of course, I am delighted that the Government appear to have accepted my Amendment. But we are moving now at a rapid pace, and when I have not actually had a response to the last Amendment I moved, I find myself in the rather extraordinary circumstances of turning to the next Amendment when I hardly feel we have considered the first. I take it that it means the Government have accepted it? I do not wish to sound in any sense ungrateful; I am not. But I believe we shall get ourselves into some kind of procedural difficulty if we do not have a reply. I beg to move Amendment No. 67, which is consequential on Amendment No. 66.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that when she spoke to Amendment No. 61 it was coupled with Amendment No. 66. That is why, as we did not vote against Amendment No. 61, we therefore did not vote against Amendment No. 66. The two went together.
Baroness YOUNG: I am delighted to hear that explanation. I am not sure that I would have coupled them. But we are in some difficulty because we never had a group list of Amendments and once again we find ourselves in difficulty. However, who am I to object? I am certainly not criticising this procedure.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: They are the Amendments of the noble Baroness. She ought to know which goes with which. They are not the Government's Amendments. She really ought to know whether Amendment No. 61 goes with Amendment No. 66.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Could not the noble Lord have the courtesy to tell the Committee when my noble friend moves an Amendment, if I may suggest, with great clarity at this time of night, that it is coupled?—because some of us were listening intently and waiting for the noble Lord to reply.
1.30 a.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was very surprised that the noble Baroness did not mention it herself. In fact, I thought that she did when she moved Amendment No. 61. If I am right in my supposition that the noble Baroness mentioned it when she moved Amendment No. 61, I should have thought that noble Lords would have made a note of it.
The effect of this Amendment would be to add to the description of the types of treatment or skills, the requirement for which would be grounds for the admission of a person as a private patient to a National Health Service hospital under Clause 8. The ground would thus be that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the investigation, diagnosis or treatment is of a specialised nature, involving the use of specialised equipment, and that the need for the specialised equipment or skills is reasonably likely to arise during the course of treatment for another condition.
I am perfectly well aware that many consultants would prefer to be able to continue to use the facilities of the National Health Service for treating their private patients and hence would be glad to have the scope of admissions under Clause 8 widened. Nevertheless, I have to remind your Lordships, and I seem to have done so quite often, that we are following in this Bill the lines of a compromise very laboriously hammered out between the medical profession and the Government through the medium of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It is the nature of a compromise to be less than either party would have wanted, and it really will have to be accepted that this Amendment goes well beyond the relevant part of the Goodman proposals. If it were carried, noble Lords would be quick to realise that its effect would be to enable consultants to have almost any patient of theirs admitted privately to the National Health Service.
Who is to challenge the judgment of a consultant who says that his patient, although requiring only a fairly routine operation, nevertheless is reasonably likely during his treatment to stiffer from a secondary condition which would require more specialised treatment or specialised skills? For example, this could obviously
544
be said of any patient requiring an operation for a hernia who also had a weak heart. Clause 8 itself represents a concession, as did the relevant part of the Goodman proposals. Clause 8 was included in the Bill because the Government acknowledge that some sophisticated, specialised form of diagnosis or treatment is highly unlikely ever to be provided in the private sector. This could be the case either because of the high cost, on account of the delicate or dangerous nature of the equipment required, or because of the degree of specialised expertise and teamwork required to carry out the techniques in question.
The Government had two aims in mind. They felt that in such cases the part-time consultants concerned could effectively be deprived of private practice if there was no possibility after the phasing out of pay beds of practising in the National Health Service. Also they were aware that in the same cases patients would equally be deprived of the choice between the National Health Service treatment or private treatment. However, since it has always been open to people who are resident in Great Britain to seek treatment as National Health Service patients, the Government do not accept responsibility for providing private accommodation and facilities within the National Health Service for patients who receive routine treatment, simply on the ground that complications could arise which would require more specialised skills. To do so would virtually negate the central purpose of the Bill, which is to separate the National Health facilities from private practice.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. I quite understand what he has said and I quite understand the reluctance to enlarge the services available to private patients through the National Health Service, but if we are talking about big cities where there are wonderful great hospitals, there are also probably other facilities which can be used by private patients without having to trespass on the National Health Service through the Hospital Service. But there are a lot of areas where those facilities and great hospitals are not available, and the subsidiary equipment which might be wanted

545
for a private patient could not be obtained in a small urban area or a semi rural area. Would the noble Lord think that it would then be wrong for private patients to go to one of these great hospitals where there was this kind of equipment that they could not get anywhere else? It seems to me that would be a bit hard. I quite see that in an area where there is a lot of equipment and a large centre, such as Bristol, London, Manchester, Newcastle, there is no problem, but a lot of people do not live in those areas, and I hope very much that it might be possible for concessions to be made for people who live in areas where these facilities are not available except by going to a larger hospital or a place which has the necessary equipment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government have always made it quite clear that a person who wishes to be treated privately and to have a private doctor or private consultant, if he or she needs some kind of specialised medical help that is not available either in the private sector where they happen to live or in a local NHS hospital, can he treated in a National Health Service hospital where that particular specialty happens to exist. It is not an uncommon thing for people in the North of England to come to the Midlands or to the South for that kind of treatment, and there is far more movement among patients from one area to another than I think many people realise. The facility is available.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord has explained that this Amendment goes much too far and has gone right outside the Goodman proposals, which means that consultants could only use the specialist facilities within the National Health system in certain circumstances. But there is, of course, another group of people who will be greatly affected by this Bill, and it was a group that was referred to by my noble friend Lord Sandys earlier in the evening. Those are academic staff in teaching hospitals doing private work without accepting the fees. Such people of course are very anxious to make use of National Health Service facilities and their patients are private patients in the sense that they pay for the service they are getting, although of course the consultant does not receive the fees: as the noble Lord knows, the fees go to the hospital.
546
There are a number of unusual and interesting cases from abroad which come to this country because the consultant has built up an international reputation and therefore people come from abroad to be helped by the particular consultant, and if his work is to continue it could well be that in those circumstances this Amendment would be vitally necessary. As far as I can see, it is not covered by subsection (2)(a), or at any rate is not necessarily covered by it. Therefore, there are other cases which could he met by Amendment No. 67. Of course, such work which academic people do is very much in the interests of the National Health Service, because the National Health Service benefits from the consultant and his skills, and the National Health Service gets the benefit of the money that the patient is paying which then goes into the hospital or into further research. There are a great many benefits from it. I cannot believe that it is the wish of the Government that people working in these circumstances should be denied the use of the facilities, and before I consider what to do with this Amendment, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will consider this particular point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not know whether this meets the point of view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I understand my right honourable friend will issue guidance to the National Health Service authorities in the matter of Clause 8 admissions when he has had further consultations with the medical and dental professions. My right honourable friend will be prepared to consider further any views that may be expressed on the definitions to be given in that guidance of the types of case that would be regarded as admissible under the terms of the Act, as it will then be. As drafted, the Bill admits to some flexibility, but I do not know whether that is a sufficient answer for the noble Baroness.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer. As the noble Lord knows, this is a very important section in that it is fundamental to the Goodman proposals that consultants should be able to use specialist equipment in hospitals that cannot be provided easily in all hospitals. This I think has been accepted, but it is not good enough to say

547
that those consultants primarily concerned with research, and who have private patients from overseas who are known as private patients because they pay fees (although, of course, they are not private patients in the usually accepted sense of the term), may be deprived of their facilities simply because of the drafting in Clause 8. I really do not feel that we can leave it to the Secretary of State to have further consultations and discussions. This is an absolutely fundamental point in teaching hospitals and research, and fundamental to consultants who have an international
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.51 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 45, after ("patient") insert ("and to the practitioner of his choice").
reputation and are accustomed to using these facilities in hospitals, facilities which may not be available in private hospitals for some considerable period of time. Under the circumstances, I feel I must press my Amendment.
1.44 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 67) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gray, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Greenway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Northesk, E.

Barrington, V.

Harvington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Belstead, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Onslow, E.

Berkeley, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Pender, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Reay, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Sandys, L.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mansfield, E.

Swansea, L.

Falmouth, V.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gowrie, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Oram, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Castle, L.

Kennet, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Raglan, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Stone, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gregson, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the situation to which we have referred already this evening in which the patient should be permitted to consult the practitioner of his choice. This Amendment was also a tied vote in the House of Commons on Standing Committee. The private alternative must be accessible not

549
only to the patient but to the consultant, and the arrangements in hospitals should be organised in such a manner and throughout the country that they should be allowed to be so. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that Clause 8 represents a concession to the private sector, and we agree with him to a limited extent. He said that he believed it was a concession to the part-time consultant. This Amendment seeks to follow up what he has said, because we believe in order to fully justify his statement it must be written into the Bill that the practitioner of his choice should be clearly set out as stated in the Amendment. This is once again a Goodman Amendment. It was acknowledged in the Goodman proposals, and we believe that this should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I should like to support this Amendment wholeheartedly. It is one of great importance in the Bill. We have listened for the whole of the day to the debate on the division of private practice from the National Health Service. To me that meant the division of the private provision within National Health Service hospitals of the actual physical bed complement. This is what I thought we were talking about. I have a terrible fear that, unless we accept this Amendment and include it in the Bill, we are running the risk of creating a completely separate Health Service from a medical point of view. I think that that would be the most damaging thing that could happen to the Health Service. If we lose a large percentage of our consultants because they go full-time private, then the loser will be the National Health Service. That is why it is essential for these facilities to be made available and easily accessible for the practitioner of the patient's choice, even more important than for their being made easily accessible to the patient.
It has been agreed by the Government that private practice must be allowed to exist, because people must have the right to take part in private practice and patients must have the right to choose, but one of those freedoms could be taken away because an essential part of that is being able to choose one's practitioner. One can choose a practitioner, but he
550
does not necessarily have the same skills if he must move to a hospital and work in surroundings to which he is not used. Hip operations have been mentioned. There are many surgeons, experts in this field, who would not feel happy, even if the facilities and conditions existed at a hospital near the patient, working in a strange operating theatre. Part of their reputation and skill depends on the surroundings in which they are used to working. Thus, if we want to retain the freedom to choose one's practitioner, we must ensure that that practitioner is allowed to function in the surroundings to which he is used.
Lord HILL of LUTON: The Amendment raises a crucial issue. I fear that the results of this separation of private practice from NHS hospitals is likely to be, first, the lesser one that there will be a considerable waste of professional time in moving from one place to another and, secondly, the greater danger that there will be a withdrawal from the NHS and therefore from the NHS patient of a great deal of professional skill. Accessibility is, therefore, very important to minimise those dangers. The arguments for this are not merely incidental convenience but are based on the need to sustain the accessibility of patients to doctors, if possible in the same vicinity. In my view this is one of the most important Amendments before the Committee because this accessibility, this availability of doctors, is vital and I hope the Amendment will be accepted because it would make a really important improvement to the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I must say at the outset that this is not an Amendment which the Government can see fit to accept. Its effect would be to make one of the grounds for allowing the occasional use for a paying patient of NHS facilities for specialised investigation, diagnosis or treatment the inaccessibility to the patient's consultant of alternative private facilities. The purpose of Clause 8(2)(b)(i) is to ensure that a patient who is in need of a particular form of treatment, but cannot receive it from any private hospital accessible to him, can be given that treatment privately in an NHS hospital.
The Goodman proposals originally envisaged that specialised services would

551
be provided to individual patients in specified circumstances, provided that the Secretary of State was satisfied that these services could not reasonably be provided in the private sector to a satisfactory standard in this country. During the debate in Committee stage in another place, the then Minister of State said:
"… the words in this country' are clearly meant to indicate … that the patient should be expected to travel to secure private treatment if it is available from a different consultant somewhere else in the country. He would have to travel in the NHS.
"This is the whole point about these specialised facilities. If one happens to be in a remote part of Cornwall one might have to travel many miles, say, to Bristol for some specialised facility. This is an acceptable factor in the NHS and we are trying to apply the same to the private sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/76; col. 1133.]
The clause is not concerned with the continued provision of opportunities for private practice within the NHS to doctors who cannot reasonably reach alternative facilities in the private sector. Nor does this clause guarantee to a patient the right to be treated by the consultant of his choice at a NHS hospital. If he cannot be treated in the private sector at a place reasonably accessible then he may be admitted to a NHS hospital as a private patient. Whether or not he is treated by the consultant of his choice is a matter between him and the consultant. In short, the Government are prepared to allow a private patient to he treated in a NHS hospital in circumstances where it would be unreasonable to expect him to travel to the other end of the country in order to obtain it in the private sector. It is not prepared, however, to allow a consultant to use NHS facilities for the treatment of his private patients merely because it is less inconvenient for him. Acceptance of this Amendment would be tantamount to accepting the indefinite continuation of private practice in the NHS, and that is something that we have set our face against.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said:
"It has been pointed out, validly pointed out, that this would be not only unreasonable but rather foolish. If there is a busy consultant in London and he has a patient in Bradford or in Newcastle it is an absurdity to suggest that he should travel to Bradford or Newcastle to carry out an operation with a brand new team of people, with equipment with which he is not familiar and in unfamiliar surroundings. I think
552
this will be a very small concession to make, and I have a feeling from a conversation that I had with the Secretary of State—and I should like to pay a tribute to him, if I may, because I think from the outset he has approached this matter with a desire to restore confidence—that this was an arrangement he would like to accept".—[Official Report, 21/10/76; col. 1500.]
I think, with respect to the noble Lord, that he exaggerated the difficulty. Of course it would he absurd to expect a London consultant to travel to Bradford or Newcastle to work in unfamiliar circumstances with an unfamiliar team. Surely no difficulty arises—it is the patient himself who would travel in these circumstances. Why should a patient in Bradford or Newcastle consult a London-based consultant unless he expects to be treated by that consultant in the latter's hospital with the heading of his own team, or unless that consultant happens to he the only man in the country who is in a position to deal with him? Having said that, I do not think that it is necessary to say anything more, other than that in the circumstances what is proposed is quite unreasonable and we cannot accept the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I did not expect the noble Lord to give a very different reply from that of his right honourable friend. In another context his right honourable friend said, at column 504 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D—I admit that it was on another Amendment:
"I rise to seek to persuade the Committee to resist all the Amendments. Not for the first time I fear I have to urge upon my honourable friends arguments showing why I do not believe that it would be wise to accept my right honourable friend's Amendment or similarly the Opposition's Amendment".
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has taken a note out of the book of his right honourable friend. I think that in the circumstances the noble Lord does not have very much more than a quarter of the argument on his side. What the noble Baroness said in this context struck me very forcibly: that the consultant should be able to operate or carry out his consultations and treatments in surroundings and in circumstances familiar to him: and this was very strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. So the accessibility to the doctor or consultant would perhaps be very much more easily satisfied in some circumstances than it would in others.

553
But when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, turned to the arguments advanced on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, he turned the argument the other way round and mentioned the absurdity of the doctor moving to see the patient. It may well be that the Amendment could be construed as affecting these particular set of circumstances, but I do not think that it would be altogether reasonable to do so, because if we read the Amendment as it stands we see that it seeks to do what in the circumstances is something that is rather different. Clause 8(2)(b) states:
"is not privately available in Great Britain, or if it is privately available there, either—
(i) is not privately available there at a place which is reasonably accessible to the patient",
plus the words:
"and to the practitioner of his choice"
if we add what is stated in the Amendment. The phrase "reasonably accessible" has been qualified by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I think that several other noble Lords have quoted him, so I feel that it is not desirable to do so again.
But it seems here that some flexibility should be written into the Bill. The noble Lord sought to import a rigidity
into it when he said that the clause does not guarantee treatment to a NHS patient. This is not the purpose of the Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment was to import that degree of flexibility which would allow some satisfaction in the circumstances. What the noble Lord is saying is that it would be very much better if everybody was inconvenienced. We are saying that if circumstances allow somebody will have to move. The patient may have to move to see the doctor, or in other particular circumstances a mutual point at which the services are available and at which the doctor and the patient can meet might be decided upon. I must press the Amendment to a Division because I believe that there is a serious argument here. We have had the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who speaks from great experience in this field, and I feel that I shall have to test the views of the Committee.
2.10 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 68) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hanworth, V.

Northesk, E.

Alport, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Auckland, L.

Harvington, L.

Onslow, E.

Barrington, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Reay, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Kemsley, V.

Redesdale, L.

Carrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Colyton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lonsdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Devonshire, D.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Effingham, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elles, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Northfield, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gregson, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
2.17 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("his") and insert ("the").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 66. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 10, line 10, after ("opinion") insert ("of the Board").
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 10, line 17, after ("not") insert (",save on the advice of the Board").
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Board").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which would provide that the Board and not the Secretary of State should determine what charges there should be under Clause 8. Clearly, the charges that can be made for these facilities are something of great importance both to the consultants themselves and to the effective working of the private side of the Health Service. If this matter is left entirely to the Secretary of State, it would be possible to have charges suddenly put up—as, indeed, has occurred in the past—for no
556
particular reason; whereas if the charges remain ultimately the responsibility of advice from the Board, I think that will be regarded by the consultants as being a fairer system and one more likely to encourage their trust in the working of this important clause, Clause 8.
The important part is that the Board should have the right to determine the accommodation charges. Of course, it has always been the practice that consultants should charge their own fees; we are not concerned with that. We are concerned with the charges for accommodation. I think this is an important matter, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
2.21 a.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 with this Amendment on the same subject and within the same clause. The effect of these Amendments would be to transfer the function of determining under Section 31 of the 1968 Act charges for the purposes of patients admitted under Clause 8 in accordance with the provisions of that clause from the Secretary of State to the Board.
These Amendments would produce a wholly unacceptable situation. The discretion to afford patients access to NHS services and accommodation rests with the Secretary of State, and must be exercised by him (or in practice, by health authorities) on the conditions laid down in Clause 8(2)(a) and (b), concerned with the specialised nature of the treatment and skills required, and the availability of suitable alternative facilities in the private sector. The Health Services Board has

557
no function in these matters as the Goodman proposals made perfectly clear. Paragraph 3(e) said that relevant NHS accommodation and services were to be made available to private patients, in appropriate circumstances, by health authorities.
As noble Lords will know, the powers on which Clause 8 rests, and under which private patients can be allowed to use NHS facilities and accommodation, were conferred on the Secretary of State by the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. These powers were delegated to health authorities, and are already used and therefore charges are already levied under them.
There is no justification for making the Board determine the charges. Two of the criteria on which they are to be fixed are objective, that is, those specified in Clause 8(7)(a) and (b) and they relate to matters of which the Secretary of State is likely to have a much greater knowledge than the Board; namely, expenses incurred under the NHS Acts and costs attributable to capital account. And as to the third criterion, neither the Board nor the Secretary of State is likely to have or be able to obtain comprehensive information about amounts charged to private patients by part-time consultants. Health authorities, in fixing the charges locally, on the basis of a centrally agreed formula incorporating the provisions of Clause 8 will have to devise appropriate charges for whole-time consultant services with the help of local consultations.
In case there is any concern among your Lordships about the discretion allowed to the Secretary of State under Clause 8, may I remind you that the charging provisions in Clause 8 closely resemble provisions under Sections 1(3), 1(4) and 2(2) of the 1968 Act for charges in relation to authorised pay beds and private out-patient facilities.
Baroness YOUNG: I am certain that the noble Baroness feels that I should be comforted by the thought that the provisions in Clause 8 are based on the 1968 Act. The point of the Amendment is that we are by no means satisfied with the way the 1968 Act has been able to work. She will recall, no doubt more clearly than I do, that her right honourable friend Mrs. Castle, when she was
558
Secretary of State, put up the charges that were made for accommodation for private patients in Health Service hospitals by as much as three times. They did that after the hospitals themselves had already put up the charges. If that is allowed under the 1968 Act, it is very desirable that it should not be allowed under this Act, because if it is so allowed we could easily get ourselves into a position where private patients were being priced out of the private hospital market and the whole basis of the Goodman agreements would be undermined because the charges would not be reasonable. Clearly, private facilities would not then be available to more than a very few people.
I entirely take the point that Clause 8(7), paragraphs (a) and (b), restrict very much the charges that the Secretary of State might require, because it is completely acceptable that there should not be a charge under the National Health system for this, and obviously any charges would cover the capital account. But, of course, it is paragraph (c) that is most worrying, and also the principle of the matter. This is not a matter which we on this side intend to press tonight, but we shall, of course, read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and consider whether or not to come back to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. We are still on the subject of charges, and in Clause 8(6) is a list of four categories for which the Secretary of State may determine different rates or scales of charges. This Amendment deals with paragraph (c), which states:
"… in relation to patients who are, and patients who are not, ordinarily resident in Great Britain …"
the Secretary of State may determine different rates or scales of charges. This part of the Bill gives rise to a series of questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because I think the Committee needs more information about the likely effect

559
of this paragraph. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say how many people he thinks this would apply to.
No doubt there are a number of patients not ordinarily resident in Great Britain who come here for medical services. They will, and do, bring a lot of money with them, which contributes to the balance of payments. They spend while they are here, and it is obviously in our interests that they should continue to come. Perhaps the noble Lord can begin by telling the Committee how many come at the moment and how the proposals contained in paragraph (c) are likely to affect that number. Is it the intention of the Government, in introducing this flexibility for charging people not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, to reduce the numbers of patients who are not ordinarily resident in this country, or is it their objective to continue to encourage them to come here for treatment? We should like to have information as to the purpose of paragraph (c), because at the moment there is some uncertainty as to how far the Government intend to use these proposals. If paragraph (c) is included, it must be the Government's intention to use the powers that they are giving themselves. What kind of differential do the Government intend to apply to these non-resident patients? Will it be a large differential, a small differential, or what kind of differential will it be? Perhaps the Cornmittee could have some information on that point.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could also tell the Committee whether the phrase "ordinarily resident in Great Britain" will apply to British subjects who are temporarily out of the country, perhaps working for a company abroad, or in the Foreign Service or in the Armed Forces, who come back to this country and are ill, or who when they contract an illness abroad may seek to come back to this country for medical treatment because they prefer to be treated here. Is it the Government's intention that those people who may be British subjects, who for reasons of their work are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, should be caught under these higher charges?
My last point is something which I raised with the noble Baroness on an
560
earlier Amendment, and that is whether the provisions in this Bill, which seek to distinguish between those who are ordinarily resident and those who are not, conflict with our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. Section 2 of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome lays down:
"Freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment."
Flowing from that Article, there has grown up within the Community a tradition of reciprocity of medical treatment, so that a national of one Member State can, and does, receive the same medical treatment as nationals of the Member State in which he happens to be living and working at the time. So that under the Treaty of Rome we, as British subjects, are entitled to the benefits of continental health services and vice versa.
The noble Lord may say that paragraph (c) says "ordinarily resident" and does not refer to nationality in so many words. It may be that the phrase chosen by the Government is not, therefore, in direct conflict with the wording of the Treaty, but as the reciprocity of medical services has developed there is now a hard and fast obligation on Member States to accord this complete reciprocity. If a Frenchman or a German objected to having to pay higher charges simply on the grounds that he was not ordinarily resident, I do not think he would be at all happy that the Government had devised a piece of legislation which excluded him from what he expected to be his right under the Treaty. Have the Government taken advice on this matter? Have they checked with the Foreign Office's legal department whether the phrasing of paragraph (c) is in conflict with our obligations under the Treaty? Could we be told whether or not they have done so, because if they have not the Government may find themselves in the embarrassing situation in which they are taken to court at Luxembourg under the Community's legal system, for not according full and proper equal treatment to our fellow nationals. I hope that the Government can give me answers to these questions. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I will try to cope with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. But my under-

561
standing of the Bill is that it contains nothing to bring us into conflict with our obligations under the EEC Regulations. That being so, whatever our obligations are in respect of EEC nationals, we should have to acknowledge them. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove from Clause 8 the Secretary of State's power to determine different rates or scales of charges under Clause 8(6) in relation to patients who are not ordinarily resident in Britain. So far as that is concerned, the provision would not be applied to persons who are entitled to be regarded as normal residents here and who are entitled, therefore, to come to England for National Health Service treatment. When I say they are not ordinarily resident here it is because they go abroad to work for substantial periods. The provision would not apply because they would be regarded as ordinarily resident here.
The power, although similar to that under Section 17 of the 1949 Act, exercisable by Regulation, is one which the Secretary of State has not previously exercised in relation to charges for accommodation and services authorised under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act. It is only patients ordinarily resident in England, Wales and Scotland who may use the respective National Health Services free; that is, as National Health Service patients. There are reciprocal arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Great Britain and the Channel Islands which provide that visitors to and from those countries are party to such agreements and receive free medical treatment under those countries' respective health services.
There is an informal arrangement with the Isle of Man which allows complete freedom of access for Manxmen to NHS hospitals on the mainland. Nothing in the Bill will disturb these arrangements. There are also arrangements for free medical treatment to be received by patients from EEC countries, again under the reciprocal agreement of the EEC Regulations, which confirms what I said earlier. In the past it has been a source of some controversy that there are standard charges for pay beds, whoever uses them, and that therefore people who are in any event entitled to use the National Health Service free are, when they choose to have private treatment,
562
charged the same amounts for their private treatment as are foreign patients who would not have been entitled to use the National Health Service free, and who have not made the same contribution in tax over the years as have British residents.
However, the Government's intention in including this power in the Bill was not to impose uniformly different rates of charges on patients resident in Great Britain from those charged to foreign patients. It was simply thought desirable for the Secretary of State to be able, if he chose, to charge a higher rate to individuals, particularly wealthy foreign patients, who might come to this country for highly specialised treatment requiring expensive equipment and skills because such treatment cost less here than in other countries in the world.
In these circumstances, one might as well say that we wish to charge the market rate. There is not to be any new embargo on foreign visitors coming here if they want treatment, but we in this country feel that we have something very good to sell so far as our medical expertise is concerned. Therefore they must be prepared, as I am sure that they are, to pay for their treatment. And in fact they do pay for it. I cannot tell the noble Lord how many foreign visitors come here and I am not in a position to say how much we gain by it. My understanding of the situation is that we have no reliable figures or amounts. Probably we ought to have them because it is, in a sense, an invisible earning and we ought to know how much we gain by it. However, I understand that no reliable figures are available.
The Secretary of State has no plans at present to use the power in Clause 8(6) (b) and (c). If, however, the power is eventually used, the Secretary of State does not intend that patients from Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands should be made to pay higher charges under Clause 8 than patients who are resident in Great Britain.
Viscount KEMSLEY: I am still rather confused about this paragraph. If you read "in relation to" as meaning "about" or "with regard to", it applies to patients who are, and patients who

563
are not, ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Surely that covers everybody.
2.42 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I rise to support my noble friend Lord O'Hagan who moved this Amendment very clearly. I do not think that we have had a very satisfactory answer. I suppose it is something to know that if you live in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands you will be treated as a British subject, which is what I understand the noble Lord to have meant by his reply. It is comforting to know that people come to this country because it costs less. I suppose that this is the effect of devaluation; no doubt it is the cheapest place in Europe to come to for private medicine, as for everything else. However, it is extraordinary that the Government should feel that it is right to have different charges for the same accommodation, depending on whether you are British or foreign. This is what the subsection means.
If I may draw a comparison, one of the matters which has created the maximum ill-feeling in universities is that overseas students are charged far more for the same course than are students at home. Exactly the same course is provided but there is a differential charge. Therefore it appears to be very unfair. If you were working in a hospital you might think that it was an abuse if somebody from overseas was charged three times the amount for a hospital bed that somebody at home is charged. After all, we have no means of knowing whether he is a wealthy foreigner, unless he is asked on arrival to declare his income. I suppose that it will be a completely subjective judgment on the part of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that it would create the maximum amount of ill-feeling within the hospital if it were known that this kind of thing was going on.
Furthermore, we have not had a satisfactory reply to the important point about the EEC. The Government seem to forget that we are now in the EEC. It is all very well to say that we have various reciprocal arrangements. We are perfectly well aware that we have reciprocal arrangements, but I think many
564
of us would feel very put out if, under the reciprocal arrangements, we found ourselves having to pay in an EEC country three times the price paid by a national of that country, simply because we were foreigners. One might have an accident abroad and find oneself unfortunately in hospital and, even more unfortunately, having to pay for it.
I feel that we have had a very unsatisfactory answer to a very serious point. It seems to me, if I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, correctly, that this provision is similar to one contained in the 1949 Act which has not been exercised and that there are no plans at present to use the power contained in this Bill. Therefore I cannot think why the noble Lord does not take it out of the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I try to answer the point raised by the noble Viscount. If he will be good enough to look at the Bill, line 34 says:
"… in pursuance of subsection (5) above determine different rates or scales of charges … in relation to patients who are, and patients who are not, ordinarily resident in"—
England. There is a difference. The patients who are resident and the patients who are not.
Viscount KEMSLEY: I entirely agree with the noble Lord that that is the intention of the subsection, but my contention is that the words "in relation" are not the proper words to use in this connection. There is no differentiation.
Lord SANDYS: The Government are obviously perplexed, and perhaps this is a suitable moment to mention another matter in this connection. I think all of us on going abroad, if we have fallen into some unfortunate situation, either needing medical treatment or being the subject of a mishap or something of that sort, and have required the assistance of a doctor or dentist, have been all too keen to return home to this country rather than to become subjected to a very heavy overcharge for services in that overseas territory. It may be unfortunate if I were to mention particular circumstances or particular countries, but all of us know of circumstances where a very high overcharge has taken place.
My noble friend Lord O'Hagan, who has considerable experience within the

565
European Community, has pointed out that should we in this country start a situation which the Government have in mind, namely, differential charges, it is liable in the present circumstances and in years to come to give rise to a very unfortunate situation. I believe that we should set an example in this particular field. We have a very high reputation with countries overseas—so much so that a number of hospitals have been funded to a very large extent by grateful patients, and I think the Government should realise that patients have come here, have received of medical specialty, and in certain cases have given enormously towards research and the maintenance of that particular hospital. Hammersmith has been mentioned, but there are many others where an overseas donor has expressed gratitude far and away beyond the original cost of an initial treatment, given out of gratitude for a cure. I believe this is something which could conceivably, and often does, repeat itself year by year. I know of instances where patients have come to this country, have not anticipated a successful outcome and have been surprised beyond their wildest dreams at the advanced techniques.
I believe that the Government have fallen down here, because the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has no idea of the invisible earnings involved. We would not press him at this hour of the morning to produce those figures, but this is a very valuable invisible earning, and in the present state of the finances of our country we should surely be looking at all the possible sources of invisible earnings of this nature.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not know whether I followed the noble Lord correctly. Is he saying that people who come from abroad and who have no claim on us at all by virtue of the fact that they do not come from EEC countries, where they have special rights and facilities if they come to this country, should be able to come here and should not be required to pay a special rate?
Lord SANDYS: I did not specify any particular territory. The noble Lord knows quite well that there is a reciprocal arrangement within the EEC.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes. I understood the noble Lord to imply
566
that anybody coming from abroad should not be subject to, I think he used the word "exorbitant" charges, or higher charges.
Baroness YOUNG: I think that is a perfectly fair comment, and precisely what my noble friend did mean. I find it quite extraordinary, coming, if I may say so, from a Government who believe in good Socialist principles, that they should apply in this particular circumstance the very worst of monopoly practices.
Lord O'HAGAN: I do not want to tease the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, especially as he made one or two nice comments about me several hours, or it seems like days, ago. I will not persist much longer, but I want to suggest to him that paragraph (c) is an example of the dangerous mentality into which the Government are now drifting. This kind of thinking leads to a siege economy; this kind of thinking leads to the imposition of import controls without proper thought as to the effect that a single individual action will have on the standing of this country in relation to other countries, both economically and politically. It is a gut reaction, a vindictive feeling that some of these terrible foreigners are cheating us, and the Government will put something in to stop them cheating us, without thinking through the consequences. I am asking the noble Lord to make sure that these consequences are thought through before the Government take these powers.
The noble Lord talks about individual, particular wealthy foreign patients almost in the realms of the Gnomes of Zurich, speculators against the pound, mythical conspirators against our country—oh no! that is your Lordships' House; I had forgotten—the enemies of this country who have to be picked out and knocked off one by one. Are these people to know what is to happen? I am not asking for an answer now, but by the time we get to Report stage. Are these people to know before they come here whether they fit into this Government's list of men who deserve to be hated?— the individual, particularly wealthy foreign patients. Who is to know whether they fit into that category before they come here? At what point will there be guidelines or indications given as to what type of person will come into this

