Sitting of 17 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before Questions begin, may I remind the House of the statement that I made on Monday that where Questions are grouped together I intend to give priority to those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered before I call any other hon. Members.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

      Rhodesia (Geneva Conference)
      Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Rhodesian constitutional talks at Geneva.
      Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the conference on the Rhodesian settlement.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I do not intend to make a statement at this particularly delicate stage of the negotiations in Geneva.
      Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State realise that while the talks in Geneva appear to be approaching a state of collapse the Soviet Union is apparently increasing its supply of arms to the guerrilla forces in Southern Africa? Will he therefore consider flying to Geneva, if that becomes necessary to save the talks, and make it clear to the nationalists that if the talks collapse at this stage many people in the world will see it as a result of their intransigence and their refusal to take "Yes" as an answer?
      Mr. Crosland: I am prepared to go to Geneva if by going I can save the conference from collapse. There can be no doubt of that. We have made it clear that, whilst the talks are going on, both sides should do all that they can to de-escalate the guerrilla warfare that is going on. I do not think that the talks are now on the point of collapse. It is far too early, and it is too much of a hypothetical matter, to say upon whose shoulders such a collapse would lie.
      Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that a major stumbling block to the continuation of the talks appears to be the understandable distrust that the African leaders have of Mr. Smith? Will he give an assurance that during the period of the transitional Government ministerial control of the police and security forces will not remain with Mr. Smith or any of his associates who participated in his illegal racialist régime?
      Mr. Crosland: There are 101 stumbling blocks to an agreement at the conference. The one that my hon. Friend mentioned is a major one, but not the only one. Responsibility for the armed forces, security forces and law and order will constitute a central aspect when the conference gets round to discussing the question of interim government.
      Mr. Maudling: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully share his desire to see a successful outcome of the conference but that we are deeply concerned about the lack of progress at the present stage? It is difficult to understand why it was considered wise to tackle the date for independence first. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it seems unwise to settle the date of arrival before knowing the route by which one gets there?
      Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Starting with the date and time required to reach independence was a tactical decision. I have no wish to criticise Mr. Ivor Richard on the tactics that he chose. It seemed to him that the date would be an easier matter to settle than, for instance, the question who should be responsible for law and order and the armed forces. The date for independence should have been easier to settle, and it is a disappointment that a difference of

      1309
      three months is proving such an important obstacle.

      Rhodesia (Sanctions)
      Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now arrange for a proposal to be made to the United Nations to lift economic sanctions on Rhodesia, in view of recent developments.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): No, Sir.
      Mr. Farr: As it is nearly two months since the Kissinger agreement was reached, and now that the Rhodesian delegation is playing its part at Geneva, what is the point of maintaining sanctions if, in the meantime, we do not directly administer the territory?
      Mr. Rowlands: We passed the sanctions order in the House only a few weeks ago and it was approved in another place only on Friday. I have made it clear that we shall move quickly to lift sanctions once an interim Government has been agreed.
      Mr. Thorpe: Does the Minister not agree that it is dangerous to try to renegotiate the Kissinger package and to lift sanctions before there is an agreement? Are we not faced with two potentially fatal ambiguities? First, the 21st September telegram from Dr. Kissinger in Dar-es-Salaam could mean that agreement on defence and security questions had actually been secured, or, alternatively, that these matters should be placed on the agenda for discussion. Secondly, what does Mr. Smith mean by majority rule? Does he mean what the rest of us mean by majority rule, or does he mean a qualified majority rule? Does the Minister agree that until we get those ambiguities removed we shall not be able to negotiate on equal terms with both sides?
      Mr. Rowlands: I agree that it is dangerous to lift sanctions before agreement is reached. The matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised will be under discussion at the Geneva talks, and I do not wish to pre-empt those discussions.
      Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend not find it astonishing that some of the most vociferous of the self-appointed guardians
      1310
      of law and order are advocating that we should cease to sustain our action against the most outrageous act of illegality that has ever been perpetrated in a British territory? Would that not play into the hands of those who perpetrated that act? Should we not uphold law and order by continuing sanctions?
      Mr. Rowlands: We must uphold law and order by maintaining sanctions. Some of the remarks made by those who want to lift sanctions before a settlement is reached and an interim Government has been arranged imply that they support the legalising of an illegal régime.

      Helsinki Agreement (Belgrade Review Conference)
      Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest preparations he has made for the Belgrade Review Conference of the Helsinki Agreement.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 11th November. As the Belgrade Review Conference approaches, we shall of course intensify our consultations with our partners and allies. We are, moreover, maintaining a careful record of the degree of progress on implementation achieved by the participating States, with a view to making a full contribution to the Review Conference.
      Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it the Government's intention to press that the Belgrade Review Conference be held at a political level and not just at civil servants' level? In his preparations for the conference, what consideration is the hon. Gentleman giving to the arguments increasingly heard that the transfer of Western technology and expertise to the Soviet Union enables the Soviet Union to free other resources, which can then be used for purposes hostile to the West?
      Mr. Tomlinson: The Government fully recognise the political importance of the Belgrade meetings. However, it is too early to think of formulating negotiating positions. We are in close touch with many other participating States in order to monitor progress and closely examine areas in which further

      1311
      progress can be made. It is too early to be talking about the detail of the negotiating mandate.
      Mr. Thorpe: As the Government are rightly monitoring progress, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Prime Minister received by hand a letter from Mr. Andrei Sakharov relating the conditions in which Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky is being kept in prison in Russia? What reply does he propose to give to that letter or, even better, what pressure does he propose to bring upon the Soviet Government to release Mr. Bukovsky?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I am not in a position to confirm details about a particular letter, but I can make clear, as I have before, that over the past year we have on a number of occasions raised individual cases with the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Those concerned have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling which rightly exists in the House and the country on all these matters, which will continue to be pressed on every possible opportune occasion with the utmost vigour.
      Mr. James Lamond: Will my hon. Friend give one or two examples of the things that this country has done as a result of signing the Helsinki Agreement? For example, have we made it easier and quicker to obtain visas to visit this country?
      Mr. Tomlinson: In addition to our frequent consultations with the other CSCE countries, to which I have referred, we have in particular recently notified a military manoeuvre—"Exercise Spear-point", in the Federal Republic of Germany—and we are taking action in a number of fields to develop contacts with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We have made clear on a number of occasions exactly what needs to be done to facilitate freer movement of people between countries.
      Mr. Maudling: In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer about individual cases will he confirm that the Government have received the same response as we on the Conservative Benches have had when we have put individual cases to the Soviet authorities—namely, complete silence?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I am not in a position to confirm that. There have been a num-
      1312
      ber of exchanges of view, some of which have been more successful than others. I do not consider it a laughing matter. Every opportunity has been taken to put individual cases as forcefully as possible, so that nobody can be left in any doubt about our feelings. Some approaches receive more response than others.

      Nuclear Material Suppliers (London Meeting)
      Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress achieved in the London Club of nuclear suppliers.
      Mr. Tomlinson: Officials from a number of countries who have decided to harmonise their nuclear export policies held another meeting in London on 11th and 12th November under United Kingdom chairmanship. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure that nuclear exports do not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices. The Governments concerned will continue to keep in close touch.
      Mr. Forman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that rather laconic answer. Does he agree that the issues involved are so grave that it is of the utmost importance to try to invoke the support of Parliament and public opinion by lifting the secrecy within which the discussions are conducted? Is the group now any nearer to publishing an up-to-date version of the so-called Zangger trigger list of proscribed nuclear exports, such as reprocessing and other sensitive technologies?
      Mr. Tomlinson: At some stage it may be possible to say more on this subject. For the present, however, it has been agreed by all those participating that the discussion can best make progress if confidentiality is maintained. That applies to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question as well.
      Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that secrecy in this matter will merely exacerbate public disquiet and uncertainty in these matters? Do our Government support the initiative taken by President Ford and by the American Administration on the idea of a three-year moratorium on the export of any reprocessing equipment for nuclear fuel?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I can only re-emphasise that it has been agreed by all

      1313
      those participating that the discussions can make real progress only if their confidentiality is maintained.

      Transkei
      Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what tests Her Majesty's Government applied in considering whether or not the Transkei met the criteria for independence.
      Mr. Rowlands: We tested the evidence available on the Transkei and the process by which it had achieved its purported independence against our legal criteria and in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the independence of, for example, the ex-High Commission territories and Malawi was recognised, were not those States at least as dependent as is the Transkei today on the former administering Power, so was not the Government's attitude decided not by objective criteria but by hypocrisy and double standards?
      Mr. Rowlands: It was not decided by hypocrisy or double standards; it was based on an assessment of the case and the process by which the Transkei reached independence. if he compared that with the way in which we brought to independence the other States he mentioned, the hon. Gentleman would find a considerable difference.
      Mr. Powell: Do not the Government find it bitterly ironical that, as part of the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom itself is not able to satisfy the legal criteria for recognition as an independent State?
      Mr. Rowlands: I have not noticed any difference in our status in that respect.
      Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that by the criterion of acceptability to the world community the Transkei has fallen flat on its face, in the light of the United Nations vote by 135 to nil not to accept it as an independent State?
      Mr. Rowlands: It has been supported neither by any of our EEC partners nor by the United Nations.
      Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman talked about evidence. Will he make
      1314
      available to the House the evidence on which he claims to have acted?
      Mr. Rowlands: The evidence lies in the provisions of the Transkei Act. If the right hon. Gentleman studies them, he will realise that the Act is an extension of the Bantustan policy of South Africa and not the birth of a new nation.

      Middle East
      Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government intend to take regarding the situation in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Dr. David Owen): We hope that new negotiations for a Middle East peace will soon be launched, but it would be premature for us to consider an initiative before the new United States Administration has clarified its position.
      Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that Dr. Kissinger's step-by-step initiatives collapsed quite a long time ago, as he himself has now admitted, and that the transfer to a new Administration is continuing to paralyse American policy, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time for a much more vigorous European involvement? Will the British Government, with France, try to take the lead in formulating a new policy in the Middle East?
      Dr. Owen: The Middle East is discussed at regular intervals with the rest of the Nine, which constitute a useful forum for trying to co-ordinate policy. I think that the same objections apply to initiatives by the Nine as to an individual initiative from this country. Until there is a new Administration in office, although United States foreign policy is not paralysed it is not a good time for a new initiative.
      Mr. Cronin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present there is some evidence of an increasing and closer relationship between the United States Government and Egypt, which is considerably to the detriment of British economic interests?
      Dr. Owen: There is undoubtedly a closer relationship than there has been in

      1315
      the past between the United States and Egypt, but that goes for the United Kingdom and Egypt. One of the important and hopeful signs for the whole of the Middle East is that good contacts are being pursued by all the parties outside the region. That means that they will have more influence on the parties to the dispute when it comes to a discussion, but essentially the will for a settlement must come from the parties to the dispute.
      Mr. Nelson: What is the latest news that the right hon. Gentleman has received from Amman on the armed attack that is reported to have taken place on the Intercontinental Hotel this morning? Will he take this opportunity of reaffirming Her Majesty's Government's support for King Hussein and, indeed, for the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom?
      Dr. Owen: I take this opportunity of reaffirming our support for the King and for the Government of the Jordanians. My only information on this matter was obtained earlier this morning. At that time, I gather, there were no British casualties involved, although some British citizens are in the hotel. I shall let any Member know of any new events that may transpire. At the moment there is no apparent risk to British life.
      Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm welcome that we gave to the Foreign Secretary's recent statement on the rights of the Palestinians? Will he extend his views to an acceptance of the need to create and recognise Palestinian sovereignty in their own territory?
      Dr. Owen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on my right hon. Friend's speech. My right hon. Friend thought is was premature at this stage to lay down a constitutional blueprint. That was why he phrased his speech to the United Nations in the way that he did. I do not think it is right to go any further than the words he used at that time.

      Namibia
      Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will now take a new initiative in the United Nations Security Council to end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa.
      Mr. Rowlands: We have just had a full debate in the Security Council which began on 31st August and continued intermittently until 19th October. We would expect the Security Council to discuss Namibia again next year unless a satisfactory solution has been found in the meantime. We shall of course continue to consult closely with others inside and outside the United Nations about the question of Namibian independence and freedom.
      Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous vote supported by the United Kingdom for the Security Council resolution on 31st January was important and a step forward in relation to Namibia? Does he accept that it is no use voting for those excellent and impeccable principles unless we are prepared to follow up with positive pressure on South Africa? At the moment, we seem to be pursuing an ambivalent policy.
      Mr. Rowlands: I think that we are following up with positive pressure. What I am not willing to do is to exercise or allow Chapter 7 determination provisions to be passed in this case. That is the difference between my hon. Friend and myself. There is not an absence of positive pressure, but we are trying to bring about co-operation with others.