567
country, so that they will know before they arrive? Otherwise we may get the situation in which someone turns up full of good will, wishing to take advantage of what this country has to offer in the way of medical treatment, and finds himself charged something he did not expect at all. I hope the Government will take this into account.
The other point, on which I will conclude, is the matter of the EEC. In the other place the Minister said:
"There are also arrangements for free medical treatment to be received by patients from EEC countries under reciprocal agreements and EEC regulations".
He went on:
"I have indicated that I do not think these will be seriously affected".
They should not be affected at all. And if it is in the mind of the Government that they might be affected at all, it is hardly the sort of spirit in which to begin a successful presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EEC, if we are still not fully committed to giving our fellow citizens from the Community proper, equal treatment. I will leave it at that tonight, but I hope to return to the matter on Report.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have one comment on what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said. It surprises me that he should feel this is unreasonable for a country which has a great deal of expertise, competence and ability in the medical field, which is known all over the world, and which already attracts a large number of foreigners to this country who want treatment, many of them paying something like £900 a week for a bed in a private hospital not three or four miles from your Lordships' House. There are no guidelines issued at present as far as I know to people who want to come over here for medical treatment. Most of them, presumably all of them, if they come, must know what they are coming to; they must know what the charges are; they must know even the kind of treatment they are going to get, otherwise they would not come.
It passes my comprehension that anyone, particularly on that side of your Lordships' House, should have this kind of outlook. I should have thought that, knowing we have something good that
568
people want, it is right for them to pay the market price for it. And many of them do. I wish I had some figures. There are always an enormous number paying several hundred pounds a week for a bed.
Lord O'HAGAN: I am not saying they should not pay; of course they should pay. But if the Government are going to introduce a special system of payment, I hope at the same time as considering the narrow question of payment they will also consider what these people bring in in foreign exchange and other forms of benefit to this country, as well as what these people take back to their own countries—admiration for what this country has to offer, which may lead others to come and may have all sorts of economic consequences and promote good relations.
Lord STONE: They always know how much they have to pay. They cannot get into any hospital here without the introduction of some entrepreneur. I would claim to be in a small way an entrepreneur in those circumstances. They know the prices and they are prepared to pay them.
Lord O'HAGAN: Yes, but this subsection says that the Secretary of State may determine different rates or scales of charges. We have heard how many times Mrs. Castle altered the rates.
Lord STONE: But they are always known, because the patients are introduced by a British practitioner who makes the arrangements for them.
Lord O'HAGAN: The Government have not yet said in what circumstances these different scales of charges would or would not be introduced for non-resident people. We simply do not know what they have in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.57 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 10, line 42, at end insert ("provided that the Secretary of State shall not determine the changes for the services of any consultant").
The noble Baroness said: I feel that my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has shown astonishing patience, because I am not certain that even now the Government have grasped the point he is trying to make, which he explained, I thought, very clearly. But we move on now to another point about charges which again we regard as a matter of considerable importance. Clause 8(6) makes clear that there are certain circumstances in which the Secretary of State may determine different rates and scales of charges. The circumstances are, different accommodation or services in hospitals, different forms or classes of treatment, different charges for foreigners or British patients. Going on to subsection (7), paragraph (c) suggests that it might be the intention of the Secretary of State on some occasions to interfere with the charges a consultant would make. It has always been accepted medical practice that, whereas the accommodation charges in NHS hospitals have been fixed by the Secretary of State, the consultant has been free to charge his own fee. This is extremely important to those who are in private practice because, as the Committee will be aware, consultants who work part-time for the NHS give up a proportion of their salary. They work as much as the full-time consultant for the NHS.
In exchange for giving up a proportion of their salary they are free to undertake private work after they have fulfilled their contract to the National Health Service. It is important that they should be able to fix the fee they charge, because in a real sense they make a personal contract with their patients for their fees and it is putting both the patient and the consultant in this particular respect in the right relationship.
It is also true that consultants who also undertake to look after patients from overseas—the consultants particularly in teaching hospitals who charge a fee but of course it is a fee that is not kept by the consultant but returned to the hospital either for research or the funds in the hospital—should also be free to fix the charges they make. This is something which is obviously of enormous importance to the consultants, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will accept this distinction between charges for accommodation and the fees that a consultant would charge, because it is a
570
very important matter of principle and I hope that we can be reassured that the Government accept it and are prepared to see it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of this Amendment would be to add a proviso to the permissive power of the Secretary of State under Clause 8(6)(d), to determine different rates or scales of charges
"generally for different accommodation and for different services and in relation to different circumstances",
to the effect that the Secretary of State shall not determine charges for the services of any consultant. So far as charges for services provided by part-time consultants are concerned, this Amendment is irrelevant: part-time consultants who treat private patients admitted to NHS hospitals under Clause 8 will continue to fix and charge their own fees as they do at present, and the level of these fees will be entirely a matter between consultants and their patients.
Where the services of whole-time consultants are concerned, the Amendment appears completely to ignore the provision in the next subsection, Clause 8(7)(c). This requires that the charges determined under Section 31 of the 1968 Act, in pursuance of Clause 8(6), in the case of charges for services provided to a private patient at a NHS hospital by a whole-time consultant shall be not less than would be charged by a part-time consultant for providing similar services in similar circumstances to a private patient of his.
Your Lordships cannot have forgotten that the provisions of this section follow the proposals announced on 15th December 1975. I trust therefore that noble Lords are also mindful of the fact that in paragraph 3e of those proposals, the following account of the charging provisions for this admission system is given:
"Charges will be made to these patients … and there will be no subsidy by the NHS. No professional fees will be received by whole-time NHS staff, for their personal benefit, but an appropriate element of the total charge will be retained by the health authority, or in the case of an academic unit, the university department, to be used for medical and dental research or development work".
The charges to private patients admitted under Clause 8 are to be determined by the Secretary of State as the facilities and

571
services provided for private patients admitted under that clause are to be provided by the Secretary of State. The one exception, of course, consists of the services provided by part-time consultants, who would be providing services and charging for them in the same way as they do for any other private patients of theirs. Whole-time consultants employed by the NHS are paid a salary by the NHS; it is therefore perfectly appropriate for their employer to fix an element of the total charges payable by patients which properly represents the services provided on any particular occasion to them by whole-time consultants.
In practice, the Secretary of State's powers under this clause will be delegated to health authorities. The health authorities will handle the Clause 8 admissions system in consultation with local consultants and other NHS staff. It is perfectly clear to the Government that when the amounts to be charged for the services provided by whole-time consultants are to be identified, the only method by which it could be discovered what would be the amounts which are not less than the fees which would be charged by part-time consultants in similar circumstances would be to ask part-time consultants. This matter has been discussed in some detail with representatives of the Joint Consultants' Committee, and there was general agreement that the fixing of this element of the charge would require close co-operation between consultants and health authorities. Therefore, although the determination will be in the hands of the health authorities, the amounts determined could rest solely on discussion with consultants.
Baroness YOUNG: Before I consider whether to press the Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord to explain where in the Bill it makes clear that part-time consultants will still be able to fix their own charges and fees? I do not want to bowl a fast one at the noble Lord at 3.10 in the morning, and I appreciate that he may wish to seek advice on the matter before answering, but if I understood correctly what he said, he assured me that I need not press the Amendment and we need not worry because part-time consultants would, as at present, be able
572
to fix their own fees. I was delighted to hear that, but when I looked at the Bill I was not able to identify where that was said. The essential point is that that should be guaranteed in the legislation.
On the question of full-time consultants, of course there will be full-time consultants who at present charge fees, for example in teaching hospitals for private patients coming in. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, they will not be free to fix their own fees and charges, which is a very important matter. Perhaps at the same time when he is finding the answer to my first question he will be able to discover the answer to the second. Where does it say that full-time consultants will not be able to fix their own fees but will have to charge fees which, as I understand it, will tie determined by the health authority after consultation with the consultants? Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord, and of course I will look carefully at the Official Report of what he said, but it would be helpful to know whether my understanding of the position is correct and, even more important, where these matters are stated in the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I must confess I cannot find them in the Bill at all. I shall have to take advice on this point and let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness YOUNG: I find myself in a great difficulty about this. I appreciate that it is really very difficult when noble Lords ask questions in this way—I have been in a similar position myself—and I am quite happy to keep talking for some time if this will make it any easier to reach a decision about it. I would not press the matter any further if I did not regard it as a very important point. It seems to me that this underlies the Goodman proposals, and I think it is necessary to know that this assurance, which of course I was delighted to hear, is really in the legislation. I have studied the Bill as carefully as I can in the time which has been allowed and, not being a lawyer and not being a medical practitioner but just one of those lay people who have had to struggle through this legislation as best they can, even in the small hours of the morning, I am quite prepared to accept that I am quite likely to have missed it. We have not got an answer to it yet, but I think it would be

573
very helpful if we could have one before I consider what to do.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In Clause 8(8) there are two paragraphs which refer to the whole-time consultant. I am wondering whether the noble Baroness would accept that the part-time consultant could come in by implication.
Baroness YOUNG: I can see we are in a great difficulty about this. Again, far be it from me to have to explain what subsection (8) means, but I should have thought that it is in fact saying what is the present practice, whereby the authority retain the fee that is paid to the whole-time consultant and use it, as it says,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.21 a.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 10, line 46, after ("increase") insert ("or decrease").
574
"for the purposes of research and development in medicine or dentistry".
This, I think, is re-enacting the point about the whole-time consultant which appears in the 1968 Act. It is, of course, the part-time consultant with which we are concerned. I am very sorry. I think I have gone as far as I can in this matter, but it is an important point and I feel I must press this to a Division.
3.13 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Auckland, L.

Hanworth, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Barrington, V.

Harvington, L.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Kemsley, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Carrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Falmouth, V

Monson, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Gray, L.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Brimelow, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gregson, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Jacques, L.

Northfield, L.

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I should like, with the leave of the Committee, to deal with Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. The object here is to ensure that the Secretary of State, when dealing with expenses, does not play one hospital against another. He must not be allowed to do that. We propose that the phrase, "or decrease"

575
should be inserted so that the Secretary of State would not, and could not, make a profit at the expense of anyone else. I hope that the noble Lord can tell us how it is proposed that the Secretary of State is to deal with this matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of this Amendment would be to require that the charges determined by the Secretary of State under Clause 8, subsections (5) to (7), would be such as will ensure that there will be no increase or decrease in the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Acts. This would effectively mean that the NHS should make no profit from the charges raised under Clause 8 for patients admitted as private patients to NHS facilities. It would therefore straight away exclude the use of Clause 8(6)(c) to charge more than the minimum required by subsection (7), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), to patients not ordinarily resident in Great Britain. The 15th December proposals did not mention the question of profit, even to exclude it; whereas they did specify (paragraph 3(e)) that there would be no subsidy by the NHS for private patients receiving these specialised NHS services.
However, more importantly, the addition of these words would mean that the charges would have to balance exactly the cost to the NHS of providing the services. We have to face the fact that this cost cannot be accurately measured at the time the service is provided, or possibly even at the end of the accounting year; and every charge would be open to challenge under such a requirement, and the disputes created would be almost impossible to settle. There is no other enactment relating to the National Health Service which contains such a requirement; this is certainly because the requirement would be virtually impossible to fulfil. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Viscount will agree with me.
Viscount LONG: We are not far apart in our views on these charges; and that is welcome at this time in the morning. I shall not press the noble Lord for more information, for what he has given us is exactly what we wanted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 81.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 11, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 11, line 21, leave out ("Nothing in this section shall prevent").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 82 and, with the leave of the Committee, to speak to Amendment No. 83 at the same time. By leaving out the words in the Amendment we are placing on the Secretary of State an objective to respect the costs and so on in this part of Clause 8.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 would be to change the wording of Clause 8(9) so that instead of reading:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary of State from allowing any medical or dental practitioner …to make use of any accommodation or services provided by virtue of the NHS Acts …"
it would read:
"The Secretary of State shall not, by reason of anything in this Act, cease to allow medical or dental practitioners … to make use".
It is difficult to understand what the reason for this Amendment could be. The purpose of Clause 8(9) is highly specific: it is intended to establish the fact that the restrictions in Clause 8 on the use of NHS accommodation or services for private patients do not affect the existing arrangements by which hospital medical and dental staff, by virtue of paragraphs 159 to 167 of their terms and conditions of service, are entitled to use NHS accommodation and services to provide patients with services falling within what is known as Category II, for which they may charge the patient a fee. Examples of this kind of work are: blood tests and X-rays for prospective emigrants, or for employees who wish to enter a superannuation scheme. The Amendment refers to the Act rather than the

577
section: this is unnecessary, because nothing in the Bill other than Clause 8 could even be thought to affect the Category II arrangements.
The difference between
"nothing in the section shall prevent the Secretary of State from allowing"
and
"the Secretary of State shall not by virtue of anything in the Act cease to allow"
seems to be negligible: it may however be connected with a concern about how the subsection affects existing arrangements as opposed to how it might affect future arrangements of this kind.
Let me explain quite clearly that the subsection means first that hospital medical and dental staff already employed by health authorities shall suffer no interference with their existing arrangements for doing Category II work; and secondly, that doctors and dentists who will in the future he employed in hospitals by health authorities will still be able to make such arrangements—so long as the terms of service of hospital medical and dental staff are not altered for some other reason. I trust that this explanation will enable noble Lords to see how unnecessary is any Amendment to this subsection.
Viscount LONG I am most grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this matter further. We felt it was necessary to make sure that the staff were treated properly and that we, in our turn, knew exactly what the Secretary of State was doing. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Use by general practitioners etc. of NHS accommodation and facilities for private practice]:
3.32 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 12, line 19, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Board").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 8 is concerned with the charges for accommodation and the fees that can be charged by consultants. Clause 9 applies the same principle to general practitioners. In a sense, Amendment No. 84 is equivalent in principle to Amendment No. 72. What
578
we are hoping to secure in both these Amendments is that, regarding the charges for use by general practitioners who are in private practice using National Health facilities, the charges shall not be determined by the Secretary of State but shall be determined on the advice of the Board. This is an important matter of principle. I will not speak to it at any great length at this late hour; we have already been over it in Clause 8. The principle is precisely the same. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The provisions of Clause 9 relate only to private practice in NHS premises (in practice health centres) by those general medical or dental practitioners, registered pharmacists, or ophthalmic or dispensing opticians who are providing family practitioner services under Part IV of the 1946 Act, or by chiropodists providing NHS services. Subject to the provisions of the clause, these practitioners are given a right to the grant, on application, of permission to use for private practice the NHS accommodation or facilities which they are authorised to use for the provision of those services. The purpose of the clause and of this subsection is to preserve the status quo so far as conduct of private practice from health centres is concerned. Over the years, in consultations with the different professions involved, guidelines have been worked out and, for Part IV practitioners, incorporated in model licence agreements or standard forms of permission. This is a proper function of the Secretary of State in relation to the detailed terms on which the premises he provides are rented out on licence. It would be inappropriate to give it to the Board whose prime function is to phase out facilities from hospitals; the licensing functions which they do have are related solely to private sector developments. The BMA and other professional bodies have been consulted about Clause 9. The Amendment under discussion is neither necessary nor desirable.
Baroness YOUNG: If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly, what she is saying is that Clause 9 is re-enacting current practice. Is this in the 1968 Act or the 1946 Act?
Baroness STEDMAN: The 1946 Act.
Baroness YOUNG: It is entirely taken from the 1946 Act? I must confess I have not that Act in front of me. Now that I have the assurance that this is in the 1946 Act, and that in fact nothing in principle is being changed, I shall go back and read what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
("Provided that any such charges shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 8(7) above with the substitution therein of the words the grant of permission' for the words any exercise of the relevant power'.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, this Amendment is the equivalent to Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79, and it applies in this case to general practitioners and not to consultants. Once again we are anxious to make quite sure that the Secretary of State cannot simply make arbitrary charges to general practitioners using NHS facilities. Of course, nobody is objecting in any sense to charges being made, because that would be quite right and proper and one entirely accepts the guidelines that are laid down in making the charges. What one is anxious to prevent is the making of arbitrary charges, and the intention is that charges should be made objectively and not simply at the Secretary of State's discretion. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The terms of Clause 9 have been fully discussed with the representatives of the professions concerned, to ensure that they preserve the status quo as exactly as possible. On the particular question of charges, an Amendment was made to Clause 9(4), at the request of the medical profession, to make it clear that the charges made related solely to the use of accommodation and facilities and not to the grant of permission. In addition, the model licence agreement or the standard form of permission, which had been agreed in consultation with the different professions involved specified the component part of any of the charges. I think therefore that the Amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness YOUNG: It is very nice to have a brisk answer like that. Once
580
again, I shall, of course, read carefully what the noble Baroness has said. As I understand it, Clause 9 is in fact preserving the status quo and the Government have already amended Clause 9(4) to meet the wishes of the general practitioners. As I say, we shall study what the noble Baroness has said to see whether this is a matter to which we should return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
3.40 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 86:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
"Charges.
.—(1) Notwithstanding any power conferred on the Secretary of State by this or any other enactment to determine charges for the use of accommodation or services at NHS hospitals, the Board shall from time to time determine—

(a) the charges to be made to resident or nonresident private patients for the use of accommodation or services at NHS hospitals;

(b) the charges to be made to persons occupying (whether or not as private patients) accommodation at NHS hospitals which afford them privacy;

(c) the charges to be made for admission or access to accommodation or services at NHS hospitals pursuant to the exercise of the relevant power referred to in section 8 above;

(d) the charges referred to in section 9(4) above.

(2) All such charges shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 8(7) above with the deletion therefrom of the words `from any exercise of the relevant power'.
(3) It shall remain the duty of the Secretary of State to recover all such charges".
The noble Lord said: I draw your Lordships' attention to this Amendment, because I believe that the way in which it is both drafted and set out is admirable. That may suggest a degree of satisfaction, but it draws a very clear distinction between the Board, which we see is the responsible authority for determining the charges, and the Secretary of State, who is charged in subsection (3) with recovering the charges. The second point about the Amendment is that it follows very closely on Amendment No. 85. It is a considerable departure from the drafting of subsections (7)(c) and (8) of Clause 8, with which the Government had great difficulty; and I am not surprised, because, once again, there was a problem with the

581
drafting. I suggest that when a clause concerns charges, which is a difficult matter, and when a lot of people will be concerned with examining this Bill, it should be very clearly set out as this one is. It is normally a matter of organisation and very clear thought, and I believe that this Amendment should commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The effect of this clause would be to transfer to the Health Services Board the Secretary of State's existing powers to determine charges for pay beds, amenity beds and private out-patient services, as well as the powers proposed in the Bill for determining charges for the use of NHS accommodation and services provided to private patients under Clause 8, or to family practitioners under Clause 9. It would also require the charges to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8(7).
Pay bed charges are determined under Section 1 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. In determining the charges, the Secretary of State is required by the Act to have regard to the estimated total cost of providing inpatient services at hospitals of different classes in the period concerned. Only the Secretary of State, and health authorities as his agents, have the detailed information necessary for estimating the cost of in-patient services in the year ahead. Consequently, it is unrealistic to expect the Board to undertake this task. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has to have regard to any additional monies which it is known to him at the time of the determination will be made available for these services in the coming year. If the Board were to take over the function of determining these charges, it would require access to accounts and estimates possibly before the Civil Estimates had been presented to Parliament.
The Opposition, in moving this Amendment, are no doubt anxious to ensure that it w ill never be possible for a Secretary of State deliberately to increase pay bed charges for political reasons. If such is their fear, it is totally without foundation. Successive Secretaries of State of both Parties have determined these charges strictly in accordance with the Statutes. The regrettable fact is that the cost of hospital
582
treatment is extremely high, and the charges are a true reflection of what, on average, it costs the British taxpayer to provide hospital in-patient services. Arguments that the private patient pays twice, once through taxation and secondly through pay bed charges, overlook completely the fundamental principle which Governments of both Parties have observed for 30 years, that anyone who opts to be treated privately must pay the full cost of the services he pre-empts.
If NHS pay bed charges may appear to be higher than the charges of some hospitals in the private sector, that is because the NHS seeks to provide a fully comprehensive range of services and facilities—something which few, if any, hospitals in the private sector would claim to do. Most private hospitals and nursing homes, including some of the newest, do not set out to provide services of the same range and scale as NHS hospitals. If they did, there would be no need for Clause 8 of the Bill. If they did, they would find that they, too, would have to increase their charges quite considerably in order to cover the cost of a much wider range of facilities and services, and the highly skilled staff required to operate them. Part of the pay bed charge is a contribution towards capital costs. Although this element is discretionary, the Act allows only an amount which is "proper and reasonable". In any event, the Amendment seems to me to be misconceived. Pay bed charges are calculated on the basis of averaging, and so long as pay bed charges remain will continue to be so determined.
But a system of charging that is geared to a wide spectrum of services is not necessarily appropriate for Clause 8 admissions. These exceptional and occasional admissions will be of patients who require highly specialised facilities and services, which generally are more expensive than the average; it is intended as one condition of affording access to them that the cost to the NHS should not thereby he increased. The present system of charging on the basis of average inpatient costs would not satisfy this requirement. Conversely, however, it would, I am satisfied, be equally inappropriate so long as there are still pay beds catering for a wider cross-section of

583
private patients varying from the straightforward to the highly specialised case to charge for use of these facilities on the basis proposed in Clause 8 for highly specialised occasional admissions.
When it comes to considering charges for personal privacy—I take it that means amenity bed charges—the provisions of Clause 8 are even more inappropriate. Here we are charging only for a private room, not for the other privileges which the private paying patients of consultants expect to demand. Here there is no question of a patient pre-empting resources intended for NHS patients—a patient in an amenity bed is an ordinary NHS patient with no special privileges of choice of consultant. He cannot book his bed in advance and he must vacate it if it is required by another patient on medical grounds. In short, the charge for an amenity bed is a charge for additional social amenity only—to which the system proposed for Clause 8 admissions would be wholly inappropriate.
In relation to charges to family practitioners in health centres (Clause 9) the provision of Clause 8 would be equally unsuitable. The provisions of Clause 9(4) were written into the Bill to make it quite clear that the granting of permission to family practitioners to accept and treat their private patients at health centres was clearly separate from the charges they have to pay for the facilities they use. A model licence has been drawn up in agreement with the BMA which provides for periodic review of the costs of such items as rents, rates, heating, lighting, staff wages and salaries. In the case of family doctors, a proportion of these expenses is reimbursed to them through family practitioner committees. The extent of such reimbursement depends on the proportion of the time which they devote to their NHS patients. There is, therefore, no need to impart the provisions of Clause 8 into what is a well-understood and carefully negotiated system of charges.
The Amendment does not seek to alter the principles on which pay bed or other charges should be determined. It assumes, however, that an independent Health Services Board, without access to all the information required, and not directly accountable through a Minister to Parliament, would in some way apply these
584
principles more fairly and accurately than a Minister of the Crown, subject to all the normal checks and balances of Parliamentary scrutiny and control.
Lord SANDYS: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness for what I would regard as one of the best answers we have had this morning. The noble Baroness has raised substantial points, some of them concerned with administration in regard to the financial estimates for the forthcoming year and matters of great public importance. The noble Baroness referred to model licence agreements both on this and the previous Amendments. We shall study her remarks with close attention. It will he for the convenience of the Committee if I withdrew the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Publication of proposals and preparation of annual reports by Secretary of State]:
3.50 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 13, line 34, at end insert—
("(4) Within fourteen days of the receipt of any proposals, recommendations, advice or expression of opinion of the Board under this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay a copy or record thereof before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: In a sense this Amendment follows on from the one I moved some 12 or 14 hours ago about the Board giving its reasons. This is somewhat different, but of course what it says is that the Board should produce and publish an annual report. It seems to me that there are a number of reasons why it would be desirable for the Secretary of State to publish the proposals or the recommendations that he will receive from the Board. It is another example of what might be called open government. At least we would then know what the Board was thinking. And if the proposals were published it would be possible to see whether the Secretary of State was performing his duties under the Act. It would also be possible for the outsider to see what policy the Board was adopting, what was its attitude towards various matters to do with the phasing out of pay beds and how it would respond to the

585
representations which had been made to it. Furthermore, it would be possible to debate the Board's recommendations in Parliament. Indeed, as everybody nowadays seems to be agreed that there ought to be more rather than less open government, I should have thought that it was an Amendment which would commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: I should like to support the Amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain to me what I failed to understand when we were debating Amendment No. 28, at which point the Committee was examining the reasons for the proposals. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the proposals for revocation in the clause as it stands at present are to be published. What will they contain? Will they be merely a list, or will they be more than a list? If there is no need to publish the reasons for the proposals, will the reasons be inherent within the proposals and, therefore, self-evident? If that is so, why does Clause 10, referring back to Clause 4(2)(b), require the Secretary of State to publish the Board's report, which gives the reasons for its decisions, under that head? I should like to know what the proposals will consist of and how much information will be given in the proposals.
When answering, perhaps the noble Baroness can also tell us what status these proposals will have when they are laid before the House—what type of document it will be, whether it will be something that fits into a pattern of documents which is laid before the House, or whether it will be sui generis or can be compared with other proposals which are published—so that we may know what type of document it is.
Baroness STEDMAN: That is rather a tall order at this time of the morning! The effect of this Amendment would be to require the Secretary of State, within 14 days of receiving any proposals, recommendations, advice or expression of opinion of the Board under Part II of the Bill, to lay a copy or record of them before each House of Parliament. Clause 10(1) of the Bill at present requires that proposals submitted to the Secretary of State relating to matters in Part II of the Bill should be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as is practicable.
586
It is difficult to see why the movers of this Amendment should require more than that. Do they imagine that the Secretary of State will sit on the proposals, or that his officials will lose them in a pigeon hole or desk drawer? If that is so, Opposition Members during the Committee stage in another place did not believe that these things would happen because an Amendment in identical terms to this one was moved and then withdrawn without being pressed to a Division. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State intends to carry out this duty according to the letter of the law. The proposals will be laid before each House as soon as is practicable.
Without taking advice, I cannot tell your Lordships whether such proposals laid before the House would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure or the Negative Resolution procedure. Presumably that is an administrative point which has yet to be decided. However, the proposals will be laid before each House of Parliament and we shall have an opportunity to make comments upon them.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to be able to say at this stage of the Committee proceedings that I had unlimited faith in the Department and the Government to produce all the information that was wanted, but having asked a number of questions at intervals to which we have had no answer at all, I am bound to say my faith is not quite what it was when we set off on this long Committee stage. This is an important matter and for a Government which is constantly talking about the need for more open government I should have thought it was an important matter to Members opposite. However at this late hour I do not intend to press this Amendment so I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord NORTHFIELD: It is a waste of time.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Hear, hear!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation of Part II]:
3.56 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert ("'district' shall have the meaning set out in section 9(7) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973".).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Control of construction and extension of controlled premises]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 14, line 39, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("two hundred and fifty").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 90 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 91. Here we are back on two Amendments, both of which were tied in the Standing Committee in another place and which were then guillotined and which noble Lords will be pleased to hear we are debating for the first time in one of the Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords opposite, who are obviously in such a good mood, will be pleased to hear that they are fulfilling a very useful function (as indeed the House of Lords is) in having the opportunity to debate this Amendment—a complete justification for the House of Lords, and at three minutes to four in the morning it is well worth hearing this. I find it most encouraging to have all the "Hear, hears !" from Members opposite because they are obviously going to support me in my Amendments.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Hear, hear !
Baroness YOUNG: Good ! The Bill proposes quite arbitrary limits on the numbers of private beds which may be provided. The limit is 100 in London and 75 outside before it is necessary to apply to the Board for permission to build a hospital. I do not know why these particular limits were fixed. No reason is given in the Bill and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to tell us why they were fixed. The only other instance that came to my mind when I was considering what to say on these Amendments was the rateable values in the Leasehold Reform Act, which were rather arbitrary limits that were fixed, and I happen to know that
588
in the case of Oxford, where the rateable values were about as high as those in London, it had a very unfair effect because people were not so free to enfranchise themselves as they thought they might have been, and the consequence was really very undesirable.
I do not know what all the circumstances will be, but it appears that in parts of the country outside London, where this blanket number applies regardless of the size of the place, whether it is Bristol or whether it is a village, the number is 75 beds. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on what basis the numbers were fixed and whether he would consider a higher basis which would give more flexibility. In fact, it would give the Board slightly less to do, as well. I beg to move.
4 a.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of these Amendments would be to raise the size limits for new acute private hospitals which would need an authorisation from the Board from 100 beds to 250 beds in Greater London, and from 75 beds to 150 beds elsewhere in Great Britain. These are the figures which the Independent Hospitals Group, before the Bill was introduced last April in another place pressed the Government to adopt During the debate in Committee in another place on these size limits for new private hospitals in Greater London, the Secretary of State said that there was "no magic figure. One can simply make a judgment." It was necessary for the Government to take a decision on the size at which it became possible for a new private acute hospital to interfere, to a significant extent, with the performance by the Secretary of State with his duties under National Health Service Acts to provide accommodation and services; or operate, to a significant extent, to the disadvantage of National Health Service patients seeking or afforded access or admission to National Health Service accommodation and services.
There were two considerations in the minds of Ministers when they came to this problem: one was a desire not to pitch the size limits so low that the Board would be required to consider hospital building projects which were so small that they could never conceivably damage the

589
National Health Service or the service it provides for its patients; the other was a desire not to remove the scope for the exercise of independent judgment by the Board, by providing that it should consider only those hospital building projects which would be likely to fail to qualify for authorisation.
During Committee, the Secretary of State mentioned that Ministers had sought the advice of the Department's professional staff on the likely staffing requirements of private hospitals. He said:
"The honourable Gentleman asked me where I got the figures I used on Second Reading. They were prepared in the Department on the basis of the experience of professional officers. They took account of the likely number of operating theatres and operating sessions. They took account of associated out-patient work, associated in-patient work, pathology and radiology and included an element for medical staff. They also took into consideration the desirability of having resident medical staff in a hospital of 100 beds or more. We took a situation like this for a 75-bed unit. It was assumed to be predominantly for surgical work, as this is the main provision of the private sector in the acute field. Let us say that there were 60 surgical beds and 15 medical beds. Typically, these would be supported by two operating theatres, one radio-diagnostic room and, as normally there is no complement of training medical staff, it was estimated that the operating theatre time for morning and afternoon on five days a week would occupy the equivalent of four consultants and two more for the associated out-patient and in-patient work. General medical work and radiology would add another two or three consultants. This makes a total of about nine consultants, without including any element for pathology and possible resident medical officers.
"For nursing, a professional calculation corresponding to that used for doctors, based on operating theatre and other work, gave as an absolute minimum a figure of 60. I was advised that in practice it was unlikely that the total overall number could be less than one nurse per bed. For a 75-bed unit I gave 70 nurses and for a 100-bed unit I gave 90 nurses. These assessments have been made carefully by the Department."—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/76; cols. 1375–76.]
It was after consideration of these figures that the decision was made not to change the limits of 100 beds and 75 beds for Greater London and the remainder of Great Britain respectively which we had arrived at initially after considering all the relevant factors.
The figures were challenged by the right honourable Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) who said:
"I want to be certain that I understand the Minister. This is, I take it, a hypothetical construction by the medical officers in his own
590
Department. Was no attempt made to crosscheck against the actual experience of private hospitals in the field? My hon. friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) referred to four hospitals. His figures showed that the Minister's figures are a gross overstatement of the staffing requirements".—(col. 1376).
We do not, of course, accept the inference in this statement that people who had expert knowledge of the staffing requirements of NHS hospitals would not be able to provide a fair estimate of the approximate likely staffing requirements of private hospitals. However, in order fully to satisfy the right honourable Member, the Secretary of State was able to quote to the House some arbitrarily selected figures estimated by several different developers of their projected hospital's staffing requirements. The figures were supplied to the Department by these developers when they wrote to inquire about the "licensing" scheme which had been proposed in the Consultative Document published in August last year.
The first example is of an acute hospital of 140 beds. The hospital was to have two consultation sessions per day with six consultants per session. In addition there would be one resident physician who would be on-call during periods outside the consulting sessions. For general nursing staff there was to be a ratio of one nurse to two patients, plus eight theatre nursing staff, four consulting suite nursing staff and a matron. There was also to be a total of 23 technical and ancillary staff posts. The second example is of a small acute nursing home of 16 beds; this is to have a total of 20 nursing staff and six nursing auxiliaries. A third acute hospital, of 40 beds, is to have 10 sisters, 40 staff nurses and 10 medical ancillary staff. A fourth hospital, of 150 beds, was to have 8 full-time consultant equivalents, 13 house doctors, 130 ward nurses, 25 theatre nurses and 22 technical staff. And a fifth hospital, of 50 beds and one operating theatre, was to have 27 nursing staff.
These figures underline the very obvious fact that there are likely to be wide variations in the staffing requirements of different new private hospitals; some are likely to employ more staff than the figures produced by my Department would suggest. But they do show that the figures quoted by the Secretary of State during Committee stage in another

591
place were certainly not a "gross overstatement". In the circumstances, I put it to your Lordships that there are no valid reasons why the judgment that the Board should be required to consider private hospital building projects of the sizes at present laid down in the Bill should be altered. It would seem that they are reasonable figures both for Greater London and also for elsewhere in the country.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord has taken a lot of trouble over his reply. I am not sure that all of it is strictly relevant to the Amendment, but it was at any rate interesting to hear all the information about staffing ratios, which we can look at in Hansard in the morning. The point of these Amendments is to see whether it is possible to get much more flexibility into private hospital building, and it is relevant when we come to Part III of the Bill. I shall not press these Amendments this morning. Having read Hansard we may consider returning to them on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.11 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: We put down the Amendment to leave out Clause 12 because we have now reached Part III of the Bill. At Second Reading and in various speeches made by Government Ministers, the point has always been made that it is the Government's intention that the pay beds should be phased out of the National Health system. Indeed, we have been told over and over again that this was in the Manifesto, and that this is therefore something which is quite unalterable. The Government had won two Elections on it, and they had therefore produced this perfect Bill. What they have not said, so far as I can see, is that Part III, which is not simply concerned with the phasing out of pay beds but with quantity licensing of private building outside the National Health Service, would also be included in the Bill.
Before moving this Amendment, I looked again at the Queen's Speech of 19th November 1975, and the relevant paragraph reads:
592
"Legislation will be introduced in the course of the session to phase out private practice from National Health Service hospitals. Consultations will continue on My Government's proposals to strengthen and extend existing powers to regulate nursing homes and hospitals outside the National Health Service."
It is not in the same category as the first two Parts of the Bill, and I am not convinced that this is a matter on which the public has ever expressed a view at all on which the Government can, by any conceivable basis, be said to have some kind of a mandate to write Part III into the Bill. We view with considerable apprehension the operation of Part III.
Lord SANDYS: I rise to support my noble friend's Amendment, because I believe that it is very likely that a vast number of those intimately concerned with this particular problem are totally unaware of the implications of Part III. Superficially it may seem that it refers only to major building extensions, construction of wings of hospitals, or to substantial new treatment areas, but if one looks at the top of page 15 one reads:
"'controlled extension', in relation to any controlled premises, means works designed—

(a) to extend, adapt or be used in conjunction with the controlled premises; or

(b) to extend or adapt works used in conjunction with the controlled premises."