      Zambia (Foreign Minister)
      Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Zambian Foreign Minister.
      Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend had a friendly discussion with Dr. Mwale in New York last month but there are no plans at present for another meeting.
      Mr. Brotherton: When the Foreign Secretary next meets the Zambian Foreign Minister, will he tell him to tell his friends in Mozambique that not one more penny piece of British taxpayers' money will be payable to that Government as long as they support the murderous guerrillas who attack Rhodesians, both black and white?
      Mr. Rowlands: If the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask about Mozambique and aid he should have tabled a Question on the subject.

      Mr. Boris Ponomarev
      Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the meeting with Boris Ponomarev.
      Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had separate meetings with Mr. Ponomarev during the latter's visit, in the course of which there was a useful exchange of views on a wide range of issues.
      Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the open and clear statement of policy by all Ministers in connection with this visit is appreciated, as are their objections to the persecutions of minorities within the Soviet Union? Does he feel that the Russian guests at least understood that true detente will never come about while the persecutions continue?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will understand why I do not propose to go into the details of what was said in the discussions. Mr. Ponomarev and his delegation were left in no doubt about the strength of feeling that exists about divided families, the whole range of human rights questions, and the fact that if detente is to be meaningful it has to be meaningful for people as well as for States.
      Mr. Blaker: Are not the activities of Mr. Ponomarev relevant to how the Soviet Union is performing its obligations under the Helsinki Agreement? In that context, will he reconsider the answer that he gave me last week, to which he referred in answer to an earlier Question today, in which he indicated that the Government do not propose to publish any review of the performance of the Helsinki Agreement before the Belgrade Conference? Is that not entirely unsatisfactory? Should the Government not consider publishing a White Paper before Belgrade assessing how the various parties—especially the main parties—have performed their obligations?
      Mr. Tomlinson: That question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, and would have been more appropriately dealt with under Question No. 3.
      Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend say whether, in the consultations with Mr. Ponomarev, the opportunity was taken to raise the question of prisoners such as Mr. Bukovsky, Mr. Moroz and Pastor Vins, who are kept in cruel and inhuman confinement in the Soviet Union? Was it put to him forcibly that they are conditions that no civilised State should allow?
      Mr. Tomlinson: As I have said, Mr. Ponomarev was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling on these issues and on the issues that have been discussed involving the division of families and the denial of human rights. Every opportunity was taken to ensure that the strength of feeling which, as I have said repeatedly, rightly exists in the House and throughout the country was expressed to our visitors from the Soviet Union.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that what stick in people's throats are the double standards that are applied? How do the Government justify excluding a journalist from this country on the ground that his activities may be detrimental to State security—which they may well be—while at the same time welcoming with open arms a man whose avowed purpose is to bring down our system of government and whose agents are actively involved in seeking to achieve that?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I can see no question of double standards. The only conclusion that the House can draw from the comments of Opposition Members is that the best way of pursuing detente, which I presume the hon. Gentleman as well as others in the House supports, is by totally isolating ourselves from any contact with those whose views we are seeking to influence and change.
      Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend accept that an increasing number of Members on the Government Benches are disturbed by what we see as too frequent invitations by the NEC to the anti-Socialist régimes of Eastern Europe and Russia?
      Mr. Tomlinson: That is a question for which there is no ministerial responsibility. I hope that Conservative Members are not suggesting that when such

      1319
      visitors are in this country we should not take the opportunity, as a Government, to seek to put to them in the clearest possible terms the concern that my hon. Friend and Conservative Members express in such strong language every time they have the opportunity.
      Mr. Tugendhat: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the questions that are being asked in the House today, and the number of Members on both sides of the House who are asking them, are extremely helpful in the prosecution of the case in favour of individuals in the Soviet Union? There is all the difference in the world between Ministers telling their opposite numbers in the Soviet Union about their concern, on the one hand, and making it clear to the Soviets that this is something on which there is tremendous feeling, crossing all political barriers, not merely among minorities but among everyone in the country?
      Mr. Tomlinson: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Pressure and, indeed, assistance is no use unless we have an opportunity to express our view to leading figures responsible for making decisions in the Soviet Union and other countries.

      Namibia
      Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's approach to the current talks on the future of Namibia.
      Mr. Rowlands: Her Majesty's Government take the view that political parties including the South-West African People's Organisation must be allowed to participate in negotiations and in a single electoral process. The Windhoek Conference, although a useful source of advice, does not yet constitute self-determination.
      Mr. Townsend: In the light of Mr. Sam Nujoma's recent visit to Moscow to purchase arms, the obvious links between SWAPO and the Marxists in Angola, and the split between the internal and external wings of SWAPO, will the Government reconsider giving educational and financial aid to SWAPO?
      Mr. Rowlands: We give aid to individuals in Namibia as a result of requests
      1320
      from organisations, which include not only SWAPO but other organisations. I see no reason why we should deprive individuals of such aid.
      Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend accept that, if the Western Powers continue to fail to bring effective pressure on South Africa on this matter, SWAPO, Angola and other people directly concerned will seek alliances and arms elsewhere?
      Mr. Rowlands: The best way of solving the problem is for South Africa to bring about an early and rapid movement towards a free and independent State of Namibia.
      Mr. Ian Lloyd: Have Her Majesty's Government changed the name of South West Africa to "Namibia", and, if so, with what authority? Has such a change the support of the indigenous peoples of South-West Africa?
      Mr. Rowlands: Namibia is a reasonably known international name for what in other language is South-West Africa.

      Rhodesia
      Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
      Mr. Crosland: I gave my views on this, as did many others, during the debate on the renewal of sanctions order on 20th October. I have not altered those views. Rhodesia's future depends totally on the negotiations now proceeding at Geneva.
      Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Soviet policy envisages a Marxist revolutionary regime in Zimbabwe, with all the risks to life and property that are entailed? Will he now consider whether Her Majesty's Government will take full control throughout the period of transition before the democratic elections establish a popular Government of the Rhodesian people's choice?
      Mr. Crosland: I do not doubt that that is the objective of Soviet policy, just as a quite different objective would be pursued by the United States Government or by the EEC. As for taking full responsibility, if the hon. Gentleman means that we should send troops and assume

      1321
      military responsibility and that we should send British civil servants and assume administrative and executive responsibility, that would mean our resuming a full colonial role in Rhodesia—a role which we have never exercised as a Government. That would not be accepted by a Government of any party in this country.
      Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any settlement arrived at on Rhodesia does not involve the British Government in paying substantial sums of compensation to white people who may at that point wish to leave Rhodesia because they have never at any time acceded to the legitimate desires of the Rhodesian people?
      Mr. Crosland: I have made clear on other occasions, and I wish to repeat today, that the main objective of the aid proposed for Rhodesia is to assist the development and growth of an independent Rhodesian Government. As for the white population, so far from its being our desire that its members should leave, we want all those who wish to stay, and who have the will to stay, to do so and thus help the development of the economy of an independent Rhodesia.
      Sir John Hall: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the present Geneva Conference breaks down, through no fault of the Smith regime, it would be quite wrong to continue to impose sanctions on Rhodesia?
      Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I have no doubt that when the conference breaks down—if it breaks down, and I hope and believe that it will not—it will break down in a situation in which no simple attribution of blame is possible. It will break down, if it does, fundamentally because of mistrust, scepticism and hostility born of 11 years of illegal independence.

      India
      Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): We maintain normal and good relations with the Government of
      1322
      India and are in close contact with them over a wide range of issues.
      Mr. Adley: In view of the enthusiasm with which the Lord President of the Council and the Archbishop of Canterbury have recently returned from India, will the Minister say whether it is true that elections there have again been postponed, that Opposition Members of Parliament have been imprisoned and that The Times correspondent was recently expelled? If those events are correctly described, is the Minister saying that they have no relevance to the subject of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government?
      Mr. Luard: We deplore any departure from democratic principles and any violation of human rights in any part of the world, wherever they may occur. I cannot comment officially on any individual cases or policies which are wholly within the domestic jurisdiction of a particular country. The Government of India are in no doubt as to the feelings of Members of this House on the state of emergency in India.

      Rhodesia (Geneva Conference)
      Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia.
      Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia.
      Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the constitutional talks at Geneva on the future of Zimbabwe.
      Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the progress of the Geneva talks on Rhodesia.
      Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) earlier today.
      Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in spite of the pressure to

      1323
      advance the independence date, it is still his policy that in no circumstances will independence be granted other than to a Government constitutionally elected, with a proper mandate?
      Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir; I confirm that that is our intention. Indeed, the fact that we have stuck to that intention has been one of the complications in the disagreements of the last few days. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves in Parliament to be put into a position where we are legalising what is still an illegal regime.
      Mr. Whitehead: Returning to the answer given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on Question No. 13, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether, if the impasse at Geneva continues—and we hope that it will not—he will close his mind and that of the Government to the resumption of any responsibility for security within Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?
      Mr. Crosland: It depends what is meant by "any responsibility". What I said in answer to that earlier Question was simply that, if that responsibility involved British armed forces being sent to Rhodesia, Her Majesty's Government would not accept that situation—nor, I believe, would any Conservative Government dream of accepting it.
      Mr. Hastings: The Foreign Secretary may have seen a report by a responsible commentator at the beginning of the negotiations suggesting that the British delegation appeared to have gone out of its way to insult Mr. Smith and his delegation. Will he reassure the House on this point and make certain that there is no question of any bias of that kind in future?
      Mr. Crosland: I try to read as many responsible commentators as I can, but there are quite a few of them to read every day. I do not recall such a suggestion, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government's negotiators in Geneva do not—I repeat "not"—believe in exchanging insults. In the last few days the main insults have come from Mr. Smith.
      Mr. Faulds: If the talks are to be successful, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the urgent necessity of accepting Britain's responsibility in a colonial ter-
      1324
      ritory and in the interim period providing a governor-general backed, once the white officers of the Smith regime have been dismissed, by Commonwealth troops from various countries?
      Mr. Crosland: I repeat that Britain has never exercised full colonial responsibility for Rhodesia since 1923—nor indeed before, for quite different reasons. As for the institution of a governor-general, the extent of British involvement will have to be decided in the light of whatever agreement is reached. But I wish to make it clear that the Government rule out in all circumstances any dispatch of British armed forces. As for an international peacekeeping force under the United Nations, the Commonwealth or the OAU, I shall bear that suggestion in mind, but the great objection to such an international force is that it would take an immense amount of time to organise and to get to Rhodesia. It would take a very long time and a great deal of negotiation and bargaining to get this force there. Whatever presence we have must be there from the beginning, which I hope will not be a very long time away.
      Mr. Marten: Is not one of the great dangers that the longer the Smith Government stay in power the greater is the threat of the spread of Communism in Africa?
      Mr. Crosland: That is a very acute danger indeed. In my view, there would be no threat of Communism now in that part of Southern Africa—incidentally, one should not exaggerate the threat—and there would be no such threat of any kind at all had Mr. Smith and his illegal regime not refused to budge one inch for 11 long years.
      Mr. Maudling: Would I be correct in understanding that the Foreign Secretary no longer entirely rules out the suggestion of myself and of some of my hon. Friends that the presence of a British governor-general, by mutual agreement with the African countries surrounding Rhodesia, might serve as a good guarantor of an independence constitution guaranteeing individual rights, the independence of the courts, and law and order?
      Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I have nothing more to add to what I have already said

      1325
      in answer to questions on this extremely difficult and complex subject.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

      European Parliament (Direct Elections)
      Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the first direct elections to the European Parliament to be held in the United Kingdom.
      Dr. Owen: The Act signed on 20th September provides that the period for the first elections shall be determined by the Council of Ministers after consulting the Assembly. The Governments of the member States are committed to making their best endeavours to hold elections in May or June 1978.
      Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that even those of us who voted "Yes" in last year's referendum—
      Ms. Colquhoun: Traitor.
      Hon. Members: Withdraw.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid I did not hear the remark. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) say "Traitor"?
      Ms. Colquhoun: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that expression.
      Ms. Colquhoun: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that even those of us who voted "Yes" at last year's referendum are increasingly concerned that the consequence of direct elections will be additional powers given to the European Parliament and the derogration of powers of this House? Will the Minister make a statement to the House about that aspect of the matter?
      Dr. Owen: I do not think that the issues are related, although it is known that the European Parliament wishes to have more powers, and that over some aspects, such as the control of the Commission, there is a widespread feeling that it is a good idea that the European Parliament should have those powers. But the mere fact of having direct elections does not of itself carry any explicit pledge of greater powers.
      Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any date for the start of direct elections is laid down in Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome?
      Dr. Owen: To the best of my knowledge, no, Sir.
      Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen the article in the Economist of last week stating that, if the elections were held under our present corrupt system, the Labour Party would get about five Members if it was lucky, according to present trends. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who were pro-European long before most of those on the two Front Benches would prefer, in 1978, to have continued nomination rather than a rigged election under our corrupt electoral system, which would produce a totally distorted result?
      Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to argue his case. He knows better than anyone that the Select Committee has recommended the use of the system employed at parliamentary elections—that is, the first-past-the-post system—for the first direct election to the European Parliament. The Committee discussed the question of having some unified system throughout the Community which could be applied at a later date, but these are issues that would have to be discussed in relation to any such legislation coming to this House, and no doubt they would be.
      Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be bringing forward appropriate legislation in the next Session, and whether he can indicate at this stage how many seats Scotland is likely to have in a direct elections situation, since we seek parity with other small nations within the European Community?
      Dr. Owen: I cannot and do not intend to prejudge the Queen's Speech, but we have already made it clear that the Government will introduce the legislation at the earliest practical moment.
      As to the allocation of seats, the hon. Lady will no doubt have read the recommendation of the Select Committee. This is something that will be discussed in relation to the legislation, and the Government have yet to take a view on this issue.
      Mr. Heffer: Is the country not getting into a ridiculous position, in the sense that we shall have elections for this House, elections for Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, votes for county councils, votes for district councils, and then votes in the direct elections to the European Parliament? We shall have more continuous elections than there are in the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.
      Dr. Owen: I note my hon. Friend's support for elections in all forms, even in the trade union movement, which I, too, strongly support. But I do not deny that, as part of the constitutional changes which are likely to come before the House in the next few years, we shall have to review the whole question of how many elections are held and at what point decisions are made. I am a strong believer in some decentralisation of authority, but clearly this raises serious issues that need to be looked at as a whole and not bit by bit.
      Mr. Hurd: The Minister has already referred to the Second Report of the Select Committee. Does he accept the analysis that the Select Committee made after listening to a lot of evidence from the Boundary Commission, namely, that if the Commission was to do its essential work properly Parliament would need to be able to discuss and decide the main issues by the end of February. Does he accept that analysis?
      Dr. Owen: This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. This is one of the aspects of the Select Committee Report that we are looking at most seriously—how to achieve both early legislation and also carry out the full Boundary Commission procedure. This is a real problem for the House at the moment.

      Foreign Ministers
      Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his last meeting with his EEC colleagues.
      Mr. Crosland: I attended the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 15th and 16th November. On the external relations side, the main items were the reply which the Community should return to the
      1328
      Council for Mutual Economic Assistance proposals received earlier this year, which is the subject of the next Question on the Order Paper, and agreement on the Community's Generalised Scheme of Preferences for 1977. The Council also considered a wide range of other external relations questions, on which I shall circulate a statement in the Official Report.
      Commissioner Gundelach reported to the Council on his talks in Iceland on 12th November. We emphasised once again the great importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to arrangements that will allow us to continue fishing in Icelandic waters after the expiry of the provisional agreement. We also urged on the Council the need for a cutback in third country fishing in Community waters from the beginning of 1977.
      Mr. Marten: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that short statement. Does he net believe that it should have been a statement at the end of Questions, as has been the custom, or are we to conclude, from the fact that it was only an answer to a Question that I happened to have on the Order Paper, that nothing very important was achieved at the conference?
      Among the subjects thought likely to be discussed at the meeting held earlier was that of EEC passports. May we have an assurance that, if we are to have them, they will be additional only for people who want them—I cannot imagine why—and that they will not be compulsory for people who do not want them?
      Mr. Crosland: With regard to the first part of the question, I have looked into this, and I find that there is no rule of procedure that makes it mandatory or even a matter of courtesy that an oral statement should be made each time a decision is taken. I hope it is accepted that good will and fair judgment are exercised each time on the question whether the business of the Council justifies a statement, bearing in mind the crowded nature of our business.
      As for the question of the common passport, I have a great deal of personal sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, being on this kind of subject, like him, an old-fashioned patriot. Nevertheless, the view has been taken that in the interests of

      1329
      Community unity there would be advantage in having at any rate a greater degree of uniformity in the passport. This will be compulsory rather than voluntary, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, having examined possible samples, that at the end of the day the British passport will remain highly recognisable.
      Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about his discussions with Commissioner Gundelach? Is he aware of the grave concern that exists among fishermen on Humberside about the failure to reach an agreement with Iceland? What additional plans are there in hand for the end of this month?
      Mr. Crosland: There is a Question about this matter later on the Order Paper, but as my hon. Friend mentioned Humberside I shall answer it now. I am aware of the deep anxieties felt on Humberside and I am in continuous touch with fishing interests. However, some recent statements have been very unfair to the Community and the Commission in suggesting that no action has occurred on the subject of Icelandic fishing. I have no intention of making a statement today about what might happen after 1st December.
      Mr. John Davies: Will the Foreign Secretary say whether the Council of Foreign Ministers arrived at any conclusion about the advice that they might give to OPEC countries on the question of oil price increases in future?
      Mr. Crosland: No. This was discussed, but no firm agreement was reached on Community action, as opposed to any action which individual Governments might take bilaterally with the various OPEC countries.
      Mr. Mikardo: On the subject of passports, is the Foreign Secretary aware that immigration officers at Heathrow will refuse to look at British passports if they are handed in at the desk marked "EEC Passports"? This indicates that these officers have more good sense than some hon. Members in this House.
      Mr. Crosland: I am not absolutely certain what reply to give to that question. Fortunately, the situation that my hon. Friend has described is a matter for the Home Office and not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
      Several Hon. Members
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be fair to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.
      Following is the Secretary of State's statement about the meeting of the Council of Ministers:
      The Council meeting spread over two full days. I attended the first day, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who both represented the United Kingdom on 16th November. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was present for discussion on fisheries matters.
      On the external relations side the Council made good progress on the Community's 1977 Generalised Scheme of Preferences, which will continue the process of improving the preferences offered by the Community to developing countries on a wide range of industrial and agricultural products. Emphasis was put on the need to improve the scheme in the interests of all the poorest countries. After the President of the Council had reported on his meeting with the President of the ACP countries, Ministers discussed briefly new accessions to the Lomé Convention. The Council defined the Community position in preparation for the November session of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation and it was agreed that this issue would be further discussed at the European Council on 29th and 30th November.
      The Council agreed the Community's offer for the second EEC/Greece Financial Protocol and that formal negotiations should be opened with Iran for the conclusion of a commercial and economic co-operation agreement. The Council approved in principle the results of the negotiations with the Mashraq countries and Israel. The agreements with these countries are expected to be signed early next month. The Council also had a further useful discussion on ways in which the Community's links with Yugoslavia could be strengthened.
      There was no discussion of the uniform passport but I expect that Foreign Ministers will consider it at the December meeting. The Council approved the text of a draft declaration which is proposed for issue jointly by the Council, the European Assembly and the Commission affirming their respect for fundamental rights in the Community.

      COMECON Countries (Commercial Agreement)
      Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position relating to the negotiations regarding a proposed commercial agreement between the EEC and the COMECON countries.
      Dr. Owen: The Community's reply to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance's proposals which were received earlier this year is being handed over today to the President of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance Executive Committee in Warsaw. The Community's reply takes the form of a draft agreement. A letter from the Presidency will be handed over at the same time expressing readiness to open negotiations straight away on this basis.
      Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister of State assure the House that there is no proposal for the Community to extend to the Soviet bloc even easier credit terms than those which exist at present? Should not the Community consider whether the existing arrangements, in which Community countries extend to the Soviet bloc very long credits on easy terms, should be re-examined, as they may be contrary to our interests?
      Dr. Owen: I am in some difficulty, because it is impossible, while negotiations are still taking place, to answer detailed questions on the position of the Community in these negotiations. I prefer to await a successful conclusion to the negotiations. It is far better that I should resist being drawn on any aspect of the negotiations.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend refrain from taking notice of such questions? Millions of constituents of Hon. Members on both sides are very dependent on engineering and other orders, which can be obtained on a huge scale from the Soviet Union at present.
      Dr. Owen: I certainly agree to the extent that I hope it will not become a subject of dispute between the two sides of the House that we should trade with COMECON countries. This would be a totally new attitude for the Opposition
      1332
      and I am sure that they do not contemplate it. All hon. Members want a fair and detailed agreement between the Community and the COMECON countries, and this is what we are attempting to negotiate.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mentioned engineering, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the British wool textile industry is substantially at risk from quotas previously negotiated with COMECON countries? Will he ensure that British interests are well protected?
      Dr. Owen: I assure all hon. Members that in these negotiations we are protecting both British and Community interests, as well as taking a wide look at the whole question of international trade.
      Mr. John Davies: Will the Minister of State say whether the missive to the CMEA countries includes a strong recommendation that the negotiations would proceed more favourably and satisfactorily if there were recognition of the Community by CMEA and the COMECON countries?
      Dr. Owen: This is implicit in the negotiations. Once one has made a reply to the COMECON countries and one enters into negotiations, one is much closer to a situation, and, in fact, de facto in a situation of recognition, which has not occurred before.

      Common Fisheries Policy
      Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in renegotiating the EEC common fisheries policy.
      Mr. Crosland: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
      Mr. Henderson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is concern in the inshore fishing industry because too much attention is being paid to the Icelandic situation and the position of third countries? We are equally concerned with the piratical practices of some EEC countries in fishing, and this

      1333
      emphasises the need for exclusive limits for our own fishermen. Is the EEC taking a more sympathetic view in terms of the negotiations for an exclusive limit of at least 50 miles for our fishermen?
      Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the anxiety felt among coastal fishermen. The reason why more attention has been paid to Iceland and third countries is that these agreements had to be negotiated by 1st December and the end of the year, respectively. There is no doubt about the critical importance to our country of coastal fishing belts. On the question whether an agreement is likely, some work has been done in the Commission. It has not proceeded very far, because of acute differences of opinion among Community nations about the size of coastal belts. However, we have not changed our negotiating position in the slightest degree since my statement of our definitive position on 4th May.
      Mr. Grimond: The fishing community will be grateful for those assurances that safeguarding the position of our inshore fishermen is "critically important". Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is mounting anxiety about both timing and enforcement? Can he give any date for the end of the negotiations for 50-mile limits, and can he say what preparations have been made to police these limits'?
      Mr. Crosland: I cannot give a definite date. On the question of enforcement, I can confirm that an enormous amount of work has been done on the question how to police and enforce whatever quota arrangements exist in coastal belts. No set of arrangements that exist on paper are worth the paper they are written on unless there is some policing.
      Mr. James Johnson: I accept that the issue of limits—whether they be 12, 50 or 200 miles—is a most complex matter, but does the Foreign Secretary agree about the despondency felt in the fishing industry, particularly on Humberside') If the EEC negotiations with Iceland break down will we, as a nation, be able to conduct bilateral talks with Iceland?
      Mr. Crosland: Every time we have a question on fisheries we go through this farcical process, in which I am asked whether I am aware of the feelings on
      1334
      Humberside. I am as familiar as anyone else with those feelings. As for what will happen if the negotiations with Iceland fall down, I shall not answer hypothetical questions. I have good hopes that an agreement will be reached, although I have no intention of speculating about its content.
      Mr. Hicks: What assurances has the Secretary of State received to ensure the continued economic livelihood of the inshore fishermen of Devon and Cornwall, in particular, in terms of the conservation of mackerel stocks?
      Mr. Crosland: The immediate problem facing the Devon and Cornwall fishermen over mackerel concerns the Soviet trawlers. That is why we have pressed very hard the urgency of an agreement between the EEC and the Soviet Union that will have the effect of drastically reducing Soviet and other third country catches in the waters off Devon and Cornwall.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not a mistake to suggest that there is a conflict of interest between deep-sea fishermen and inshore fishermen? Are they not all facing the same problems, which revolve around ensuring that the fishing industry is sustained in as healthy and viable a state as possible'? Are the Government working towards that end?
      Mr. Crosland: I hope that I did not give the impression—I had no intention of giving it—that there is a conflict of interest between the two sections of the industry. They are two separate interests, but they are not in conflict. I endorse my hon. Friend's final statement that we need an arrangement that will bring prosperity to the entire British fishing industry, whether inshore or distant water.
      Mr. Brotherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position of the middle-water and seine vessels, and agree that the threat comes from the Russian and Bulgarian fishermen, who pose a great threat not only to us but to the other members of the EEC? Will he bring this matter to the attention of our EEC partners, so that when we have our own 200-mile limit within the Community it is reserved for Community fishermen and is not available to those behind the Iron Curtain?
      Mr. Crosland: I am relieved that the hon. Member did not ask me whether I was aware of the strong feelings held in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. In so far as I could hear the later part of his question, I think that I agree with it.
      Several Hon. Members—