That sounds as though it is a repeat, but in fact it is not.
The point is that in a consulting room a doctor may be somewhat "cabined, cribbed, confined". Supposing he wishes to extend it, he will now have to make suitable applications both to the planning authority and presumably to the Department of Health in order to extend premises no larger than dog kennels. This tooth of regulation which is imported into the Bill in Part III is a very substantial piece of building regulations. We are of course already under official compulsion under the Building Regulations 1965 and this is yet a further extension of those provisions in regard to controlled extensions and other works. It is obvious that we shall want to look very carefully at Clause 12, and while I do not know what my noble friend will wish to do at this stage, it is clear that the clause requires close examination.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: I have a few general suggestions to make about

593
this clause. For a long time I have been interested in the optimum number of beds for private hospitals. For years I have been trying to persuade BUPA to build in London a large hospital of 200 or more beds, but this has always been resisted by the management, mostly on financial grounds. Of the 26 hospitals which BUPA now has in Britain (and the four which are being built) not one has more than 75 beds and many are considerably smaller. Now, I have been converted to believe that smaller private hospitals are probably better than large ones, anyway in London where, for example, I should like to see at some time, perhaps soon, a number of small private hospitals of 50 to 100 beds—one for heart conditions, another of about the same size for lung conditions, and others for general medicine, general surgery, orthopaedics, paediatrics, gynaecology, obstetrics, radiotherapy, psychiatry and so on, each with the most modern equipment and with staff well trained for its particular subject. This would be possible under Clause 12 as it stands, although I agree that one or two larger hospitals might perhaps be useful in big provincial cities.
One reason which is put forward why some private hospitals should be large, with 250 or more beds, is that all diagnostic and treatment facilities could be under one roof. Another is that they should be used for educational purposes, so that they could train medical students and nurses. I understand that the General Nursing Council, for example, will not recognise for nurses' training a hospital with less than 250 beds, or 150 if closely linked with another hospital. I would be willing to leave the training of medical students and nurses to the large NHS teaching hospitals, allowing the private sector to develop its own smaller hospitals, each well-equipped and fully staffed to further its own particular interest or specialty.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to subsection (2) and the subject of consulting rooms. I think I am right in saying that the controlled extensions in subsection (2) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply only to hospitals and nursing homes.
Lord SANDYS: I am obliged to the noble Lord for clarifying the point, but it seems that the provision could apply to a consulting room in a hospital.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I will comment first on the Motion to leave out Clause 12 and, in doing so, I imagine that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would agree that my remarks apply to the Motions to leave out the other clauses. The effect of those Motions collectively would be to remove, clause by clause, the whole of Part III, and noble Lords opposite may repeat the arguments against the inclusion of Part III. They may say that the Government are exceeding their mandate and the terms of the Goodman proposals, but I hope that they are nevertheless prepared to listen to what I feel is a very good case on the part of the Government in respect of Part III. My right honourable friends have been over this ground often in another place, but I should like to go over it myself in your Lordships' House.
The Goodman proposals referred to the gracious Speech last year and recalled that there was to he further consultation with the profession over the regulation of the private sector following the separation of pay beds. To quote the proposals, they went on:
"In the meantime the Government need to be satisfied that developments in the private sector do not significantly endanger the service the NHS gives to its patients and will enter into consultation with the medical and dental professions as to how this can be achieved by voluntary means. The consultations would cover the point as to whether any reserve powers that it proved necessary to take in the legislation might be exercised by the independent Board."
I believe that the crux of the whole matter is—and it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable if we are to have a National Health Service marching side by side with a private sector—the effect of one on the other. At the moment, I think it fair to say that a good deal of attention has been given to what will happen in the private sector, and perhaps we ought now to be looking at what may happen so far as the National Health Service is concerned. Briefly, the Government's reason for bringing forward Part III of the Bill is their need to be satisfied that the service provided by the NHS is not damaged by developments in the private sector. Let us face it, this could happen. I am prepared to believe that there is no one in the

595
private sector who wants consciously to damage the Health Service. We, for our part, certainly do not want to take any action that will, in the real sense, damage the private sector. What we want to see—and let me be quite frank about this—is a healthy private sector, but we want the National Health Service not to be the poor relation. We want the National Health Service to go from strength to strength because—and this has been said here many times and I have never disagreed—there is still much to be done in that Service.
Consultations were held with the professions, and with representatives of the private sector. But they were not able to make any suggestions for a voluntary system of regulation that would meet the Government's requirement. They were invited to make suggestions for a voluntary system of regulation, but they were not able to do so. There was therefore no choice for the Government. If they thought that there was any possibility that future developments in the private sector might be detrimental to the National Health Service, they were bound to take some powers in the Bill. Part III contains the powers that the Government are seeking. There would obviously be no justification in these circumstances for "waiting and seeing before taking the powers. In the same way as people in the private sector want to know how they will be affected and therefore it ought to be in the Bill, the Government want to see quite clearly how they will be affected and to take whatever precautions are necessary to safeguard the National Health Service.
The nature and scope of the powers to be taken can be debated—I think that we should find a measure of common ground between us, but not complete identity—as indeed they have already been debated at great length in another place. It must be clear that if the power to regulate any private sector developments is taken, the extent of the power must be precisely described in the Statute, and it would not be fair to the private sector not to put it down in black and white.
A great deal of thought has been given to the suitable extent of the power. It seemed to the Government necessary to fix the limits of control at a level which would not result in all developments being scrutinised, including those of a size and
596
nature which could not damage the NHS. Equally, the limits had to be capable of bringing in for scrutiny any developments which might damage the NHS. When considering this problem the Government had the advantage of receiving from developers details of schemes for new private hospitals which they were planning to build. At this point I should like to say that obviously I was delighted at the comments and observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley. Unless I misunderstood the noble Lord, his thinking, so far as size is concerned, if nothing else, is more in line with Government thinking.
It was clear that most of the projects, which would provide facilities for acute treatment, would have somewhere between 30 and 60 beds. Two or three would have over 100 beds; and it was such developments, relatively few in number, which seemed to constitute a possible threat to the NHS hospitals in their vicinity, particularly in terms of the number of staff of all kinds whom they might require. After considerable thought, the Government decided that acute hospitals with over 75 beds generally, or over 100 beds in Greater London, should require authorisations from the Board. The notification system has been devised to provide information. The Board requires information about private sector facilities which are to be provided in a given area for two reasons: both for its consideration of proposals for phasing-out pay beds; and for its consideration of applications for authorisation for large acute private hospitals.
It is unclear to me why noble Lords object to Part III—I will not say "object strongly", because it may well be that this Amendment and other Amendments have been put down in order to get some kind of picture of Government thinking. But it is perfectly clear that only a few developments will come within the definition of "controlled premises". Inquiries and experience have shown us that there are not likely to be many applications for more than a hundred beds in Greater London, and certainly not more than 75 outside London.
We are much more likely to see a development of smaller private hospitals both in the country and in London. For each of these few developments, the

597
Board must grant an authorisation unless it is satisfied that the development in question would cause detriment to the National Health Service. Again, when one considers the notification system, it is hard to see why it is objectionable. The notification system confers on the Board absolutely no power of control over notifiable developments. The only sanction connected with it is the establishment of an offence of failing to notify or making a fraudulent notification. There is nothing sinister in this. Obviously the Secretary of State, who is responsible for maintaining a National Health Service, really ought to know what is going on around him. It is as simple as that. All that the Secretary of State wants to know is how many hospitals under the limit are going to be built.
There will be no interference with them, because they have to get planning permission. Once they have planning permission, it is fairly plain sailing. It is merely a notification so that he knows what the development is, in what field it is going to be, whether there are going to be any specialties or what type of hospital it is going to be. There is nothing sinister in this. It seems to me to be a perfectly simple requirement in order that one can know what is going on.
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps I should be comforted by the thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, thinks that we should have nothing at all to worry about in relation to Part III. The fact is that it is a very serious worry to everybody, and I will tell the noble Lord why. I take the point that it will be possible to build a hospital of less than 100 beds in Greater London and of less than 75 outside of London. I thought that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made was a very good one, explaining about the size that he expects private hospitals to be. But one has to remember that the background to Part III of the Bill was in fact the Consultative Document which the Government published, the words of which the noble Lord has repeated tonight to the Committee. Paragraph 10 of the Consultative Document said:
"The second objective of licensing is to ensure that the development of the private sector does not operate to the detriment of patients in the National Health Service. It would not be allowed to make it more difficult to provide a comprehensive National Health Service by
598
absorbing either nationally or more locally any undue proportion of scarce skills"
et cetera.
Perhaps I may explain our worry to the Government. The Government have made up their mind that they are going to separate pay beds from the National Health Service. They have taken a decision about this, and then they have created the separation of the services. Having created the separation of the services, they then say, "We cannot allow the private service to become too good because it would compete with the National Health Service". Of course, they have got themselves into a difficulty, because this is just what the doctors do not like, so they keep saying to us all, "Do not worry at all because we really believe in private medicine and you have nothing to worry about". This is the kind of ideological argument that only those who have got themselves into this absurd position, if this is the basis of the Bill, would ever contemplate legislating upon. But for the Government not to see that there is a worry about Part III I think would be unfortunate. I do not intend to press this Amendment tonight, to take out the whole of Part III of the Bill, although I must say that the temptation is very great. But there is a real worry, and the doctors, I believe, are quite right to be worried. We, at any rate, shall watch carefully what happens in this matter.
Lord HARVINGTON: We are talking about the effect of this Bill, as I understand it, upon the disclaimed hospitals, and I think it is perhaps only right that we should realise the scale of the operation of the disclaimed hospitals. There are about 174 of them, and they provide no less than 11,788 beds. The effect of Part III generally and of this clause in particular is to make the future of these hospitals very difficult indeed. By this I mean that if they want to make the slightest alteration—it is not a question of adding extra beds, even, but if they want to make an additional operating theatre or some addition to their physiotherapy department, or something of that kind—provided they are, in London, over 150 beds and, in the country, over 75, they have to go to the Board in order to get permission. I think that this is a gross encroachment upon the rights of

599
independent hospitals and is quite contrary to the scheme of things which was laid down by Mr. Aneurin Bevan in 1949, when he said that there should be an independent set of hospitals which should provide an opportunity for consultants, for surgeons, for doctors and so forth to exploit their skills outside the National Health scheme.
In doing what they are doing, the Government are over-riding this and are doing something for which they have no mandate from the country. This was not mentioned, so I am reliably informed, in any declaration which was put before the voters at the last Election. I am also told that even Lord Goodman did not recommend in exactly the same way as the Government have brought forward these clauses. So I recommend to your Lordships that we do everything we can to prevent these clauses from coming into force. There is no mandate for them and they are, one might say, directed to the ultimate destruction of private medicine in this country. We should, I think, have nothing to do with them. They are typical of the whole Bill which is conceived in envy out of ignorance. I hope that the Committee will reject them.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I remind the noble Lord that the Government have no interest at all in the private hospitals of under 75 beds outside London or of under 100 beds in London unless it is to increase their size and bring them up to the limit. This is the only concern that the Government have in them. If a 30-bed or 40-bed hospital wants to do something to increase itself to a 40-bed or 50-bed hospital it would be in the same position as most of us; it would have to get planning permission; but there is no interference on the part of the Government.
Lord HARVINGTON: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the situation. My interpretation of what I had been told about the Bill was that all this applied to any hospital of under 150 beds in London and under 75 beds in the country which wished to do any reconstruction of any kind, whether to make more beds or not. If the noble Lord tells me that that is not so, I am very pleased to hear it. I hope it is correct.
Lord AUCKLAND: My only worry about Clause 12 is subsection 1(a) which reads:
"he is authorised in writing by the Board to do so and the works are in accordance with the terms of the authorisation …".
Bearing in mind building costs nowadays and how they rise, and bearing in mind how long authorisation takes, can the noble Lord give an assurance that these authorisations, if approved, will be submitted with all possible speed to save costs on all sides? I think that this is an important point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There would be no intention on the part of the Government in any way to try to hold up matters. As I have tried to say before, we are quite happy to see an effective private medical service. However, there are such things as planning permission and so on. If that can be speeded up, well and good; but that takes time.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Authorisations to construct or extend controlled premises.]:
4.40 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 16, line 4, at end insert—
("(3A) In considering whether or not to grant the authorisation, the Board shall—

(a) give notice of the application to any person likely to he affected by the application;

(b) afford the applicant and every such other person a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Board either in writing, or (if he so requests) at a public hearing, or both;

(c) have regard to any such representations;

(d) give reasons for its decision.").

The noble Baroness said: I can say briefly that the purpose of this Amendment is that when the Board are considering whether or not to grant authorisation, it shall apply to itself the rules of natural justice. This Amendment suggests that there should be notice of the application to any person likely to be affected by the application; that ally applicant can have every reasonable opportunity of making representations; that the Board will have regard to the representations; and of course it will give its reasons. This seems to us something which would be only right and proper. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I submit that this Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill provides for all the matters mentioned in this Amendment to be covered, either by its own provisions, or by virtue of the regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Clause 16. And furthermore, Clause 22(2) requires the Secretary of State to consult the Board and other interested bodies before making regulations under that clause or under Schedule 1. In addition, the fact that the Board will be subject to the Council on Tribunals in its Part III functions means that the Secretary of State must also consult that Council before making procedural regulations for the Board's exercise of its Part III functions.
The Secretary of State intends to produce, and consult the relevant bodies on, regulations which will require the Board, and its Scottish and Welsh Committees, to bring any application for authorisation to the attention of interested parties and to give those people likely to be affected by the regulations a reasonable opportunity to make representations. Clause 16(2) requires the Board not to refuse any application for authorisation without offering the applicant the opportunity of a hearing; and the regulations governing hearings will therefore be bound by that requirement. As your Lordships are of course well aware, it is customary in legislation to provide for such procedural matters as these in regulations rather than in the head legislation.
The final point in the Amendment, a requirement on the Board to give reasons for its decisions, is already covered by virtue of the supervision of the Board in its Part III capacity as a tribunal by the Council on Tribunals. Section 12 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 requires bodies put under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals to give reasons for these decisions. The Board must therefore do this; and in this, as in other procedural matters under Part III, the Council will be supervising the Board's conduct. Therefore we believe that the Amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness YOUNG: This again is not something on which I intend to divide the Committee. I am glad that the noble Baroness feels that it is satisfactory that the Council on Tribunals should give its
602
reasons for its decisions even if the Board are unable to do so. I am not convinced that having a number of these matters in regulations is as satisfactory as having them in the Bill, but bearing in mind the lateness of the hour I will not press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 16, line 8, after ("authorisation") insert ("Provided that no authorisation shall lapse after the controlled works have been begun)").
The noble Baroness said: This is an important matter. The Board, on giving authorisation for hospital development, can give terms as to the duration of the permission. Once the authorisation has been given and the building works commenced, the authorisation should not lapse. There does not seem to be any provision for this matter. This is why we put down this Amendment. I shall be glad to know what the noble Baroness has in reply to that. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Clause 13(4) would enable the Board, if it saw fit, to specify that if the building of the controlled works for which the authorisation was being issued were not started within a stated period, the authorisation would expire. Furthermore, it would permit an authorisation to expire if for some reason—for example, bankruptcy—a company begins work constructing hospital premises and then the works cease permanently. In that case it might well be desirable for the authorisation to expire. Then, if after a time, the developer wanted to go ahead he would have to go back to the Board and ask for a fresh authorisation, to enable him to execute the rest of the work. If the Amendment were made there would be no possibility of an authorisation coming to an end even where a building remained at foundation level for so long that planning permission for the works expired.
An identical Amendment to this was tabled by Opposition Members during Committee stage in another place. They were anxious that an authorisation should not be revocable either when the works had been begun or when they had been completed. But the Amendment was withdrawn when the Ministers agreed to

603
check that there was no ambiguity in the meaning of the provision as drafted. They explained that the Government were not thereby, in putting forward this permissive power, intending to enable an authorisation to be withdrawn at a specified or an unspecified date if the authorised controlled works were either in progress or had been completed. Ministers have, since Committee stage, confirmed with their legal advisers that this is the position. The authorisation permits the execution of works: it is necessarily spent once the works are built, and the question of revocation cannot arise. It could therefore lapse if no works were begun within a stated time, and it could die with works which were abandoned in mid-construction. But it could not be revoked, in respect of the works in question, once they had been started, unless some other condition attached to the authorisation were broken. I trust that your Lordships will be sufficiently reassured by this account of the position following consultations after Committee stage in another place.
The Earl of KINNOULL: One understands that the authorisation can lapse if the works have not started. What I have not quite grasped is on what occasions it can happen. The noble Baroness gave the instance of bankruptcy, but would there, for instance, be any danger, if a building company went into bankruptcy and was picked up by another company, that the authorisation would not be re-issued? Are there grounds other than bankruptcy where it would be revoked half-way through?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, I should have thought that if another company was willing to take on the job, the developers would have no difficulty about carrying on with the works at all.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I cannot quite see, therefore, why it has to be revoked.
Baroness STEDMAN: I cannot, at this time of the morning, think of other reasons why it should be revoked, I will be honest with your Lordships. However, I do not think there is any fear that things will be revoked and not started again. I will look into this and when I
604
am a little more conscious than I am now, I will write to the noble Lord.
Baroness YOUNG: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer. My noble friend has raised an important point and we all have a deep sympathy with the noble Baroness, having these balls bowled at her at this hour of the morning. This is a matter to which we could return on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 16, line 11, at end insert—
("(5) With the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) an applicant may at any time transfer an authorisation to another person.").
The noble Baroness said: Once again, this is an important Amendment, tied in Standing Committee in another place, and guillotined on Report—one of those famous ones we are now discussing for the first time in one of the Houses of Parliament. This is an important matter which very much follows from what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has said on Amendment No. 96—again, that the consent of the Board will not be unreasonably withheld and that an applicant may transfer the authorisation to another person. It covers precisely the kind of case to which my noble friend is referring. It may well be that the noble Baroness has not the answer at her fingertips now. If that is so, I shall quite understand if she prefers to write to me and to my noble friend on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This Amendment seems to the Government unnecessary to make possible the effect which it seems to seek to achieve, and, furthermore, it has unattractive implications. The Board could withdraw an authorisation at the request of the person to whom it had been issued, and could decide whether to issue a new authorisation on the same terms to a second person or company, in respect of the same development, if all the criteria were met. The Government think that this method of dealing with the transfer of authorisations from one person who no longer wants the authorisation, to another who does, would be more in keeping with the spirit of the provisions of Part III of the Bill than would the unmonitored transfer of authorisations from one person to another.