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL (DIVISIONS)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we enter upon matters of privilege I have an important statement to make to the House.
Later on today we shall be considering the Lords amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. If previous experience is any guide there will be some close votes. At the same time, as the Leader of the House explained yesterday, there will be a mass lobby in progress.
I must make it clear to the House that the responsibility lies on Members themselves, if they are not actually in the Chamber, to make themselves available in the Division Lobbies if and when a Division takes place. That is their responsibility and not mine or anyone else's. I am sure that all concerned will do all they can to provide easy access to the Chamber, but in the last resort it is a Member's duty to be here.
I do not in any way discount the vital importance of a Member's duty to his constituents, but in my view his duty to this House comes first. That is why his constituents sent him here.
I wish to inform the House, therefore, that in no circumstances whatsover will I entertain a request today that a Division be held again on the grounds that a Member or Members could not reach the Chamber in time. If Members cannot be here within the allotted time—and I intend to allow the full time, as extended by my predecessor, before I order the doors to be locked—their votes will not be counted.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
3.33 p.m.
Sir Paul Bryan: The question of privilege which I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, has much in common with that raised by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) yesterday. You may therefore find it convenient to consider the two cases together.
I refer to a Press handout widely reported in today's newspapers and released yesterday by the Socialist Democratic Alliance which describes itself as
"Labour's moderate grass-roots organisation".
In Chapter 10 of "Erskine May" there is included among the breaches of privilege and contempts listed on page 153:
"Reflections on the motives of a Member or a group of Members".
The document issued yesterday must qualify time and again under that description. The handout is entitled "Labour's Fifth Column". It describes itself as "A documented study". Its first three pages are not strictly relevant to my case in that they deal with such extra-parliamentary bodies as the National Executive Committee and the trade union leadership.
I turn straight to page 4 where under the heading "Parliamentary Labour Party" one reads—and I shall quote in full since I am advised that you can take account only of what is actually read out in the House, Mr. Speaker—as follows:
"It is sad for democrats in the Labour Party to have to face the fact that many of the political sympathies displayed by members of the NEC and top trade union leaders are also reflected amongst Labour Members of Parliament.
We do not argue, as did George Orwell over 30 years ago, that there are 'underground Communists' in Parliament. We do however argue that there are Labour Members of Parliament whose views and actions would lead a reasonable man to believe that they have sympathies with the varying shades of totalitarian communism.
Indeed, Sir Harold Wilson was more specific. He argued, in an interview in The Times (2 Aug., 1976) that the Tribune Group of Labour M.Ps was very different today than it was in Nye Bevan's time. Incredibly and significantly he went on to allege that 'different forms of what are called Neo-Trotskyites, and Marcusism, and Maoism, IS (International Socialists) and all the rest.. some of those are represented in the House'.

1337
This is a very serious allegation by a former Leader of our Party. We in the SDA do not know who the Maoist, IS, or Neo-Trotskyite MPs may be. Nevertheless, we feel that Sir Harold should tell us.
For our part the SDA intends to be more judicious and precise. We believe that Labour MPs should draw a clear distinction between democratic socialism, as we have known it in Britain, and ideas and organisations of the marxist totalitarian left.
THEY SHOULD, IN OUR VIEW, NOT WRITE FOR, NOR CALL FOR FINANCIAL. ASSISTANCE FOR, NOR SPEAK AT THE RALLIES OF, THE COMMUNIST MORNING STAR; NOR SHOULD THEY WRITE FOR OR SUPPORT THE COMMUNIST PUBLICATION LABOUR MONTHLY; NOR SHOULD THEY ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANISATIONS LIKE THE WORLD PEACE CONGRESS; NOR SHOULD THEY ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH TROTSKYITE AND NEO-TROTSKYITE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS THE INSTITUTE FOR WORKERS' CONTROL.
The following Labour M.Ps, all of them intelligent enough to understand how their actions may be interpreted, have nevertheless chosen"—
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. English Mr. English rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time, and I count as one. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) is speaking on a point of order. It is a point of privilege.
Sir P. Bryan: The document continues:
"The following Labour M.P.s, all of them intelligent enough to understand how their actions may be interpreted, have nevertheless chosen to ignore these precepts: Miss Joan Maynard, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Norman Atkinson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Sydney Bidwell, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mrs. Renée Short, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mrs. Judith Hart, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr Russell Kerr, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Frank Allaun, MP"—
1338
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Miss Jo Richardson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Douglas Hoyle, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Stan Newens, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Roy Hughes, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Eric Heffer, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mrs. Audrey Wise, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Julius Silverman, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mrs. Lena Jeger, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Mr. Denis Skinner, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Millie Miller, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Neil Kinnock, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Harry Selby, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr Speaker: Order.
Sir P. Bryan:
"John Mendelson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]—
"William Wilson, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Tom Swain, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Tom Litterick, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"James Lamond, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to be quiet or they will not know whether their names are there.
Sir P. Bryan: I will continue:
"Richard Kelley, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Dan Jones, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Alec Jones, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Eddie Loyden, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—

1339
"Gwilym Roberts, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Ian Mikardo, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Michael Foot, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Stan Orme, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"Tony Benn, MP"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
"CONCLUSION: We believe that all these developments mentioned above, within the NEC, amongst trade union leaders, and in the PLP, provide evidence of a devastating shift of allegiance from democracy towards totalitarian leftism within a major wing of our party. Jim Callaghan, as Leader, should insist that fraternisation between the NEC and Communist Parties, both at home and abroad, should stop. He should condemn the party to party contacts mentioned above. He should demand of the 33 MPs mentioned that they cease to write or lend aid and comfort to Communist or Trotskyite organisations and newspapers. He should instruct the members of his Cabinet named above to do likewise. He should insist that Mr. Jones retract his appalling words in Moscow."
The document speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. I await your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the submission by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). I note in particular that he suggests that, in his view, his complaint has much in common with the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and that in consequence it might be convenient to consider the two cases together. I cannot do that.
Questions of privilege are of such formal importance to the House that no occupant of the Chair ought to depart from the acknowledged practice. Therefore, I shall rule upon the hon. Gentleman's complaint tomorrow.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
3.44 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I must now rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). I have given his complaint the most careful consideration in the light of rulings by my predecessors in cases of this kind. In referring to the rulings of
1340
my predecessors, I am choosing my words with care.
I am aware that Committees—and, in particular, the Select Committee of Parliamentary Privilege of 1967–68—have from time to time suggested that other rules might be applied in deciding such matters. These reports have never, however, been fully debated, still less agreed to, by the House. The House has never, therefore, changed its rules, and the only guidance on which it is proper for me to rely is that of the practice of my predecessors.
I must make it clear that my ruling will be confined to the question whether the complaint of the hon. Member for Paddington shall be given precedence over the Orders of the Day. I am in no way passing judgment on whether the complaint constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt. Others will decide that.
I have come to the conclusion that this is a matter on which the House should have the opportunity to express an opinion. I am therefore prepared to give precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion concerning the complaint.
Before any such motion is moved, may I remind the House of our time-honoured convention that when a complaint against a Member is considered he should first be given the opportunity to be heard in his place and then withdraw. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is present and rises, he will catch my eye. If, however, he is willing to submit himself to the judgment of the House without making any statement, I must ask him to withdraw now.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) then withdrew accordingly.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MOTION)
3.46 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall move a motion.
I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It has been the custom of previous Leaders of the House at this stage to suggest to the House that we should seek to

1341
carry this motion without further debate. I think that would be the best course in this instance, also.
3.47 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Lord President is extremely sensitive this afternoon. I thought that the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) was pretty sensitive in making this complaint yesterday, but for the Lord President to put this motion to the House seems unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to move this or any other motion.
I wonder why it is that a matter which could be described as fair political comment, and which could even be described as such with considerable foundation in truth, should be the subject of a motion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to anticipate what the Committee of Privileges, if the matter goes there, will decide. We are discussing now whether it shall go there.
Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) proceeds too far down any road which he is going to travel, I should like to ask you to make one point clear for the record. I am grateful for your ruling. However, are you able to confirm that that which you have suggested should have precedence for referral to the Committee of Privileges is the matter submitted to you in so far as it may be a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House?
I ask this so that you may be able to put on record that any question of defamation or personal damages regarding individual Members named is a matter on which the Committee of Privileges will not be asked to pronounce, but on which individual Members may, if they choose, seek redress in the courts.
Mr. Speaker: Any action that right hon. or hon. Members may take in the courts is, of course, their concern.
My predecessors have often used the expression "There is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege and, therefore, it should have precedence." I have used the expression that it ought to have precedence. I feel in no way inhibited from saying that there is a prima facie
1342
case and that the matter should be given precedence.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that this is terribly important, because no Member would wish to be guilty of any kind of contempt of the House or discourtesy to yourself. What I am asking is whether you can make absolutely clear that the terms of reference of the Committee of Privileges relate to matters referred to it in so far as they may be breaches of privilege or contempts of the House, and would not deal with an issue of personal defamation or damages that Members might seek.
Mr. Speaker: All that I can do is to say that this question has precedence, and the Committee of Privileges has very wide powers and will no doubt want to go into the question in some depth. But I cannot decide what the Committee of Privileges will do.
Mr. Ridley: In no sense do I wish to suggest that the Committee will come to one decision or another, Mr. Speaker. I merely comment on the decision of the Leader of the House to refer this matter by moving this motion. I think that it is questionable when moved by one who himself in past days has questioned similar motions. In this case, although I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you are entirely right in the ruling that you have just given, it suggests that it may be that the rules are a little out of date, and perhaps if the Leader of the House had been on the mark over the time that he has occupied that high office he would have moved to change those rules a little. It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has said is no more than fair comment and in many respects may well be entirely justified.
Mr. Michael English: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the date of that report'? He says that the present Leader of the House could have changed the rules. What about all previous Leaders of the House, including those on both sides of the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may intervene, by courtesy of the House, for one moment. I hope that the House will

1343
bear in mind that there is a long programme of business before us. [Interruption.] The House will know whether it wishes to go on to debate this matter. It will know that it is up to me to draw the attention of the House to the condition in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Ridley: I intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker. However, I believe that these points should be put. I must, first, reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). It is the present Leader of the House who has the greatest reputation of any Leader of the House for challenging privilege cases. It is the fact that he of all people should have been prepared to move this motion that brought me to my feet.
However, to return to my argument, I quote from Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South is alleged to have written:
"The aim of these people is to turn Britain into the equivalent of a totalitarian East European State."—[Official Report, 16th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 1128.]
Well, it is. There is nothing wrong in that they should have it as their view. Are they ashamed of it now? Are they retracting from it? Why are they so sensitive about it? If they have spent the last few years proclaiming up and down—
Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All that is in order now is to discuss whether this issue should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It cannot be in order to discuss the merits of the case and to make statements such as the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no reason why we should not behave with common sense over this question. The question before the House is the motion of the Leader of the House, that this matter be sent to the Committee of Privileges. Naturally, the Committee itself will be debating these issues.
Mr. Ridley: I am merely seeking to argue, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House should not have moved this motion. I am adducing reasons why I think he was far too sensitive in his desire to shut up my hon. Friend the
1344
Member for Aberdeen, South and to put this matter under the carpet by sending it upstairs. After all, as I say, it is fair comment.
I was surprised that the Leader of the House should seek to argue that we should not discuss the merits of this matter. But if the House is to claim as one of its privileges that no hon. Member or other person may pass aspersions upon the political intentions of some hon. Members, the very essence and substance of political debate itself is impossible.
To hear the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on a point of order trying to suggest that this matter, delicate though it is to the Labour Party, should not be discussed, that it is hurtful and wounding that it should ever be discussed at all that the fact that I should seek to raise it makes him feel that I should be shut up seems to show just that very intolerant attitude towards free speech which is at the very heart of the nature of East European States.
I quote again:
"by standing for Labour; they are little less than the"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What the House is deciding is whether it supports the recommendation that I made. The question is not the merits of the case that is to go to the Committee of Privileges if the House so decides. We are not going to get into a state of untidiness on this question. The issue before the House is quite clear. I have stated that in my judgment precedence should be given. Following long tradition, the Leader of the House has moved that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. We do not have the main debate before the Committee of Privileges has considered the matter.
Mr. Nigel Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we should make it clear—I hope that you will make it clear—that we are not in any way debating your ruling. What we are debating is the motion moved by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Speaker: That is what I am trying to ensure.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in saying that it is normal on these motions to be able to debate whether it

1345
is right that the House should refer a matter? For the House to decide whether it is right to refer the matter one must, with respect, as I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, be able to debate whether this is a matter worthy to be referred.
I think that on previous occasions over the last few years I have heard the Leader of the House himself argue on many occasions when a similar motion has been moved by other Leaders of the House that the matter should not go to the Committee of Privileges because it did not justify being sent to the Committee. Surely, on that basis what my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is saying on the merits must be relevant.
Mr. Ronald Bell: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that on these questions in the past we have often had full debates on the merits of the matter, and after full debates on the merits it has happened that the motion to commit the matter to the Committee of Privileges has been withdrawn because the feeling in the House on the merits was that it should not go upstairs? This debate is without any disrespect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which is merely that the debate should have precedence over the Orders of the Day.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. English—the same point of order.
Mr. English: Is there not another distinction in this debate? Has it not been usual in the past, when the Leader of the House has moved the formal motion—and formal motion it is—for him to be supported by the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that. Perhaps I may just say that I want to observe the rules of the House and in no way to restrict speech, but what I hope we shall understand is that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was quite right in the point of order that he submitted to me. The question is whether the matter shall go to the Committee. All that I am hoping is that we shall avoid the untidiness of just going
1346
over and renewing charges that are to go to the Committee of Privileges, and that hon. Members will, in general, address themselves to that issue.
Mrs. Judith Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point raised with you by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), may one seek your guidance? I ask purely for guidance. If the matter goes to the Committee of Privileges, will there be any offence to the traditions or courtesies of the House if individuals seek their own legal remedies while the Committee of Privileges is sitting? As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some concern to the individuals, and one would not wish to offend the courtesies of the House by taking one's correct legal remedies.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has raised an important question. I do not wish to answer off the cuff. I shall give her an answer tomorrow.
Sir John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For our guidance could you inform the House how it is possible to debate whether the motion should be accepted and the matter go to the Committee of Privileges without our going into the background of the case and deciding whether, in the view of the House, it is important that it go to the Committee? You have asked for restraint, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that perfectly well, but I feel that it is very difficult—I am certain that the Leader of the House, from his previous experience when in Opposition, will agree—to debate these matters without taking into account the background of the case as a whole.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we may have become unnecessarily agitated. The background to the issue is very different from just a series of repetitions of what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) complained about yesterday.
Mr. Ridley: I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to judge the merits of the case. Nor have I the slightest quarrel with your ruling—far from it—which, I am sure, is entirely right in accordance with the precedents. I merely make the point that the option before us, your having ruled, is whether the House should accept the motion, and that is something which

1347
we must consider because the nature of a breach of privilege is quite rightly laid down in our precedents, but the actual fact of this incident, in my opinion, does not merit that it be referred to the Committee at all.
I am seeking to show that it was just fair political comment, and, although I am sure that, technically, it comes within the scope of our rules, I think it a mistake for the Leader of the House to suggest that it should go to the Committee of Privileges. It seems to me that it is a matter of general public comment. There have been a good many comments in speeches and in articles over many years referring to the fact that there are a large number of Left-wing elements in the Government party.
I think that I can claim as evidence for that statement the fact that the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), as well as other hon. Members, have had trouble as to their continuing candidature for the Labour Party. I am sure that it is in no sense a breach of privilege to suggest that there are persons in the country who are seeking to replace them with other politicians—other candidates—of other political views.
As I see it, all that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South did was to suggest that there are in the Labour Party people of political views or colours totally different from the right or left of the Labour Party. That is well known to be the case.
What I find so extraordinary is that the hon. Member for Paddington should feel so sensitive about it. Surely, he is proud of his extreme Left-wing tendencies—[Interruption.] He proclaims them in this Chamber in speech after speech. Other hon. Members—I cannot claim to know entirely who are in this glorious list of 30—have been proclaiming those very views day after day in debate after debate in this place. I do not understand why they should now say that it is a grievous insult and that they are thoroughly affronted when my hon. Friend says—in tamer language than they have often used themselves—what they know to be true. I had thought that they were proud of it.
Mr. Stanley Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has stated as a fact that hon. Members named in the list given by his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have expressed certain points of view. That is what he has just said. I think that many of my hon. Friends would deny that very strongly, and, in these circumstances, as I understood it, it was to be the business of the Committee of Privileges to investigate this aspect of the problem.
I should be most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Could you help us by explaining whether it is in order for hon. Members to make statements in the House imputing to other hon. Members here points of view which are to be the subject matter of consideration by the Committee of Privileges before the Committee has had an opportunity to discuss those matters?
If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that it is in order for hon. Members to impute points of view to others in the House, would it be in order for an hon. Member on this side to seek by means of analogy to question the points of view of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches and to make suggestions that those hon. Members have affiliations with other organisations—I am not making suggestions; I am asking you to rule—with the Fascists and the National Front?
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not in danger of falling into the error of thinking that the House has decided to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges when it has not so decided? This debate is about whether it should so decide. We cannot, I submit, assume that it will so decide and therefore argue that we must not ventilate the matters which are relevant to the question whether it should go to the Committee of Privileges. To endeavour to restrict debate on the motion, which you have ruled should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, would be to deny the House the opportunity of forming a considered view on whether the Committee of Privileges should be put to these pains.
Mr. Speaker: I shall reply now to the points of order. First, right hon. and

1349
hon. Members know that it is never wise, and it is not parliamentary practice, to impute motives—certainly, unworthy motives—to one another in debate in the House.
Mr. Newens: That is what is being done.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Second, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is right in suggesting that it is in order for hon. Members to make out a case showing why the matter should not go to the Committee of Privileges, perhaps because they do not think that it is worth it, or to argue that it should go to the Committee of Privileges. On this the House must trust me to keep as careful a line as I can. But there is no firm line in a debate of this sort.
Mr. Ridley: To bring my remarks to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS "No".]—I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). I must confess a terrible weakness, that I had not read my hon. Friend's list. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Harlow was on it, but I presume he was from his point of order. [Interruption.] I have not read the list at all.
Mr. Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Gentlemen arguing across the Floor. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is giving way.
Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Rather than tell me to speak up, hon. Members should shut up. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling in relation to a matter that arose in my submission to you yesterday. You will recall that I explained that, although the names had been included in the document, the Press—so far as I can establish, on the advice of their legal advisers—refrained from publishing the names that had been included. If there are certain things which may be libellous if said outside the House, I would ask whether you feel that the protection of parliamentary privilege within the House should enable an hon. Member deliberately to make available names so that it then becomes permissible for the Press,
1350
on the grounds of reporting, to perpetuate a libel against individual Members of this House? I raise the point now, in the middle of the sincere exposition by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), because I suggest that there is at least one Conservative Member waiting to interrupt his hon. Friend with a list of names which he wishes to state so that the laws of libel outside the House should be overcome. I invite you to rule whether you think that an abuse, or a proper use, of parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling which I gave today was on the basis of what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) read out yesterday. I have to say that it is an undoubted right and ancient privilege in this place for hon. Members to speak in a way in which they would not be free to speak outside this House. If in the course of the debate hon. Members feel that the rest of the speech to which the hon. Member for Paddington referred is relevant to their argument, I cannot rule it out of order. If it is relevant to the argument that they are advancing, it must be heard. The hon. Member for Paddington yesterday read part of the speech and I ruled on it accordingly.
Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that all that you have said will be accepted by every hon. Member in the House, and always will be. The difference is between the use of a reference to a speech made by an hon. Member outside this House by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is now doing. He said that he presumed, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) had risen on a point of order to defend his hon. Friends, that he was one of the people on the list. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is the beginning of the regression from the gutter down to the sewer which is invited by permitting hon. Members to use their reference to speeches as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is now doing. Would you please rule on the question of an hon. Member making a presumption about another hon. Member

1351
on the basis of that hon. Member's attempt to defend his hon. Friends from what he considers to be a calumnious attack.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely both these lists have been published and, therefore, if hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that they have been maligned they have a proper redress, if that is what they seek, in the courts? Because these things have been published outside the House, privilege in that context does not apply and it should not inhibit my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in making the point that he is now making.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said earlier that I deprecate any imputations, but I must say to the House that once we embark on this sort of debate, which is raised by privilege, the two sides of the argument must be allowed to be expressed and, further, that hon. and right hon. Members, as long as they are not breaking the rules of the House, take responsibility for their own statements here. I do my best to guard against any charge against an hon. Member if dishonour is implied.
Mr. Ridley: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the existence of this list causes hon. Members opposite worry.
Mrs. Millie Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance in this matter'? You have said that you have to protect the House against abuse. I put it to you that the behaviour of the Opposition today is rapidly approaching that of the McCarthy era when people were judged guilty by association.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Millie Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The imputation being made against some hon. Members, whose names we do not know, and some whose names we do know, is of various kinds of treachery—treachery as hon. Members of this House, treachery as Members of the party to which they belong or treachery to their constituents to whom they have submitted themselves as members
1352
of a particular party. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that discussions in this House which include attacks on hon. Members who are unable, in the context of points of order, to reply are abusing the privileges of the House.
Mr. Newens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that he presumed that I was one of the people named in the list. The hon. Gentleman then went on to state that he had not read the list. Does that not mean that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has come before the House without any knowledge of the list, or the speech, and is prepared to get up in this House and impute motives, and points of view of other hon. Members, when he has no right, on the basis of the statement he has made, to say anything? Is it not in order that you should rule that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is not entitled to impute motives to other Members or, if he does, is this not a case of McCarthyism, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) made reference?
Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear that imputations are deprecated. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, if it is felt that he has made an imputation, will act accordingly. We cannot avoid a debate in which both sides will be heard in the argument whether the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.
Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is arising now has a considerable bearing on the rights of a number of hon. Members. I raised with you earlier—you were kind enough to say that you would give a ruling tomorrow—the question of what individual Members should do in terms of their legal rights outside the House while the matter is with the Committee of Privileges, if it goes there.
But another question now arises which concerns your duty to protect hon. Members. Were legal redress to be sought against individuals concerned with the statement issued yesterday, how far would proceedings in this House today, in which names were given, which would then be a matter for the courts, diminish the rights of hon. Members outside the House? I am sure that you will see the

1353
point that I am making. Leaving aside for a moment what it is all about, I would merely put it to hon. Members opposite that there is a real problem here. Every hon. Member has a right to go to the courts outside. What is done here must not prejudice what happens in the courts, and this clearly has some relevance to what is happening at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: We cannot limit debate in the House on the possibility of some action arising in the courts later.
Mr. Ridley: In answer to the hon. Member for Harlow, I am not sure what the imputation is that I am supposed to have made—whether that it is that he wants to be on the list and is not there or that he is on the list and does not want to be. Perhaps if one of my hon. Friends who is in possession of the list would be kind enough to say who is on it and who is not—
Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your ruling in response to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), may I confirm that if any hon. Member reads names which were on the document which was read to you yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), the effect of reading it in this House would be that any redress for anyone who may be on the list would not be available in the courts? Therefore, any hon. Member who reads that must now do so in that knowledge.
Mr. Speaker: In 600 years of history there have been seven Speakers who were not lawyers. I am pleased to say that I am one. Therefore, I obviously cannot rule on what the hon. Member has said, but I advise him to think over what he has said.
Mr. Brotherton: I remain grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It may help the House if I were to read out a paragraph of what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be lucky enough to catch my eye later but we cannot have an inter
1354
vention used now merely to read something out. His hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is addressing the House.
Mr. Ridley: I wish to close. This speech has gone on for a terribly long time, but very little of it has come from me. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and other hon. Members—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to two aspects of this problem which do not seem to be receiving quite the attention they should from the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if I may say so with respect? First, you have clearly ruled that this is a prima facie breach of privilege—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that it should be sent to the Select Committee for that examination. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) seems to be calling in question your decision in that respect.
Second, it seems to be verging on an abuse of the House when, simply by quoting names at random which are supposed to be on these two lists, certain Opposition Members are doing as much damage as they can by sweeping as wide as they can with a dirty brush, throwing doubts on hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller), who we on this side all know could not be more loyal to this country.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: She could try harder.
Mr. Faulds: This exercise can be reciprocal. I am prepared to give the House now 12 names of Conservative Members whose allegiances I would very much call in question in terms of their contacts with the Right Wing.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that the House is debating the Lord President's motion that, following my ruling that this business should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, it should go to the Committee of Privileges. In so doing hon. Members are entitled to advance arguments. Mr. Ridley—to conclude?
Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose
—
Mrs. Millie Miller: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for