605
During Committee stage in another place there was considerable discussion on whether the Amendment would permit a "black market" in authorisations to develop. The Secretary of State said that a developer who had obtained an authorisation to build a private hospital would be enabled by the Amendment to put the authorisation up to the highest bidder. Nevertheless, the Opposition would not accept this argument and forced a Division on the Amendment. The reason why the Amendment could enable a market in authorisations to develop is that the only grounds on which the Board would be empowered to refuse to grant or to prohibit the transfer of an authorisation are contained in Clause 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Bill; that is, if the works in question would to a significant extent interfere with the performance by the Secretary of State of his duties to provide accommodation and services made under the NHS Acts, or would to a significant extent operate to the disadvantage of NHS patients seeking admission or access to NHS accommodation or services.
The Board would thus not be empowered to prohibit the transfer of an authorisation, if it suspected that it had been sold. It can be envisaged that a developer would obtain an authorisation to develop a large private hospital in somewhere like Central London, knowing that other developers would be less likely to have their hospital building projects authorised because the Board would be bound to take into account his authorisation. In this situation, an unscrupulous developer could offer to sell his authorisation to someone who was genuinely concerned to see the establishment of private hospital facilities in the area. I suspect that it is for similar reasons to these that grants of planning permission cannot be transferred to other persons. The situation is of course hypothetical, but the Amendment would insert a weakness into the Bill, which could be exploited, and in the circumstances it would seem wise not to accept it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: If a developer forms a company and gets authorisation, he will then be at perfect liberty to sell the company because that would not change the name on the authorisation, and by doing so would get right around the very thing which the noble Baroness
606
said the Government wish to avoid. Will the noble Baroness confirm whether that is so?
Baroness STEDMAN: I should have thought that if a company was sold and continued to carry on in the same name they would take over the assets, one of which would presumably be the authorisation to do this.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful for that last reply to my noble friend, and perhaps if there is any doubt about the point the noble Baroness will write to us. I am bound to say that I found that her reply had some rather unpleasant overtones—not from her personally, but from the argument that she was putting forward—because I believe that all this talk about a "black market" in consents seems singularly unrealistic. I think that what the Government are afraid of is that there may be a great deal of private hospital building which will compete with the National Health Service, and that is what they do not like. But this is not a matter which I intend to pursue tonight, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.55 a.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: May I ask for some clarification on the implications of Clause 13 taken together with Clause 12 before it stands part of the Bill? It deals with,
"Authorisations to construct or extend controlled premises".
I should like the Committee to think about the health district as such. In that health district is a small acute hospital of 60 beds, outside London, which does not therefore fall under this authorisation. Some distance away in the same district is an obstetric or maternity unit of 30 beds. The acute hospital decides to take over the maternity unit, thereby creating under the same ownership a unit, although not on the same premises, of 90 beds.
I want to know whether that action has to be preceded by an application for authorisation despite the fact that it does not add a single bed to the private sector within that district. Subject to the answer to that question, what is the position if,

607
at a later date, having then created a unit under the same ownership of 90 beds—I am assuming they would not have to ask for authorisation because they are not increasing beds—it is found uneconomical to run two units separately and it is decided to redevelop on the site of the acute hospital and move the maternity unit over there? Would it necessitate having to ask for authorisation? The point is that again not a single extra bed would be added to the private sector. It is important to make this point clear before we decide on whether the clause stand part.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am open to receive some hurried advice from the Box if I am wrong. I should have thought that, if they were two separate hospitals, one with 60 and the other with 30 beds, one would be all right. If one is to develop on the site and increase either the 60 or the 30 bed hospital to over 75 in total, or over 100 in Greater London, it would then constitute an extension of that one even though the other was closed in order to do it. Yes. I am getting nods.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: That strikes me as being an odd answer in many ways, because that would mean one would be perfectly free to amalgamate under one group any number of small hospitals. But the moment you try to put them together, irrespective of the fact that no more extra beds were added, one comes under the authorisation. Am I to understand that you could amalgamate within a group without asking for authorisation?
Baroness STEDMAN: If you have separate hospitals as described in the original question, you are all right because they are classed as separate hospitals. But once you start to put them together under one roof, you start to run into trouble.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Notice of notifiable works]:
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 16, line 15, leave out ("or giving to it a notice in the prescribed form") and insert ("sending a copy thereof to the Board").
The noble Viscount said: With the permission of the Committee, at this late hour may I speak to Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 116 and 117? I shall try to be as quick as I can over this Amendment. It is a tidying-up operation on the first part which omits "giving to it a notice in the prescribed form" and inserts "sending a copy thereof to the Board". In my view, "sending a copy thereof to the Board" is much better English. Surely the sending of a copy of planning permission can be used as notification to the Board.
Furthermore, my noble friends and I cannot understand why so many details have to be given to the Board when the Board is notified and we should be grateful for further information. When you notify the Board you will not have made your planning application to the local authority to build, and in the early stages I should not have thought that one needed to give all of these details. If the noble Baroness could further describe the procedure to us, we should be only too delighted to listen to the information given. I beg to move.
5.1 a.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure that the Committee is very grateful to the noble Viscount for suggesting that we take such a batch of Amendments in one go. They certainly do hang together. The effect of these Amendments, taken together, would be to require that an applicant for planning permission for notifiable works must send to the Board a copy of the application for planning permission, thus constituting a notification procedure by means of the copying of documents used for planning permission purposes. They would remove from the Bill the present requirement that a separate notice containing prescribed information about notifiable works should be submitted to the Board. They would accordingly substitute the term "notification" for "notice" where it occurs in the Bill and would in addition remove the penalty in Clause 18(2) for failing to furnish, or furnishing false information in, a notice under Clause 14.
I think there may be some misunderstanding of the purpose of the notification system set out in Clause 14 of the Bill.

609
The system is intended to provide the Health Services Board and the Secretary of State with a body of information about the extent and nature of facilities in Great Britain for the private practice of medicine. This information will be essential to the Board if it is to carry out properly its functions under Parts II and HI of the Bill effectively.
Under Part II of the Bill, when the Board is considering whether pay beds should be phased out from particular hospitals it will be required to consider whether sufficient accommodation and facilities are reasonably available in the private sector in the areas served by those hospitals. I think your Lordships will accept that the Board will not be able to perform this task effectively unless it has access to comprehensive and accurate information about the individual developments in the private sector which the authorisation and notification procedure will provide. Under Part III of the Bill, when the Board meets to consider applications for authorisations it will need to consider whether the proposed developments would significantly interfere with the Secretary of State's duties under the NHS or operate significantly to the disadvantage of NHS patients. Clearly if the Board is to make sound judgments on these matters it is essential for it to have available to it information about the private sector environment in which the proposed developments will operate.
These Amendments were also tabled by Opposition Members when the Bill was debated in Standing Committee in another place. The Minister of State said that Ministers had initially been receptive to the proposal that copies of planning applications should be submitted to the Board as notices under Clause 14, but he went on to say:
"The planning system, we are advised, cannot provide from the planning documents the details which we think the Health Services Board should have. In a planning application comprehensive details are required of external appearance, plan and elevation of the building, and information about approach roads and connections with external services. However, an application for planning permission for a private hospital, for example, would not necessarily, or even usually, contain details of numbers of rooms or beds or of facilities proposed to be offered. It is likely, therefore, that it would be of no help to the Board to receive copies of planning applications".
This advice came direct from the Department of the Environment, whose Secretary
610
of State is responsible for the planning system. A notification system based on planning documents, though a good idea in theory, would in practice be of little use to the Board. If we are to give the Board duties under the Bill then we must provide it with the means to carry out those duties. The notification system in Clause 14 is part of those means and the Bill would be seriously weakened if these Amendments were accepted.
The provisions to prescribe the information to be contained in notices and the penalties for non-compliance with the requirements of the clause are essential features of the notification system. The prescription of information will be of great help both to developers and the Board. The developers will need to fill in one form which will state quite clearly the information which will be required—and I can give your Lordships an assurance that the information will be strictly related to the purposes of the clause and will include nothing extraneous—and the Board will get its information in a standard form. This will obviate any unnecessary correspondence between the Board and the developers. On the penalty the Minister of State explained in Standing Committee in another place that:
"Since the Board will not be required in the case of notifications to exercise judgment or make any decision other than whether or not the notification is given in the prescribed form and conveys the prescribed information, it is necessary for there to be some sanction against the maker of a fraudulent notification".
I apologise for the lengthy explanation, but I hope it explains why the Government themselves were weaned away from the idea that planning permission papers might be used to do a double duty and I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendments.
The Earl of KINNOULL: The noble Baroness has given a very full explanation for which I am sure the whole Committee will be grateful, but there are just two points which I should like to raise. Without having the temerity to question what the Department of the Environment has told her about the details of the full planning application, I am surprised that, in the case of the development of a hospital, all they are interested in is the elevational treatment and the like, and the drainage and the access. I should have thought that when an architect was

611
instructed to design a hospital he would go into enormous detail. Frankly, I should fear that there would be a terrible amount of duplication and delays in such a development.
The second thing I wish to ask the noble Baroness—and here I should perhaps understand, but I am afraid I do not—is this. If the specification is agreed with the planning authority, which I assume it must he in a planning consent—and I am speaking, of course, of a full planning application—can the authority then alter that specification because it does not conform to some of their norms?
I am particularly anxious about that because one could have a situation where a developer in all honesty designs, through his architect, what one might term a viable unit on cost and design, and it would be undesirable if he were to get planning permission for that and then applied through the authorisation procedure, only to find that he has to put in a whole host more of expensive equipment, making the whole thing uneconomic. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give an assurance on that, and if that should come about what would be the fall-back position of the developer? Would he have an appeal procedure to follow on that point?
Baroness STEDMAN: I am advised that the authorisation has to be obtained before the application for planning permission is made. That probably clears up the last point. With regard to the advice from the Secretary of State for the Environment, far be it from me to take my chief to task on this matter. I will certainly make more inquiries about this for the noble Earl, as to exactly what we expect in the way of planning details, what we would ask, and the sort of things we would have. I will write to the noble Earl if that would satisfy him at the moment.
Viscount LONG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for getting through her brief so quickly at this time of the morning. For my part, I would like to read in Hansard tomorrow—or perhaps it is today—the whole text of what the noble Baroness has said. I share the worry of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull with regard to planning
612
details, costings and all the developer's problems, and so on. I should like to read what the noble Baroness said because there is a great deal still to say on it, but at this late hour I will be much kinder to the Committee if I withdraw the Amendment and sit down. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I call Amendment No. 107. I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 107 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 108.
5.12 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 9, leave out from ("means") to end of line 12 and insert ("premises which would be controlled premises but for the fact that the number of beds which they provide or will provide is smaller than that specified in section 12 (2) above;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a particular definition relating to hospital premises. Unfortunately, we believe the Government have drawn the provision very much too widely. The proposal in the Amendment as set out on the Marshalled List is to confine it to another definition which will be found on page 14, under Clause 12(2)—"controlled premises". In examining the hospital premises definition, we are here concerned with the definition of a nursing home containing approximately 75 to 100 beds. With the other definition of controlled premises, we are talking about a hospital with probably over 100 beds. It is a technicality; let us leave it at that. In the nursing home definition, that is, hospital premises to which the Amendment refers, we are considering beds which relate to surgical, medical and dental premises. We believe that the definition is so wide it would even include a consulting room and, taken to its logical conclusion, it could conceivably consist of a specially constructed bedroom produced for an individual patient.
Therefore, we believe it would be very much better to import the terms used in the very much tighter definition of "controlled premises" at Clause 12(2). We believe this would be a better and a narrower definition. I recall the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on

613
"Clause 12 stand part", when he said:
"only a few premises will come within the definition of 'controlled premises'".
If we are to have definitions at all, let them he clear and if possible narrow, so that they confine the problem within sharp limits. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The purpose of the notification system (as was the purpose of the certification system which it superseded) is to ensure that the Board receives information about the rate and scale and nature of developments in the private sector. During Committee stage debate in another place on these Amendments the Opposition objected strongly to the breadth of the definition of "hospital premises", in the Bill as drafted. The Minister of State was pressed to say which classes of premises the Government intended to prescribe as "hospital premises" for the purposes of the notification system. There was a lengthy debate at the end of which the Minister said that the definition would cover inpatient facilities for surgery and the treatment of acute medical conditions, day care facilities for the treatment of acute medical conditions, diagnostic pathology, radiology and any other pre-operative services, and post-operative care facilities. The Minister also said that he hoped to be able to reach agreement with the profession on the wording of a definition of "hospital premises" for use in regulations. Accordingly, the profession and the Independent Hospital Group have been sent the following definition of "hospital premises" for use in the regulations to be made prescribing the classes of premises: but we have not yet had any indication of whether they find it acceptable:
"Hospital premises' means premises used, or to be used, for the reception of patients (whether resident or non-resident) in which there are, or are to be, facilities for the provision of all or any of the following services, namely:

(a) the carrying out of surgical procedures including day surgery, other than dental surgery and orthodontics carried out at premises referred to at (e)(6) below;

(b) post-operative care required as a result of the surgical procedures referred to in subparagraph (a) above;

(c) obstetrics;

(d) radiotherapy;

(e) any other services for the diagnosis or treatment of illness;

614
but does not include—

(1) any hospital provided by the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Acts;

(2) any accommodation provided by a local authority and used as a hospital by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Acts;

(3) any other premises managed by a Government Department or provided by a local authority;

(4) any sanatorium provided by a school or other educational establishment;

(5) any first-aid room maintained at, or in conjunction with, a factory within the meaning of Section 175 of the Factories Act 1961 or at, or in conjunction with, premises to which the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 applies;

(6) any premises used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of consultation by a medical or dental practitioner;

(7) any disabled persons' or old persons' home registered under Section 37 of the National Assistance Act 1948;

(8) any residential home for mentally disordered patients registered under Section 19 of the Mental Health Act 1959;

(9) any residential establishment registered under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;

(10) any premises used for terminal care or long-term care of the elderly;

(11) controlled premises within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Health Services Act 1976."

Subject to the views of the professions and the Independent Hospital Group, we intend to consult the Health Services Board about a draft regulation incorporating this definition.
Lord SANDYS: Despite the lengthy and full reply, for which the Committee will be grateful, I think in the circumstances the method the Government have adopted is mistaken. We believe that rather than a method of definition by exclusion, it would be better to do it our way, by including particular categories. We therefore favour both the Amendment and the definition of "controlled premises". We believe that the Bill would be improved by this Amendment, on which I would wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.20 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Non-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pender, L.

Barrington, V.

Harvington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller].

Kinnoull, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Effingham, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Gowrie, E.

Northesk, E.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Oram, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kaldor, L

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.25 a.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I should like an assurance about the question of planning applications. Area Health Authorities now have a substantial representation of local authority members. I am aware that authorisation must be obtained from the Board before planning permission is applied for, but if those members of the local authority who are members of the Area Health Authority are also members of the planning authority, they may inadvertently, almost sub-consciously, be trying to do the Board's job all over again instead of looking at the planning permission as a pure planning permission. I am not saying that they would deliberately do that, but one cannot help but be involved if one is a member of the authority. I am, therefore, wondering whether the Government have any proposals for dividing those duties within the local authority so that this clash of interest would not exist on
616
the planning authority for the purposes of granting a planning application.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would reply to a question. Perhaps I might remark, first, that the Chamber appears to have become rather colder in the last few hours despite all the hot air that has been swirling around. When an application is made to the Board for authorisation prior to a planning application, is there a time-scale within which the applicant will receive an answer? It is, I think, a very important part of planning that time-scales are laid down, particularly in times of high inflation and rapidly rising building costs. I cannot find a time-scale anywhere in the Bill, but perhaps the noble Baroness can advise us.
Baroness STEDMAN: I shall reply to the noble Earl first. He was good enough to tell me that he intended to ask this question. I have taken advice about it and, up to this point of time, no time-scale has been laid down. However, one would hope that the Board would deal promptly with any application that they received.