1355
Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was good enough to say that he would vouch for my loyalty to this country, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. However, a Member of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), took leave to doubt that. I ask for your protection in this matter against that serious allegation.
Mr. Kinnock: Yes, I heard it.
Mr. Speaker: No right hon. or hon. Member would like any imputation made of the sort to which the hon. Lady has referred—
Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Member is a big twit.
Mr. Speaker: I heard that remark. I must confess that I do not know who made it, but it is totally unworthy of the House of Commons. I hope that hon. Members will control themselves. Mr. Tebbit—to make a statement?
Mr. Tebbit: I do not know whether mine was the remark that you heard, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell you what I said and if you or the House find it offensive, I will of course gladly withdraw it. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller)—perhaps the words would come more quickly to his mind than to mine—
Mr. Faulds: "Totally loyal to her country".
Mr. Tebbit: I think that he said that the hon. Lady "could not be more loyal" to her country. My comment was that perhaps she could try harder. If that is offensive, I gladly withdraw it.
Hon. Members: Of course it is.
Mr. Lawson: The other hon. Member should admit what he said.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House goes on like this I shall have to suspend the proceedings. I will not have right hon. and hon. Members just shouting at each other across the Chamber. When I said that I had heard something, it was not the remark made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit); it was another offensive remark. The hon. Member for Chingford has withdrawn it. Mr. Ridley.
Mr. Ridley: I could have finished a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we are debating a serious motion and at the conclusion of the debate have to make serious judgments on our course of action in terms of which Lobby we enter, may I bring to your attention the difficulty that is posed by your earlier indication that you will rule tomorrow on the representation put to you by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)?
It surely cannot be contended that it is unimportant to hon. Members seeking to reach a serious judgment on the merits of the decision to be taken this afternoon whether that decision will have any effect upon the rights of hon. Members to have recourse to the courts. In view of that and the fact that you have clearly indicated that not until tomorrow will a firm judgment be made upon that point of order, is it possible for the House to continue to consider the issue before it and reach a considered judgment?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) is not correct. The debate today will in no way preclude any hon. or right hon. Member from taking court action if he feels that he has been defamed outside the House. That is not the concern of the House. The concern of the House is whether the Committee of Privileges should give attention to this matter. Has the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury completed his speech?
Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a similar point of order was raised just before the House debated whether matters concerning Mr. Stonehouse should be referred to the Committee, my recollection is that your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lloyd, replied that with no amount of notice could he from the Chair give a ruling on whether what went on in the House would preclude an action—in that case a criminal action—outside. Is not that parallel a good one—that hon. Members cannot expect the House to rule on whether a court outside will entertain—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we get on with the debate.
Mrs. Millie Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance whether you informed me earlier that the hon. Member for Chingford had withdrawn his imputation?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I did.
Mr. Ridley: All I urge is that the House should not refer this matter to—
Mr. Maurice Orbach: Coward.
Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the House that if we have any more of this, I shall suspend the Sitting. Hon. Members are behaving disgracefully this afternoon.
Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite call an hon. Member a coward. Is that a parliamentary term?
Mr. Speaker: It is an unparliamentary expression and should be withdrawn if it was used.
Mr. Orbach: I am delighted to withdraw it in the House, but I shall repeat it to the hon. Gentleman outside.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order that a withdrawal should in future take the form which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach)?
Mr. Speaker: The House is very excited. As I understood it, I said that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the charge. What he does outside the Chamber is not my responsibility.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would rule tomorrow on the question of privilege submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). In that submission, which has relevance to the Lord President's motion, he included all the names that were mentioned.
We have heard, and some of us have read, the names mentioned in the subject for discussion today. Will you rule on
1358
whether today hon. Members whose names were included in that list are permitted to vote, and on whether tomorrow the Lord President, whose name is in the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden, will be permitted to move a motion should you rule that it is in order?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to both questions is "Yes". The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who withdrew whilst we continued our discussion, will be free to vote when the Division comes. It is a convention that he should withdraw.
Mr. Ridley: Hon. Members should not be so sensitive. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has done is to accuse a number of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—and perhaps on the Front Bench—of being Communists. If that accusation makes them as cross as they appear to be this afternoon, they are trying to do two things at once and not thinking things out for themselves.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I do not propose to comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) because I believe there will be other and better ways of establishing the validity or otherwise of what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). It will be possible to find out the validity of what he said, not the validity of the euphemistic gloss which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury put upon it.
I do not intervene to take part in the debate but, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement. I have the honour to have been selected by the House as a member of the Select Committee of Privileges. I believe that I am the only hon. Member serving on that Committee; all the others are right hon. Members. That being so, and as I am included in the list mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I rise to express to you, Sir, and to the House the hope that the House will forgive me if I absent myself from the proceedings of the Committee while this matter is under discussion, if it is referred to the Committee. [Interruption.]
4.39 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: The whole House will unite in one thing and that is in sympathy with yourself, Mr. Speaker. You find yourself in an incredibly difficult situation.
I recognise that when accusations of this kind are made it is almost certain that strong feelings will be aroused. You earlier called attention to the unhappy condition in which we find ourselves. The condition has been getting steadily unhappier since then, but I may be able to help the House by saying that my right hon. Friends and, I hope, my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches will wish to support the motion and to send the matter to the Committee of Privileges. [Holy. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept that, if serious accusations are made by Members of Parliament against their colleagues, or if those accusations which were not intended to be too wounding are taken as being wounding, there should be some inquiry into them in a less passionate atmosphere than the one we have engendered this afternoon.
Perhaps the Committee has a useful contribution to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was absolutely entitled to make the speech he made this afternoon and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having supported his right. There can be no question of Governments moving motions like this and expecting them to go through on the nod, whether or not objections to the motion are regarded by the Government as reasonable.
In view of one remark made by an hon. Member opposite, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made the speech which has been complained of outside this House and it was published. I saw it in at least two newspapers. I think the complaint that these names have somehow been withheld is not justified.
Mr. Arthur Latham: I have seen reports of the speech, but I have not seen newspapers containing the names. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on whether he has seen them and tell us where?
Mr. Peyton: I would rather not name the newspapers, but I will communicate
1360
with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. My recollection is that at least two newspapers carried the names.
I do not wish to raise the temperature of the House, but I think that my hon. Friends have some justification for expressing surprise that the accusation of Left-wing loyalties should be considered by so many people to be so wounding. That is what is stirring up feeling on this side of the House.
We accept the motion and we shall support it. It would be in the interests of the House to dispose of it as quickly as possible.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. Foot: What the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said could be of great help to the House. I certainly think that no hon. Members can complain because a motion of this character has been moved by the Leader of the House in accordance with the normal system of the House.
When the Speaker has ruled in the past as he has today, in most cases the Leader of the House has moved the motion which I moved earlier. I certainly cannot complain that hon. Members have sought to continue the debate, because I have on numerous occasions in the past sought to continue such debates.
I was a member of the 1968 Committee of Privileges which investigated the question of privileges and made recommendations for alterations in our procedure. But these did not commend themselves to the House and they have never been carried into practice. Therefore, we are operating under the old system.
I have followed exactly the precedents—as you have, Mr. Speaker— and hon. Members are entitled to engage in debate. I have no power or authority to ask them to curtail the debate, but I think that those who have listened to the discussion so far—and I am not reflecting on any hon. Member—would conclude that we could get into a discussion which would not be beneficial to the House.
We are not ruling out a debate when the Committee of Privileges has reported to the House. The difference is that when we have that debate the facts will have been examined and conclusions reached by the Committee. The House will then be able to pass judgment without necessarily accepting what the Committee has

1361
said. I think that is the best way to proceed.
If any hon. Members decide to continue the debate, it is not for me to be censorious, because I have done the same myself on previous occasions. Maybe on those occasions, in my belief, the cases were much more dubious, but that is a matter on which the Committee will come to its own view.
In response to what the right hon. Member for Yeovil has said, and in the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—that action may be taken outside and nothing which happens in the House impedes action outside—it would be better for us to come to a fairly early decision. We should avoid a major debate which would not be easy to stop and which would not be conducive to the best settlement of this matter.
Mr. Robert Adley: Many of us listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said about voting for this motion, but can the Leader of the House answer two simple questions') Will the Committee sit in private or in public in view of procedure adopted in other Select Committees which might be relevant? Who, if anybody, will be invited to give evidence?
Mr. Foot: The Committee will act in the same way as all previous Committees of Privilege in such matters. There are ample precedents. They normally sit in private and the decision as to who is to appear and how is a matter for the Committee. It will take precedent into account.
I can see that some of my hon. Friends may legitimately feel that statements have been made by hon Members opposite which they have had no opportunity to rebut. I can understand their feelings, but we shall have a later opportunity to discuss this.
I have no power to end this debate, but I very much hope that we can make it brief. I hope that my hon. Friends will take into account the fact that the proposal for the submission of this matter to the Committee was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). It was on the basis of that submission that I proposed the motion
1362
to the House. We have some very important other business and I hope that this debate will be brief.
4.49 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: I am reluctant to intervene following what the Leader of the House said about the desirability of curtailing the debate, but there are certain points which must be viewed in a broader context before they are put to the Committee.
When this Chamber was destroyed by enemy action, there was considerable discussion about the form in which it should be rebuilt. There were many who favoured the introduction of a circular or semi-circular Chamber such as those in many Parliaments overseas. It was Sir Winston Churchill's view that we should stick to the rigid division which exists today. I cannot help thinking that although at the time I entirely subscribed to his view, perhaps he was mistaken. The spectrum of our views is much more circular than it is divided between one side of the House and the other.
Here we come to the nub of the problem which is to be put to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) alleged that there were hon. Members and perhaps right hon. Members on the other side of the House who, in a sense, defrauded their constituents by standing on the Labour manifesto while taking views which are far to the left of it. It could also be said that there are Members on the Government Front Bench who have taken views to the right of the manifesto. I do not wish to go into that topic, but there is clearly a problem whether some hon. Members represented themselves as belonging to an association—the Labour movement—and yet were pursuing views which were not in keeping with the officially pronounced views of that movement. We must consider whether that is an appropriate position for hon. Members or whether it amounts to a defrauding of the electorate.
The second issue is more difficult and delicate. My hon. Friends and I represented that there were hon. Members on the other side who were acting for alien interests. I understand that in law one is supposed to have willed the things that one would normally be intending to will. Some hon. Members on the other side, in

1363
the general view of many of us, have objectively put forward views which are contrary to the consensus of what opinion in the House would regard as the national interest. I do not say that they did it in the service of an enemy or in any way as a deliberate act of treason. Nevertheless, there may be a case for believing that the views to which they subscribed were in themselves injurious to the interests of the country. We have not had a situation such as this since the Jacobite situation at the end of the seventeenth century when hon. Members of the House, as it was then constituted, believed that the higher interest of the country was contrary to what could be called the interest of the State.
These questions should be put to the Committee of Privileges and I shall support the motion so that the problem can be referred to that Committee and investigated in some detail
4.43 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I find it regrettable that the matter should have been brought before the House at all. I have never liked the idea of matters going to the Committee of Privileges. But I recognise—and I have argued this in the House—that if one is a poor man about whom untrue statements are made, and if one cannot take on the Press barons or those with large incomes, one has no alternative but to ask for the protection of the House. There are, therefore, certain circumstances in which it is right to refer matters to the Committee of Privileges.
I am not particularly happy with this case because politicians live with smears and slanders throughout their political lives. I was a member of the Communist Party and was expelled. Some people have never understood that I was expelled and some people have never understood any of my writings. That is their fault, not mine. But it becomes a serious matter if my constituents, or those of any other hon. Member are told that because we have Left-wing political views we are masquerading in the Labour Party and are Communists, Trotskyites, members of the International Socialists or some other organisation. That is then
1364
serious, as it would be if we on this side of the House said that hon. Members with whom we totally disagree on many issues were members of the National Front or a similiar organisation. That would be wrong and intolerable, and that is the point that worries me this afternoon.
I am worried at the frivolity with which the matter has been treated in the House today. I appeal to hon. Members and warn them that if we go on like this we shall undermine our democratic rights and principles and perhaps undermine the House of Commons. I believe in the House of Commons. I believe in parliamentary democracy. We should be careful of anything which undermines that parliamentary democracy. There are people outside the House who do not believe in it and who are only too keen at all times to chip away at the basic rights that have been built up by the people of our country.
I was worried about what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said. It is legitimate for hon. Members to say that a point of view that I or other of my hon. Friends put forward could, in their opinion, lead to the type of system that exists in Eastern Europe. In the same way, I could say that the arguments of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—with whom I have been having a discussion in a well-known national newspaper—could lead to the type of military dictatorship that exists in Chile.
Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose —
Mr. Heifer: I shall not give way at the moment because I want to develop my argument.
I do not believe, for example, that Opposition hon. Members who are passionately concerned with the defence of the capitalist system believe that they should turn to a dictatorship to reach that end. But I could argue that some of their actions could lead to such a state, as they can argue in reverse.
Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving way. I accept that he genuinely believes in parliamentary democracy, but does he not realise that the people who do not believe in parliamentary democracy, to whom he referred, are working within the