617
So far as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is concerned, if I were a local authority member on an area health authority or on the planning committee, I should feel constrained to say that I could not sit on that sort of application. I should have some regard to the recent reports on conduct in public life, though there is nothing binding in them. But if the members sat in judgment on the application, I should have thought that, if they were not satisfied with the result they got on their planning, they would, like any other ordinary individual, have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Can the noble Baroness advise me? She said that there was no time-scale: would she agree that, if it is considered after something like 30 years under planning legislation that there should be a time-scale, a time-scale should be written into the present Bill, and it should not be left to the best endeavours of the local board? I feel that this is a matter of some importance and I hope that the noble Baroness will consider it before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord AUCKLAND: May I reinforce what my noble friend has said because I think that I was the first to initiate this point? One does not want to be unreasonable in the small hours of the morning, but this is a very important point. The noble Baroness has said that the matter can go to appeal: I am no lawyer, but there is the question; if there is a delay, of who pays the costs of the appeal. If it is to go to appeal through unnecessary delay—and I am not suggesting that there will be more than a handful of cases—we are on a very new type of legislation now. We have had many bits of planning legislation, but this is something that is fundamental, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can consult her right honourable friend and see whether some kind of minimum time-scale can be considered.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, I should certainly be willing to do that. I think that there might be problems; we would hope that the applications will he dealt with quickly. We shall have to ask my right honourable friend what administrative means he would have of giving
618
advice to speed them up or whether it might be better to write in a time-scale at a future stage of the Bill.
So far as the question of costs of appeal is concerned, the person making the appeal has to meet his costs and those can be considerable. I hope, as I said, that there will not be cause for complaint that local authority members were wearing two hats and voting for something in one place and in another place voting to stop it. I would hope that they would be sensible members of local authorities and would not sit on those particular items when they came up. However, I think that it is something that we shall have to watch with care, and, if necessary, take some action about it in the future.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Regulations in connection with provisions of Part III.]:
5.35 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 18, line 33, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 111 and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 139 at the same time, because Amendment No. 111 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 139. On these two Amendments we return to a point made on the very first Amendment to the Bill, concerning the quorum of the Board. This is an extremely important constitutional point, and the Committee will see that under Clause 16(1)(d) the quorum and the procedure of the Board are matters about which the Secretary of State is to make regulations. We on this side of the Committee feel that it is not good enough to leave it to the Secretary of State to make regulations. As Members of the Committee will be aware, under Schedule 1 the Board is so constructed that there should be a chairman and four other members, and we believe that the quorum of the Board ought to be five members, or their deputies. It would be completely unsatisfactory that two members of the Board could constitute a quorum, or that even three members could.
The point of the Amendments must be very clear. We discussed these matters at

619
considerable length on the first Amendment which we put down. In order to ensure that the Board should operate fairly and independently it is essential that the matter of the quorum should be laid down in the Bill, and in our opinion it is essential also that the quorum should be the whole Board.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of Amendment No. 111 would be to remove from the Bill the power permitting the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for the quorum and procedure of the Board in relation to applications for authorisations. The effect of Amendment No. 139 would be to require that the quorum of the Board, when it takes any final decision relating to its functions under Part II and (subject to regulations made under Clause 16) Part III of the Bill, shall be five, including deputies.
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Bill requires the Secretary of State to provide, by regulations, for the appointment of a deputy chairman and deputy members of the Board. The Secretary of State intends to consult the Board and the other interested bodies referred to in Clause 22(2) of the Bill on the basis of regulations providing that he should appoint a deputy chairman or member where the holder of an office is likely to be ill or otherwise unable to perform his duties for a period, perhaps for three or four weeks. This regulation would mean that the Board would have deputies available to it to cover lengthy absences amongst its members. But regulations made under Clause 16 would not lay down what the quorum of the Board should be when it meets to perform any of its functions under Parts II and III of the Bill. The Goodman proposals said that the Board would be independent and the Government have sought to provide in the Bill, so far as is possible, that its independence is not hedged about.
The Government consider that the quorum is something which should rightly, and can safely, be left to the Board to decide. We expect its chairmen and members to be people of standing and responsibility, who would act responsibly in drawing up their own procedural arrangements, and in particular would be well aware of the implications in the outcome of important discussions and
620
decisions of the absence of one or more members from meetings. I should certainly imagine that the kind of arrangements made would reflect such things as, for example, the need to take account of the nature of the agenda in deciding on the quorum, and the possibility of deferring some types of decisions until the full balanced membership was present.
In the Government's view it would be quite wrong—and I ask your Lordships really to consider this—to attempt to tie the Board's hands in advance by preempting their decisions on their own procedure in relation to their functions under Part II. The purpose of subsection (1)(d) of Clause 16 is not to put provisos on the Board's independence of action but to set down for the benefit of applicants for authorisations and persons or bodies who may consider they have an interest in an application what the Board's procedures will be. This information will provide an indication of how much time will be available to prepare evidence, and so on. The Board will of course be consulted about regulations made under this provision. I hope the noble Baroness will feel that the Board ought to have the right to determine its own procedures, and that it is not necessary to pursue this Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I am glad to hear that the noble Lord thinks that this is an important point but, of course, as we discovered when we were discussing Amendment No. 1, it is perfectly possible, if the Bill does not say so, for there to be a very long gap in the replacement of members of the Board if somebody becomes ill or for some reason or other has to resign. The Board could then be reduced to four members, and its very delicate balance could be upset. When we were arguing whether or not the Board ought to consist of five or seven members, the point was made time and again that it was the balance of the Board that was all-important. If the balance of the Board is all-important, then it is equally important that the quorum should be five, otherwise, of course, when the Board meets to take these important decisions it will not in fact have this delicate balance which it is the Government's intention that it should have.
I do not believe that we would be tying the Board's hand. It will be

621
perfectly able, when it is set up, to make all these decisions. What could in fact happen is that there could be a considerable amount of wrangling on the Board as to what should be the quorum. I think it would be to the satisfaction of the consultants and the others who are going to take part in the deliberations of the Board that it should be laid down in the Bill what the quorum is to be; and, of course, this important point about deputies. I feel I cannot withdraw this Amendment, so I wish to press this matter.
5.42 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 19, line 26, leave out ("including") and insert ("excluding").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to regulation-making powers which the Secretary of State is granted by the Bill. Your Lordships always pause when granting the Secretary of State regulation-making powers, and in this particular instance very wide powers are conferred under Clause 16(4). The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude the powers of entry and inspection. We believe that the Secretary of State may, under this permissive power, have rights of appointment, but to include powers of entry and inspection such as the Secretary of State considers necessary might, indeed, if the Government take it to its logical conclusion, include powers of arrest and summary conviction. This subject has been investigated in another place, and was the subject of a tied vote in Standing Committee. It was also the subject of an article in the Sunday Telegraph, and has been thought about and considered as a matter of public importance. We on this side of the Committee believe that your Lordships would be performing a public duty by striking from the Bill the powers of entry and inspection. I beg to move.
Lord HARVINGTON: I think that we have now arrived in the realms of the "snoopers' charters". I wonder whether the noble Lord realises that already in London there are three different sets of inspectors entering these hospitals with the rights which are included here, namely, powers of entry, and that in the country there are two sets. There arc three here
622
because the Greater London Council has these powers and exercises them, the borough councils have these powers and exercise them, and the regional board—or whatever one must call them now—has these powers and exercises them. The secretaries of these hospitals spend a good deal of their time entertaining these ladies and gentlemen who come round to inspect their hospitals. Now it is proposed to introduce a fourth group of inspectors. If they wished to have this clause I think that the Government ought to have done something to curtail the powers of the other inspectors; otherwise the hospital management has nothing else to do but to take people round to see whether their hospitals are being run properly, hygienically and correctly. I think that this ought to be noted by the Committee and I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandys that subsection (4) ought to be struck from the Bill.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support this Amendment. My noble friend has already mentioned that there are three other bodies which inspect hospitals. What on earth is the purpose of yet another inspector? Could the Minister define his duties and responsibilities—which will be duplicated by the other bodies?
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I ask what happens if the different inspectors give different advice?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not very good at answering hypothetical questions.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I think that perhaps it is not hypothetical.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The answer is that these inspectors would be responsible for examining the facilities that were being offered and the general provision of facilities. I think that their particular function would be rather different from that of the other inspectors to which the noble Lord made reference. I should have thought that this was something that the private sector would have welcomed. Wherever you have an institution of any kind that is dealing with some sort of medical situation it is very desirable that there should be inspection for the benefit of everybody concerned.

623
The effect of Amendment No. 112 would be to provide that the powers of inspectors appointed for the purposes of Part III of the Bill, except so far as it relates to notifiable works, should exclude powers of entry and inspection. The effect of Amendment No. 114 would be to require that if regulations are made under Clause 16(4) conferring powers of entry on inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State, those powers of entry shall only be exercisable on a written warrant issued, on the receipt of information given on oath by an officer of the Board, by a circuit Judge in England or Wales, or a Sheriff in Scotland.
In moving these two Amendments, the Opposition have returned to a matter which was discussed at length in Committee in another place, and on which the Government believe that they improved the Bill, by carrying several Amendments. There was no fundamental disagreement that the Board's activities and the purposes of this Part of the Bill required the support of a small inspectorate. These Amendments seek to restrict its scope, not to remove the provision. The Committee agreed with a Government Amendment to secure that the inspectors would act under the direction of the Board, although appointed by the Secretary of State under regulations for which he is accountable to Parliament. They accepted also, another Government Amendment which provides for regulations to be made after consultation with bodies likely to be substantially affected; that is now written into Clause 22. And it was also a Government Amendment that excluded from the purposes for which an inspector could be used, the provisions for notifying the smaller hospital developments.
The Opposition continue however to press these two Amendments. The first, which would deny inspectors any right of entry on to premises, would in the Government's view make the provisions unworkable. It is not, as my right honourable friend made clear in Committee, an inspection of private hospitals as such. That is already provided for by the inspection set up under the nursing homes legislation. But an inspector without a right to look at the premises in respect of which works involving the authorisation provisions are taking place or are thought to have taken place, would
624
be unable effectively to support the Board. So he has a specific function. The second Opposition Amendment concerns how that power should be exercised, and proposes a judge's or sheriff's warrant.
This Amendment seeks to impose on the powers of entry conferred on inspectors by regulations under Clause 16 the same restrictions as the Government recently undertook to impose on the issue of search warrants to Inland Revenue inspectors under the Finance Act. However, it would be quite inappropriate for the same restrictions to be imposed on the powers of these inspectors, for the circumstances are entirely different.
There are at present various powers of entry, which are not subject to any check by the courts. Examples are the extensive powers conferred by the weights and measures legislation and—more relevantly—the powers conferred by the Nursing Homes Act 1975 in relation to mental nursing homes, and by regulations made under that Act in relation to nursing homes. In these examples, the powers are of entry to business premises (although of course either a shop or a nursing home could also, incidentally, be the home of the owner), and the inspection which is allowed to be carried out concerns the commercial or professional activities carried on there.
In all these cases, inspections are carried out often, and in the first example, may form the major part of the duties of the inspector concerned. In our view, the activities of inspectors empowered to act under Part III of the Health Services Bill, and on whom powers of entry may be conferred by regulations under Clause 16(3), will be of a similar kind. It could be an intolerable and impractical source of delay and an impediment to the proper carrying out of their responsibilities to require such inspectors to obtain a warrant for every use of their powers of entry. These powers can by no stretch of the imagination be considered as reserve powers: they would be used positively.
However, in general where powers of entry of which there are a very large number, are subject to the issue of a warrant, this is conventionally done by a magistrate. When it is considered necessary for a warrant to be issued it has always been deemed appropriate for this to be done by a magistrate. The

625
case of the Inland Revenue inspectors' powers is the only exception of which we know. In the Government's view, there is absolutely no case for creating a burden for the Judiciary of the proportions which this Amendment would create. The entry powers under this Bill would not be reserve powers. They would be often used, and would concern premises for which an authorisation would be required. Inspectors would be inspecting business or professional premises, and in no circumstances would they have powers to enter people's homes or inspect their personal papers. Both the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office are very strongly opposed to the intention of this Amendment. They were opposed, but in vain, to the giving of a similar concession on the Finance Bill, and the powers of entry in question there were very much more important—that is, the power to go into a private individual's house and search through his personal financial records. Bearing in mind that the function is to deal with authorisations and to see that the Health Service Board has been properly notified, I should have thought it was quite reasonable and quite acceptable.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Referring to the question of duplication of inspections, one is not against inspections but one is against having another inspector to call at the premises when a perfectly good inspector is already doing the work. The noble Lord gave a very full reply, for which we are grateful, but I should like to raise one point. I imagine that the Board's inspector will cover the works as they are proceeding and the works after completion: in other words, they will have perhaps a six-monthly or annual inspection. While the works are proceeding perhaps it will be the district surveyor who will be involved. He is technically proficient in seeing that the works of the specification and of planning permission are observed. Frankly, there is no necessity at all, in my view, for another inspector to come in and look at the works as they are proceeding. Once the works are completed and the hospital is in use, surely the inspector from the regional board would then inspect the hospital and ensure that all the facilities are in proper use. I should like to ask the noble Lord: what sort of inspector are we talking about—a building surveyor inspector
626
or a technical hospital inspector?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We are talking about an inspector who will be concerned with inspecting the works of development or extension with which the Board are concerned in the process of authorisation and the extent of facilities to see that they correspond with those items for which authorisation was given. For the Board to know this, they must put somebody in over whom they can exercise some jurisdiction so that they can report back to the Board. I do not see how one can use an inspector of some other Department or some other concern for purposes which are similar but not the same. For the purposes of authorisation, the Board must have its own inspector so that there can be a clear understanding as to what the works, the development and the extension are going to be and whether the facilities are as set down. I think that must be done by the Board through its own inspector.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I ask what qualifications those inspectors are likely to have?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Off hand, I could not tell the noble Baroness. I should have thought that to be able to inspect development and extension would require some professional knowledge, but the actual qualifications I just do not know.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I ask again a question I asked before? If there are several inspectors with the same type of qualifications looking at the same work, and they disagree—I have been an inspector and I know such a thing is perfectly possible—what would be the result? They may hold differing views, which may be well held, but who is to take precedence? Is it to be the Area Board, the Area Health Authority or the surveyor? Who takes precedence if they give varying advice?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There will not be several inspectors doing the same thing. What I was at some pains to point out was that the Board would have an inspector who would go around to ensure that the works of development and extension corresponded with the authorisation which the applicant was

627
seeking. That authorisation having been given, he would go around to see that the conditions laid down in it and the authority for doing certain things were being kept to. That will be the function of the Board's inspector. It will not be anybody else's function. Assuming that there is another inspector, or there are two other inspectors, who are going along to make certain decisions, the Board will make its decision on the report of its own inspector. It does not have to consider the views, if any, of any other person.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I do not want the noble Lord to reply on this point now, but perhaps he will consider it. What he has said is that the inspector will cover what the district surveyor covers. It is quite possible for the Board to ask the district surveyor to check the various points under the Board's authorisation. I do not see any practical difficulty. He is a qualified man and he could submit his report to the local authority, with a copy to the Board. I do not see why there has to be another man, simply because he comes under the direction of the Board. I do not ask for an answer now, but will the noble Lord consider that before the next stage?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes.
Lord SANDYS: I am very grateful to my three noble friends who have all put very strong arguments in favour of the Amendments. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, because his suggestion about the district surveyor acting on an agency basis for the Board seems both practical and elementary in the situation with which we are confronted. I do not believe that it would be the wish of the Committee to grant to the Secretary of State regulation-making powers to anything like the extent that the Government seek. If one considers the type of powers of entry which were granted under the Defence of the Realm Act or similar provisions, those were given in very exceptional circumstances. Also, the rights conferred on the civil authorities in Northern Ireland at the present moment are very restricted. I really believe that we should be departing from a very well recognised precedent if we permitted this to be written into the Bill, so I should like to press Amendment No. 112.
6.3 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 112) shall be agreed to?
Their Lorships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 38.
resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly
6.11 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("the Secretary of State considers") and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which is very closely associated with the previous Amendment although not strictly consequential upon it, scarcely needs to be promoted by a long speech. However, I should like to say that the Amendment was the subject of a further tied vote in another place. Also it confers upon the Secretary of State an unprecedented degree of delegated power. This we believe to be as undesirable as the situation which I have described over the delegation of power to make regulations. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I propose to take this Amendment briefly. The Amendment would not change the progress of arriving at a decision but it would paint a false picture by implying that a judgment is not necessary. There are adequate safeguards in the Bill against a Secretary of State arriving at a biased or simply incorrect decision when he considers what powers should be given to the inspectors. Clause 22(2) of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the Board and other interested parties before making regulations confirming powers on inspectors. His decision will therefore not be based solely on his own consideration but also on that of other people who will be fully conversant with the scope and purposes of Part III of the Bill. May I suggest that this Amendment is not necessary.
Lord SANDYS: Despite the fact that the noble Lord suggests that the Secretary of State will be acting upon advice, the words written into the Bill are those which matter and I believe they should be struck out. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will express its opinion. I seek to press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed t o.
Clause 17 [Appeals]:
6.14 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 20, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
The noble Baroness said: It is probably extremely unwise of me at any time to attempt to discuss a point of law with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Certainly it is foolhardy at 6.15 in the morning, having been up all night. I am doing so only because my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone (who, unlike some of us, has wisely gone home to bed) very much regrets that he is unable to speak to the Amendment.
If I have understood the point correctly, Clause 17 is concerned with appeals. It describes the circumstances in which an appeal can be made, and I quite appreciate, of course, that the appeal must be on a question of law. The appeal will be in connection with the grant or refusal of an authorisation for a private hospital. The clause makes it clear that an appeal is not heard by the divisional court but is heard only by a single judge, and in this way I believe it is different from other appeals. Indeed, there is no appeal to the Court of Appeal and therefore there can be no appeal through that, by leave, to the Appeal Court and the House of Lords.
As is only too apparent to the Committee, I am not a judge, but I believe this to be unprecedented, and it is a matter of great concern because a single judge could come to one decision in one place and another judge could come to another decision in another place and therefore there would not be similarity of treatment. As I understand that the Bill applies not only to England and Wales but to Scotland as well, one decision could be reached in Scotland and another decision in England and Wales. If my understanding is correct, some of these decisions could become precedents for other cases and there could be a situation which could be not only apparently unfair but, I should have thought, confusing to the appellants in this circumstance.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able

631
to explain the situation to the Committee, and why the Government have felt that it was right to include it in the Bill, because I am bound to say that on this side of the Committee we are very concerned about this provision, which at any rate on the face of it appears to be completely unfair. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): The noble Baroness has correctly stated the question which falls for decision and it really turns on a matter of balance. The proposal in the Bill is that there should be a right of appeal from the Board to a judge of the High Court. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow appeals to go from the Board in the ordinary way to the High Court—and in the ordinary course I agree that would be a divisional court—and then make their way, depending upon the resources and energy of the person concerned, to the Court of Appeal and then ultimately to your Lordships sitting judicially.
In my view this Amendment is not necessary and in certain circumstances it could well be undesirable. As the noble Baroness has said, the Bill as it is now drafted incorporates in subsection (7) a provision for finality for appeals, and that the decision of the High Court judge should be final. The circumstances in which a hearing to the High Court judge would take place would be on a point of law. If one of the parties to the proceedings thought that there was an error of law, there would be a right to go to the High Court judge, and once that stage had been reached and the High Court judge had given his decision the matter should be treated as settled.
In my view, and in the view of the Government, the range of points of law that could arise is extremely limited. We do not see the possibility of there being many occasions when a point of law would be likely to arise. The Chairman of the Board, after all, will be a lawyer of standing. I do not know at this moment who he will be, but it is certain that he will be a lawyer of standing, and I would expect that he would be of the status of Queen's Counsel, so there would be a lawyer presiding over the proceedings of the Board. If he errs, there is the
632
machinery provided by the Bill for the appeal to the High Court judge.
So far as we can foresee, if there were points of law, they are not likely to be points of great complexity or technicality as to whether there should be an authorisation for a private hospital development. We are not enmeshed in complex commercial or other difficult areas of the law. As I said at the beginning of my submissions, in our view this is a matter of balance, and we think the balance is right in the way that it is provided for in the Bill. To provide for further avenues of appeal could be expensive and could be time-wasting.
In cases where the original appeal was brought by a party to the hearing other than the private hospital developer, it might mean inordinate and unfair delay for the developer himself, and might frustrate an important private hospital development where there was a real need for it. So having given the matter the fullest consideration, we have come to the conclusion that what is proposed is right. The Council on Tribunals have considered this matter, and as we know, they have the power to intervene. They have considered this point and have not objected to this provision for finality.
The noble Baroness said that there is no precedent for this, but there is, in fact, a precedent for just this in one of the pieces of legislation of the previous Administration, which I am sure will give the noble Baroness great comfort and assurance. That is in a provision in the Social Security Act 1973 in a highly complex field of pensions where the possibility of difficult points of law coming up would be likely to be rather more than in what would largely be the factual field. The issues before the Board would be issues of fact, and would not raise complex issues of law. Having given the matter, I hope, not a dogmatic consideration, the view I have come to is that what is proposed is sensible in the circumstances with which this Board will have to deal.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Could I briefly ask the noble and learned Lord a question? He gave my noble friend a grain of comfort in saying that this was not a precedent. Can he give me a grain

633
of guidance? Under this appeal procedure, which is only on a point of law, there is no appeal at all against the decision of the Board.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Not on fact.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Would the noble and learned Lord agree that it is very unusual for a Government setting up a board—particularly when, in a way, it is issuing a licence to build a hospital—not to have some procedure whereby the appellant could appeal to the Secretary of State?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure there are precedents similar to those confining the right of appeal to questions of law. There are many precedents for that; there is nothing new in this. The point is, while the right of appeal is important, there must be a moment of finality otherwise things go on and on. This is a field where you have a Board presided over by a lawyer of standing, and I do not think that a multiplicity of proceedings is a very good thing. It is very important that you should have a competent Board inspiring confidence in the parties to determine the matter. But there are several precedents for not allowing an appeal on findings of fact in this sort of domain. As I say, there is an actual precedent imposing a finality of appeal on a single judge. This is also the case in regard to a judge of the Court of Session.
Of course, I do not exclude the possibility that there may be differing decisions on a point of law between one judge and another. There are, after all, differing decisions as between one court and another and even as between one judge and another in the Court of Appeal, although it is the case that a majority determines the law. On the whole, given the kind of problems that are likely to come up before the Board, what is proposed seems to me to be reasonable in the circumstances. If an alternative was proposed, it could be quite devastating to a hospital developer who might have been facing the resistance, say, of a union concerned; I do not know who it might be. For the matter to face an endless future of appeal right up to the House of Lords would be wasteful and unnecessary.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Could I ask the noble and learned Lord whether this applies to the Scottish Committee? Would the Scottish judge be a Court of Session judge?
The Lord CHANCELLOR: In a Scottish case it would be a Court of Session judge. I do not think Scotland would be very happy with an English or even a Welsh High Court judge, desirable as that might be.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his answer on this matter. I am bound to say that he is more optimistic than I am if he thinks there will not be very many complex situations over Part III of this Bill; I should have thought it bristled with difficulties when one thinks how it might well be interpreted. Perhaps he is of a much more optimistic nature than I am about it and he feels we will get away without this. When he said that the single judges NI, ho will give decisions on these matters of appeal might differ, it could be thought very unfair if one person appealing in one part of the country gets one decision, and somebody appealing in a different part of the country gets a different decision on a similar matter, and there is no further appeal. I appreciate there is a precedent for this. Perhaps I should not say so, but at half past six in the morning, I would be the last person to say that everything done by the last Government was absolutely right. I think this is a matter we should like to consider further. I will read with great care what the noble Lord has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Offences]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("and (2)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [General provisions as to regulations]:
6.30 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 23, line 16, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 18 and insert ("and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is to ask that the regulations will be affirmative regulations and not negative regulations. We all know that if it is a Negative Instrument Parliament is limited in what it may say. It is difficult enough on an affirmative one when the whole matter has to be voted on at once, but at least there is an opportunity of voting either for or against it. This gives more flexibility to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the noble Baroness has said, this Amendment would require that regulations should not be made under the Bill unless the regulations have been laid in draft before each House of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House; namely, the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The Affirmative Resolution procedure is principally reserved for substantial and important delegated legislation on which a high degree of scrutiny is felt to be required. Although the regulations which are to be made under powers in this Bill are important, they will not be of the same nature as those regulations which are customarily made subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. An example of the latter are those regulations by which national insurance pensions and benefits and supplementary benefit are uprated. The regulations made under the Health Services Bill will also differ from those regulations in that the Bill stipulates, in Clause 22(2), that the Board and bodies which are likely to be substantially affected by regulations must he consulted before the regulations are made.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the bodies which are likely to be substantially affected by regulations must be consulted before the regulations are made. There will be five sets of regulations to be made under the Bill. Debates on Resolutions in each House take up a considerable amount of
636
Parliamentary time and it would be particularly so in this case. I want to ask your Lordships, and particularly the noble Baroness, to consider whether this is justified, taking into account the time which has already been devoted to debating this matter.
A final point I should like to make about this Amendment is that I have been advised that its drafting is defective in that it does not provide that the regulations should be made by Statutory Instrument. The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 gave the comprehensive name "Statutory Instruments to most, but not all, delegated legislation. It is the usual practice to provide that subordinate legislation should be made by Statutory Instrument.
I am not really worried so much about any defect in the Amendment because, as the noble Baroness herself said, this is a matter that can easily be put right. But, having regard to the fact that the Bill stipulates in Clause 22(2) that the Board and bodies which are likely to be substantially affected must have consultations before the regulations are made, I want to ask the noble Baroness whether she would accept this so that we can proceed by way of Negative rather than Affirmative Resolution.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not intend to press the Amendment. I listened with care to what the noble Lord said but I did not find it convincing when he said that because we had spent a long time on the Bill we should not have the regulations by way of Affirmative rather than Negative Resolution. Some of us feel that we have been put to extreme difficulty over the arrangements for the time-tabling of the Bill. Nevertheless, I will not press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 24, line 42, leave out ("two") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes provision for an increase in the period of time after the Bill becomes an Act for the bringing into force of Part III. The Government seem impatient to bring Part III into force and they suggest two months. We have already altered the time-table of the Bill and it would be for the convenience of the Board, apart from the Government, if we increased the period from two to 12 months.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Health Services Board and its committees]:
6.37 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 25, line 9, at end insert ("who holds or has held judicial office").
The noble Baroness said: We return on this Amendment to the composition of the Board, and although it has been indicated on a number of occasions—indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said so a little earlier—that the chairman of the Board would be judicially qualified, we believe that the chairman should be a judge. Much has been said during our Committee proceedings about the importance of the independence of the Board and the calibre of the people who will serve on it. We believe, therefore, that the type of person who will he the chairman should be written into the Bill. As I indicated when moving the first Amendment to the Bill, there is a strong possibility of the Board being divided two-two, so that a great many decisions will be taken by the chairman. It is all the more important, therefore, that he should be a person of distinction in the way we suggest.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I strongly support the Amendment, not only because the chairman of the Board, above all, should be independent but because I find the whole appointment of the chairman rather unusual. It is my experience that in setting up a body of this kind the chairman is usually appointed first and the members afterwards in consultation with the chairman. The Bill seems to be doing it the other way
638
round, which makes it all the more important that the chairman should be somebody of judicial standing and independence.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Committee should bear in mind that the judges do not necessarily have a complete monopoly of ability, or brain for that matter, and to suggest that there is nobody in the community short of a judge who can manage this position does not bear thinking about. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that it is,
"… my intention to appoint a person of high standing in the legal profession to become Chairmna of the Board … However, it becomes a rather different question if it is written into the Bill. I do not conceive of it as likely, but it is possible, as I want the Chairman to be acceptable to those organisations which we shall consult, that they may decide that among the list of notable lawyers which I put forward there is not one that they find acceptable. It would, therefore, be unwise to tie the hands of the Secretary of State by legislation but I am certain that the Committee will accept my absolute assurance as to my intention."
I do not want to continue this because we shall not achieve much by doing so, but, if the Secretary of State is to select somebody who is highly placed in the legal profession to undertake this, where does one say that a person who is very highly placed but who is not a judge is not capable of undertaking this kind of work? We do not know how much responsibility in terms of time will be placed on the Board or whether it would be possible to get a judge who would be able to take himself away from his judicial duties in order to be chairman. My view is that the chairman will probably find it not necessarily a full time job but not far short of that. I do not think that we ought to contemplate trying to get a judge who would be able to give the time—and I do not think that we should succeed. I should have thought that the situation would be met by having somebody who is highly placed in the legal profession but who is not a judge.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I take it that the noble Lord would not object or raise any barrier to the Secretary of State appointing a judge if he wanted to?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should not be able to. I feel quite strongly about this.

639
I think that it is an awful pity that we should think that there is only a small group of people—namely, judges—who have the competence and the ability to discharge the responsibility of the chairmanship of the Board. There must be many highly placed members of the legal profession who would fit the bill very well.
Baroness YOUNG: I think that this is a matter to which we shall have to return on Report. I do not wish to press the Amendment at this stage of the Committee proceedings. We believe that only somebody like a judge will be acceptable to the other members of the Board and therefore we are convinced of the rightness of this Amendment. However, as I said, I do not intend to pursue the matter at this hour and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 27, line 16, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State shall forthwith appoint a further member of the Board to fill the vacancy.").
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment to which we attach great importance. We discussed at very great length on Amendment No. 1 the fact that the Secretary of State must fill casual vacancies on the Board immediately they become vacant. That is what the present Amendment is designed to ensure. We had a very long discussion about whether or not the filling of casual vacancies was allowed under Schedule 1 and I am bound to say that, after rereading the Schedule several times, I cannot read it as every member having a deputy.
My noble friend Lady Macleod made the very real point that weeks can often elapse between somebody being taken ill or resigning from a board and the relevant Secretary of State filling the vacancy by making an appointment. We therefore believe that this is an important matter and I hope that we can have the assurance from the Government that it is their intention that casual vacancies shall be filled without delay. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that we would entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there ought not to be any time lag at all and that any vacancy
640
should be filled as quickly as possible. It is just a question of how soon "forthwith" can be. I should like to call the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that the Amendment is inconsistent with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, which requires that the Secretary of State shall consult interested bodies about the appointment of members of the Board, and this would be rather difficult if by "forthwith" we mean immediately. I should have thought that while one would accept in principle that there ought not to be too much delay, the Secretary of State ought to be given an opportunity of consulting the interested bodies as laid down in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree with me on that.
Baroness YOUNG: I agree with the noble Lord on that point, but the fact is that the Secretary of State could appoint deputies so that when there was a casual vacancy it could be filled immediately. This is the point of the Amendment and this is what the Government ought to do on the matter. I shall read in Hansard—I suppose we will get it on Friday, now—what the noble Lord has said. I will not press the Amendment to a Division at this stage, but this is a very important matter to which we shall have to return at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 27, line 43, leave out paragraph 11.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 135 has been put down because we need an opportunity to look at the financing of the Board. If one looks at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill and the amount of money allowed for the Board, by the time the Board and the civil servants required to work it are paid, it is difficult to see how the sums of money mentioned are to come out. It looks very much as if nothing like enough money has been provided. I hope that the noble Baroness can give some indication of how she sees the question of the cost of the Board. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I could have understood the justification for, though I could not have accepted, an Amendment which sought to limit any payment to members of the Health Services Board and its Committees to the payment of travelling expenses and necessary subsistence, but I cannot see any justification for an Amendment which, as I read it, would deprive the Board and Committee members of the right to reimbursement even of travelling and subsistence allowances. I assume, therefore, that the noble Baroness regards this perhaps as a probing Amendment in order to seek information. Bearing in mind that by any standards the proposed duties of the Board and Committee members will be exacting and are likely, at least in the early stages, to be time consuming as well, and bearing in mind also the kind of person we all want to see filling these important posts—the chairman, we are agreed, should, if at all possible, be a lawyer of considerable eminence and standing in his profession—it would clearly be inequitable to offer only out of pocket expenses. If we expect a person of some eminence in the legal profession, and two medical practitioners, possibly of equal standing in their profession (and that is for the medical and dental professions to submit a list of nominees from whom the Secretary of State can select), to give up possibly several days when they could have been earning their living, to the work of the Board, it is right that we should recognise and to a reasonable, though not excessive, extent seek to compensate them for their services.
My right honourable friend, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, therefore proposes a daily fee for the chairmen and members where, as a result of accepting appointment, they forego the possibility of earning their livelihood in their chosen career or profession. He has it in mind, however, should any member be a full-time employee of the NHS, to ask the employing authority to grant that member leave of absence with full pay on the days when he needs to attend meetings of the Board. These proposals are in the Government's view fair and reasonable, and I can assure the Committee that the daily rate will be by no means excessive, in relation to the nature of the Board's task and the qualifications we are looking for in both the chairman and members.
642
The remuneration of assessors has still to be settled, and my right honourable friend would like to consult the Board before coming to a final decision. Subject to that, he expects to propose a daily or sessional rate in accordance with the usual practice. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that these proposals are not unreasonable, and might feel able to withdraw their Amendment. No one who accepts appointment to the Board is going to make a fortune. All that my right honourable friend proposes is a reasonable and equitable reward commensurate with the services we expect to have rendered.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I am sorry, but I am not sure that I am very clear about this. Do I understand that the members of the Board are going to be paid on a sessional basis? It does seem to me that there is going to be a great deal of work for the Board to do. Will a sessional basis and rate be enough? There are going to be two doctors on the Board. If you are going to get a doctor who is able to earn a living and at the same time give time to the Board, is this going to be really possible? Is it going to be possible to get somebody in a high judicial position?—as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, possibly counsel. Are we really going to be able to get somebody who is working and also doing this on a sessional basis? I am not quite sure how this is going to work.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Board will be paid on a daily rate and the assessors will be paid on a sessional basis.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I think I read that nobody would be appointed for a period under three years. This will obviously take quite a chunk out of somebody's life, and it might be very difficult for some people to get back into their profession. I should like to follow up my noble friend's question by asking what the deputies will be paid. Am I still to understand that each member of the Board will have a deputy and that there will therefore be a deputy chairman and four deputy members of the Board? And how will they be paid?
Baroness STEDMAN: Presumably they will be paid on the same basis, but I have

643
not the decision yet about the number of deputies.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Baroness is quite right in thinking that this was an Amendment designed to probe the intentions of the Government in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT AND IMMIGRATION ACT: REMOVAL OF PATIENTS
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT AND IMMIGRATION ACT: REMOVAL OF PATIENTS
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM: STAFF REDUCTIONS
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM: STAFF REDUCTIONS
  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND OVERSEAS BORROWING
  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND OVERSEAS BORROWING
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PURCHASES
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PURCHASES