1365
Labour Party at Newham and at Hayes and Harlington and in the 30 other constituencies referred to by the Prime Minister in his "Panorama" broadcast? There is no comparison between that and anything that is going on in our party.
Mr. Heifer: The hon. Member has proved to me that I should never have given way.
Mrs. Renee Short: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) knows nothing about it. What he says is untrue.
Mr. Heffer: The intervention by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was typical of the sort of statement we are hearing at the present time. It is wrong for hon. Members to impute that other hon. Members are actively working for alien interests, outside forces or countries outside the United Kingdom.
We can all bare our breasts about our patriotism. I get very angry when I sometimes hear hon. Members talking about the patriotism of Labour Members. We all have war records, or most of us have. We have all played our part, as did our fathers before us. But that is irrelevant. What is important is that we should distinguish between the argument that we believe that a certain point of view can lead to something and actually saying that hon. Members were acting on behalf of alien forces and belonged to political organisations other than the one to which they said they belonged. That was what worried me about the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He did not draw that distinction. This afternoon I have seen too many other hon. Members failing to draw the distinction, and that is very worrying for the future of the country.
The House must begin to cool it, and I mean cool it. We must have rational, reasonable and serious discussion on the issues. It will sometimes be heated, but that is where we must be. If we step over that line, we shall do considerable harm to the country's future, to democratic rights and principles and to the democratic system.
I am not very happy about the motion. I am sorry that the matter ever came up in this way, but now that it is here we
1366
had better send it to the Select Committee. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to support the motion, but I again appeal to them to cool it, because the position is getting too dangerous and too serious for the future of our country.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I would agree with part of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helier) has said if we were talking about alien interests, but the words used were "alien creed". That brings us very close to the relevant matter. I am against the matter's being sent to a Committee, because I ask myself "What will the Committee do with it?"
It has been suggested that certain hon. Members on the Government Benches are Marxists or crypto-Communists and that they aim at a totalitarian society. I understand from "Erskine May" that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is fully entitled to plead justification and to seek to prove his allegations. Suppose he does. Is the Committee then to take a deep breath and sit for months and months, hearing arguments and perhaps evidence—
Mr. Kinnock: It is a dirty name that was used.
Mr. Bell: It is a name, anyway.
Is the Committee then to report to us on the state of mind of 10 or perhaps 30 hon. Members opposite, saying "Yes. So-and-so aims at a totalitarian society, but such-and-such a Member does not", or "In the case of X we do not find it proved beyond reasonable doubt that he aimed at a totalitarian society, but in the case of another chap we do", or "It is half true of So-and-so"? The situation is ridiculous.
The question of privilege may reasonably be raised, and a matter go to the Committee, when the suggestion is that somebody is working for an outside interest, that he has accepted money improperly or behaved in a corrupt manner. But when the argument is about political opinions and objectives, how can one use privilege, and what sensible use can one make of the Committee of Privileges?
The hon. Member for Walton said that we must cool it, and have rational discussion. That is an excellent aim. People

1367
have been saying that for a few hundred years. It usually has some effect, for about five minutes. It is like passing a crash on the road. Everybody drives more carefully for anything up to two miles after that, and then one gets back to the old competitive operation. The hon. Gentleman who says "Cool it" may tomorrow, on some other subject, be quite warm in his denunciations and defences. If I may say so with great respect to him, he is not the most icy-cold Member in debate. He feels his politics passionately sometimes, and why not? So do we all. We would not be in this House if we did not care rather strongly about our politics. Therefore, we cannot cool it. What we must do is to keep within some undefined limit—one which I think we all sense or understand, even if we cannot define it. One goes to a certain point.
We all know that there is an element of truth in what is said, in as much as certain hon. Members on the Government Benches are a great deal further to the Left than are others. But the question for the Committee would be how much truth and how much exaggeration there was in what my hon. Friend said. When the report came back, we would all have our individual views about the rights and wrongs and value of the report.
It is not for me to advise the House. This is just a debate where we put forward our own views. But I do not think that I shall be helped at all by a Select Committee. This is politics. We are all politicians, and have our own judgments. If someone overstates a case, he weakens it. If someone understates a case, he lends strength to his argument. Can we not leave the matter there?
I have no doubt that prima facie this was a case of breach of privilege. There have been many such cases in the past where Mr. Speaker has rightly ruled that prima facie there was a breach of privilege, and the House, after debate, has not disagreed but has said "Yes, but we do not want to do any more about it because there is no point". That is exactly what I feel about this matter.
After all, some very harsh things are said. "Communist" is perhaps the epithet that tends to be thrown in the direction of the Labour Benches and "Fascist" the epithet that comes in this direction. It does not mean very much.
1368
I have been called a Fascist many times, but I am always borne up by the thought that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been called a black Fascist pig. I do not know why "black". It should perhaps have been "Red Fascist Pig".
Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose—
Mr. Bell: I shall not give way. I think that my hon. Friend has had his ration of interventions.
Until one has been called a Fascist pig, one has not thrown a six and cannot start in the game of politics as it is played nowadays. I say with respect to hon. Members on the Government Benches who have shown themselves rather sensitive that until they have been called crypto-Communists and have been said to be aiming at a totalitarian State they have not been blooded in the political battle. It is no different from hon. Members on this side of the House being called black Fascist pigs.
Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend is wrong.
Mr. Bell: If my hon. Friend thinks that I am wrong, I shall give way to him.
Mr. Lawson: There is a very serious issue here, perhaps different from the issue that hon. Members opposite think it to be, but nevertheless serious. Lying behind the accusation by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), which has prompted this debate, is an issue which should not be brushed aside in the frivolous manner that my hon. and learned Friend appears to be adopting.
Mr. Bell: I must say to my hon. Friend that I am not being frivolous. I am saying that this is part of the rough and tumble of politics. The hon. Member for Walton is part of that rough and tumble. We sometimes use picturesque phrases, and somewhat heated expressions. The question whether that sort of expression should go to the Committee of Privileges is a serious matter because privilege is serious, but otherwise it is not serious. There has been no imputation against the moral character of the Labour Members—[Interruption.] Some Labour Members are becoming excited and using words that never appeared in the document.

1369
The charge of political duplicity is made in the House every week. It is part of the ordinary interchange of politics. Ministers are accused of deceiving the public. They are often accused of deceiving the House. That is all part of the debate that takes place. The point to which I return is that nothing is gained by sending this sort of dispute to a Committee. What will it do with it? Will it say "We do not think that there was deception"? This is a matter of political argument and discussion, and we can resolve it on the Floor of the House.
My view is that we should not disagree with Mr. Speaker if we said that we did not want the matter to go any further. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is at home with this dichotomy of approach. I can remember the famous occasion when this type of debate lasted for six hours and ended in a Division at 10 o'clock. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman voted with me and others for the defeat of the motion that had been moved by the then Leader of the House. He did not do that because he disagreed with Mr. Speaker's ruling or because he did not think there was a technical breach of privilege; he did it because he saw no point in sending the question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges. That was a matter of political judgment and that is the judgment to which I invite the House to come, otherwise we shall discredit ourselves a great deal more than we shall repair our credit.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: First, I address myself briefly to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), as I believe it contained the crucial issue on which the decision of the House must centre. I completely dissent from his main point, which he put extremely mildly, but his contributions often go to the root of the matter.
Having announced that he would call upon his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was rather surprised that there should be a number of Labour Members so concerned about being accused of being Left-wing. That is not the issue. I do not know of any Member who would be concerned about being called Right-wing or Left-wing. I know many right hon. and hon. Members who would be quite proud to be called Right-
1370
wing. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is a good example. I have many right hon. and hon. Friends who would be proud to be called Left-wing. That is not the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience in politics, knows that it is not. He should not put that on record.
The issue is far more serious, and it is because of its seriousness that I support the motion. As the House knows, I am not keen on referring motions of this sort to the Committee of Privileges. I have proved that, as has the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, in past debates and in past votes.
What is the seriousness of the issue? It is the precise nature of the charges that have been made quite deliberately. They are made more serious because, mutatis mutandis, they are a repetition of a charge made about a week ago by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), who speaks on defence matters from the Opposition Front Bench. They repeat the charge that the right hon. Gentleman made to a Conservative gathering in the North-West. Although the term "Young Conservative" might be applied to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), it would he false flattery to apply it to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.
These charges must be taken seriously. I am convinced that behind them is a deliberate campaign to denounce and smear the Labour Party. It is wholly unjustified and based on a tissue of false accusations in terms of the statement that forms the basis of the motion. The charges are wholly false accusations. Therefore, it is necessary to take the proper parliamentary action. It is right that such action should be taken on behalf of the House and the Members who are part of the collective unit. Everything else is for individuals.
Why is that? Like the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, I have always taken an extremely narrow view of privilege. I repeated that view the other day when we were setting up the Committee to inquire into corruption. That is still my view. Privilege is not for the protection of Members; it is to safeguard Members in doing their work for their constituents. Only when that work is threatened or likely to be threatened are

1371
we right to invoke the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Adley: Did the hon. Gentleman advocate that the Poulson Committee should sit in public? If he did, does he agree that the same situation should apply and that now that a Labour Member has gone to the extent of raising this subject as a matter of privilege in the House and has sought to bring it before the Committee of Privileges, presumably with the object of clearing names, the best thing to do is to proceed in public?
Mr. Mendelson: There is no question of clearing anybody's name. The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I could deal with the question whether such a Committee should be in public or in private, but that has nothing to do with the matter with which I am now dealing.
I take an extremely narrow view of the purposes of the Committee of Privileges. Only where a Member's work for his constituents is affected or likely to be affected is it right to refer any matter to the Committee. That is the effect in this case, because one of the false accusations made in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is that certain Members are alleged not to have told their constituents that they are aiming to turn the country into an Eastern satellite. They are alleged not to have told their electors that they intend to work for the purposes of another political party or political grouping. Those are the most serious accusations against the professional ability of a Member to do his work for his constituents. It is on those decisive grounds that we must refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. It is the narrowest of cases, but the most relevant. It brings to the ground the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. There is a clear-cut case for the involvement of the Committee of Privileges.
I turn to the wider implications. In the hurly-burly of politics, and in the fight, I believe that any political party with great traditions is ill-advised to follow those who might advise it, shortsightedly, to base its political fortunes upon smear campaigns upon the unemployed, upon those who receive some
1372
social security payments for their families, and upon false accusations about the records of its opponents. It may appear attractive at first sight, but the people of this country are too experienced, too honourable, and too far-sighted to listen to those who base their campaign on such considerations. I beg all those who might be misled into that campaign to desist from it.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: We have heard a speech of great skill delivered with great compassion by the hon. Member for Penistonc (Mr. Mendelson). It was a speech with most of which most Opposition Members would agree. But it is the very skill and ability with which the hon. Gentleman delivered his speech that leads some of us to wonder whether we have not stumbled into far more serious a situation than even he is willing to admit. He has suggested that it would be wrong for any Member of this House to say that there is a possibility that those who are working against the interests of this country might be elected to this House. That seems to me to be a dangerous denial of our ability to defend this nation.
Let me phrase carefully what I say, so as not to make any accusations or impugn any motives of any Member of this House. If we were to follow the hon. Gentleman's advice literally, should such a penetration by an agent of an alien power ever take place, no Member of this House could seek to expose it without himself or herself risking an attack for indulging in a smear campaign. It worries me that the freedom of speech on both sides of the House should be thus limited by fear of such accusations or of those agents whom we all know to be operating throughout the world—agents of what is now called disinformation and disintegration.
We have all heard stories spread by members of various intelligence services that Members of Parliament, trade union leaders, industrialists, and others, are in close contact with the agents of alien Powers. Perhaps, sometimes, those stories are true; perhaps, sometimes, they are false and are spread simply to arouse distrust among ourselves, to bring our institutions into disrepute and, perhaps, to create the very scenes that we saw in Parliament this afternoon.

1373
At first, listening to this debate, I had no intention of taking part and, as the debate continued, I began to think that the right lion. Gentleman the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) were wrong in seeking to send what at first seemed to be a trivial matter to the Committee of Privileges. But I now think that that is the right course. We must place at least part of the responsibility on that Committee to ensure that we can truly speak freely in this House; so that should this House be penetrated by enemies of our people and our democracy we should he able to point the finger of accusation at them. After all, we allow great liberty at present. It is no crime in this country, thank God, to seek to overturn the existing regime. It is no crime to believe in a totally different form of political system. It is no crime to be a revolutionary. It is only when a foreign Power conies into the matter that there can be any possible question of crime—or any democratic objection.
Let us hope that if we send this matter to the Committee of Privileges its members will have taken note of this debate and will take it upon themselves to consider the activities of those who seek to use parliamentary procedures and parliamentary institutions to destroy parliamentary democracy itself.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Until about half an hour ago I, too, had no intention of intervening, and my intervention now will be brief. If this matter is forced to a Division, I shall vote against its going to the Committee of Privileges—for the very reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) at the end of his speech. What he virtually said was that the public do not take much notice of what is written in the Press. I am inclined to agree with him. In the past seven or eight months I have had a fair amount of muck thrown at me by various sections of the Press. I have in my hand a copy of one newspaper carrying my photograph, under which is the grave description "The Assassin". That was a caption in a newspaper in May.
I do not think that anybody takes much notice of what is said in the Press. However, I believe that the visual media have a greater effect on shaping public
1374
opinion than the kind of rubbish written by some of the silly journalists who sit in the Press Gallery in this House and get paid for it.
I do not understand what some Labour Members are getting so worked up about. People have said these things about Labour Members of Parliament for 20 or 30 years. It has been said at one time or another that Labour Members are all Communists, that there are Reds under the bed, and all the rest of it. Nobody takes any notice of it, and, despite what has been said in the Press, Labour Governments have still been elected. If the proceedings of the House had been broadcast this afternoon in the period from 4 pm. to 4.30 p.m. the public would have had a revelation about their Members of Parliament far more serious than anything that has appeared in the Press.
I appeal to Labour Members not to get worked up about these matters, because they have been happening for years. Surely it is a waste of time for right hon. and hon. Members to sit in a Committee listening to a lot of silly nonsense. What will happen is that the hon. Member against whom charges are laid will drag the thing out; he will try to make a political meat pie out of it; he will seek to support what lie has said; and then somebody will go before the Committee and seek to put up a defence. We shall have a repetition of what happened this afternoon, with people reading out names in an effort to get them on the record.
We shall only fan the fire if we send this matter to the Committee of Privileges. My advice is that we should pour some water on the situation and damp it all down, so that the fire cannot be kept alight. I shall vote against the motion.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have great sympathy with a good deal of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I believe that one way of ensuring temperate debate in this House and of seeking to deal with matters coolly is to act as mature people and judge issues as they arise, on some occasions by treating them with good humour, on some occasions killing them by jeers, and on

1375
other occasions by deciding the most appropriate way to deal with the situation.
This issue, however, is different, and it is different partly for the reason indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). Here is a deliberate representation of hon. Members of this House not as Communists, as Trotskyites, as revolutionaries, as anarchists, or as anything else, but as men, and possibly even women, who have contrived and conspired to secure election to this place by defrauding their constituents—that was the word used—in order that they can have an influence on the conduct of affairs in this country for the benefit of an alien creed, an alien regime, an alien ideology and an alien purpose.
That is something entirely different, and it threatens the whole basis of the democratic standard on which every single candidate, of whatever party, presents himself for election. I appeal to Conservative Members to understand the implications of this threat. It is the fact that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) did not say that some of my hon. Friends were Communists, or any of the other terms that he used, or that they were definitely affiliates or members of political parties for which they did not stand at election. No, he did not say that. He called them crypto-Communists, and used the most grotesque weapon that can be used against a parliamentary democracy—guilt by association.
It was not without purpose that John Kennedy—no great Socialist or defender of crypto-Communists, but someone who learned his politics in the age of McCarthy in America, in many respects—said that rumour is a greater poison to democracy than the lie.
The reason that we must submit this matter to the Committee of Privileges for the coolest and most thorough and most rigorous examination by Members from among our body is that they can, item by item, examine the rumour, the guilt by association, the implication, the imputation, and so on.
None of us in this House can answer the question "When did you stop beating
1376
your wife? "None of us can prove that he was not influenced, in the very conduct of his business and the very pursuit of his ideologies, by those with whom he had to associate.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is, with respect, a serious point of order. It appears to me that the Patronage Secretary is about to move "That the Question be now put", and I express the view—if I am right in my assumption—that it would be quite inappropriate for the debate to be closured. When a matter before the House is of such importance as to be sent to the Committee of Privileges, I suggest that it is quite inappropriate for the debate to be closured so soon.
Mr. Speaker: Such debates have been closured in the past. I say that without anticipating what will happen.
Mr. Kinnock: I shall bring my remarks to an immediate conclusion, Mr. Speaker, by saying to fellow democrats that we have a machine for giving tolerant and thorough consideration to such business. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield asked what the Committee will do. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I suggest that the Committee can provide us with another protection against the distortion of democracy that was seen in the Moscow show trials, in the activities of the Nazis, and in the activities of Joe McCarthy. It can ensure that if a Member is attacked it is for being what he is and not what someone might say he is, with the intention of profiting from the allegation.
Mr. John Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said a moment ago in raising a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair must not be put under pressure on these matters.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put: —

Division No. 410.]

AYES

[5.35 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Allaun, Frank

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McNamara, Kevin

Anderson, Donald

Faulds, Andrew

Madden, Max

Archer, Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Magee, Bryan

Armstrong, Ernest

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mallatieu, J. P. W.

Ashley, Jack

Fitt, Gerard (Bellast W)

Marks, Kenneth

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Flannery, Martin

Marquand, David

Atkinson, Norman

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Bagfer, Gordon A. T.

Ford, Ben

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Forrester, John

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Barnelt, Rt Kon Joel (Heywood)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Bates, Alf

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

Meacher, Michael

Bean, R. E.

Freeson, Reginald

Meilish, Rt Hon Robert

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mendelson, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mlkardo, Ian

Bidwell, Sydney

George, Bruce

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Bishop, E. S.

Gilbert, Dr John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Glnsburg, David

Miller, Mrs Millie (Iltord N)

Boardman, H.

Golding, John

Moonman, Eric

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Gould, Bryan

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Graham, Ted

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Bradley, Tom

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Moyle, Roland

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grant, John (Islington C)

Newens, Stanley

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Grocott, Bruce

Noble, Mike

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Oakes, Gordon

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Hardy, Peter

O'Halloran, Michael

Buchan, Norman

Harper, Joseph

Orbach, Maurice

Buchanan, Richard

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Ovenden, John

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Hattersiey, Rt Hon Roy

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

Hatton, Frank

Padley, Walter

Campbell, Ian

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Palmer, Arthur

Canavan, Dennis

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Park, George

Cant, R. B.

Heffer, Eric S.

Parker, John

Carmlchael, Neil

Hooley, Frank

Parry, Robert

Carter, Ray

Horam, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

Pendry Tom

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Perry, Ernest

Clemltson, Ivor

Huckfield, Les

Phipps, Dr Colin

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Coleman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

Radice, Giles

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Conlan, Bernard

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cook, Robin F. (Edln C)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Corbett, Robin

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cowans, Harry

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Craigen, J. M. (Mafyhill)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Crawshaw, Richard

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Cronin, John

John, Brynmor

Rodger, George (Chorley)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Rooker, J. W.

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roper, John

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rowlands, Ted

Davidson, Arthur

Kaufman, Gerald

Ryman, John

Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)

Ketley, Richard

Sandelson, Neville

Davles, Denzll (Llaneill)

Kllroy-Sltk, Robert

Selby, Harry

Davles, Ilor (Gower)

Kinnock, Neil

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lamble, David

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Deakins, Eric

Lamborn, Harry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lamond, James

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Dempsey, James

Leadbltter, Ted

Sirkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Doig, Peter

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sillars, James

Dormand, J. D.

Lipton, Marcus

Silverman, Julius

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Litterick, Iorn

Skinner, Dennis

Duffy, A. E. P.

Loyden, Eddie

Small, William

Dunn, James A.

Luard, Evan

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Dunnett, Jack

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Snape, Peter

Eadle, Alex

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Edge, Geoft

Mabon, Dr J Dickson

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McDonald, Dr Oonaoh

Stallard, A. W.

Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

McElhone, Frank

Sloddart, David

English, Michael

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Stott, Roger

Ennala, David

MacKenzie, Gregor

Strang, Gavin

Evan, Fred (Caerphllry)

Mackintosh, John P.

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Evan, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Maclennan, Robert

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 256.

Swain, Thomas

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Watkins, David

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)

Watkinson, John

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Weetch, Ken

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Weitzman, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Wellbeloved, James

Woodall, Alec

Thorne, Slan (Preston South)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Wool, Robert

Tierney, Sydney

White, James (Pollok)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Tomiinson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Young, David (Bolton E)

Torney, Tom

Whitlock, William

Urwin, T. W.

Wigley, Dafydd

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. James Tinn and

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

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Mr. Joseph Ashton.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Forman, Nigel

McCusker, H

Aitken, Jonathan

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Macfarlane, Neil

Alison, Michael

Fox, Marcus

MacGregor, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Freud, Clement

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Awdry, Daniel

Fry, Peter

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Madel, David

Baker, Kenneth

Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

Marten, Neil

Banks, Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Mates, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Gilmour, Sir John (East File)

Maude, Angus

Bell, Ronald

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Mawby, Ray

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Goodlad, Alastair

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Benyon, W.

Gorst, John

Mayhew, Patrick

Berry, Hon Anthony

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Meyer, Sir Arrthony

Biflen, John

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Biggs-Davison, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mills, Peter

Blaker, Peter

Gray, Hamish

Miscampbell, Norman

Body, Richard

Grieve, Percy

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Moate, Roger

Boltomley, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Molyneaux James

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Hall, Sir John

Monro, Hector

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Montgomery, Fergus

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hannam, John

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Bralne, Sir Bernard

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morgan, Geraint

Brittan, Leon

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hastings, Stephen

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Brotherton, Michael

Havers, Sir Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hawkins, Paul

Mudd, David

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hayhoe, Barney

Neave, Airey

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Henderson, Douglas

Nelson, Anthony

Budgen, Nick

Keseltine, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Hicks, Robert

Newton, Tony

Burden, F. A.

Hlggins, Terence L.

Nott, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hodgson, Robin

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Carlisle, Mark

Holland. Philip

Page, John (Harrow West)

Carson, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Howell, David (Guildford)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Channon, Paul

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pardoe, John

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Parkinson, Cecil

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hurd, Douglas

Pattie, Geoffrey

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Penhaligon, David

Clegg, Walter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Percival, Ian

Cockcroft, John

James, David

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Cope, John

Jenkin.RtHonP. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

Pink, R. Bonner

Cordle, John H.

Jesse!, Toby

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cormack, Patrick

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Corrie, John

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Costaln, A. P.

Jopllng, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Crawford, Douglas

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rathbone, Tim

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Kilfedder, James

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Kimball, Marcus

Reid, George

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Drayson, Burnaby

King, Tom (Brldgwater)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Ridsdale, Julian

Dunlop, John

Knox, David

Rifkind, Malcolm

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lamont, Norman

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Elliott, Sir William

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Eyre, Reginald

Lawrence. Ivan

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawson, Nigel

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Farr, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fell, Anthony

Lloyd, Ian

Royle, Sir Anthony

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Loverldge, John

Sainsbury, Tim

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McAdden, Sir Stephen

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fookes, Miss Janet

McCrindle, Robert

Scott, Nicholas

1380

1381

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Tapsell, Peter

Walters, Dennls

Shepherd, Colin

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Warren, Kenneth

Shersby, Michael

Tebbit, Norman

Watt, Hamish

Sims, Roger

Temple-Morris, Peter

Weatherill, Bernard

Sinclair, Sir George

Thatcher, Rt Han Margaret

Wells, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Welsh, Andrew

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Thompson, George

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Speed, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D.

Winterton, Nicholas

Spence, John

Trotter, Neville

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Stanbrook, Ivor

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Younger, Hon George

Stanley, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Viggers, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wakeham, John

Mr. Carol Mather.

Stokes, John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—

Division No. 411.]

AYES

[5.47 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Gilbert, Dr John

Allaun, Frank

Corbett, Robin

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cordle, John H.

Glnsburg, David

Anderson, Donald

Corrle, John

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Archer, Peter

Cowans, Harry

Golding, John

Armstrong, Ernest

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gould, Bryan

Ashley, Jack

Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Gourlay, Harry

Ashton, Joe

Crawford, Douglas

Graham, Ted

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelttiorne)

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cronln, John

Grant, John (Islington C)

Atkinson, Norman

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Gray, Hamish

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Grieve, Percy

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Cryer, Bob

Grocott, Bruce

Baker, Kenneth

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Hardy, Peter

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davidson, Arthur

Harper, Joseph

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Bates, Alf

Davles, Denzll (Llaneill)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)

Bean, R. E.

Davles, Ifor (Gower)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Deakins, Eric

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bennett, Or Reginald (Farenam)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hatton, Frank

Benyon, W.

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Havers, Sir Michael

Berry, Hon Anthony

Dempsey, James

Hayman, Mrs Helens

Biffen, John

Dodsworth, Geoflrey

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Biggs-Davlson, John

Doig, Peter

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Bishop, E. S.

Dormand, J. D.

Hefler, Eric S.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Henderson, Douglas

Boardman, H.

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Heseltlne, Michael

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hicks, Robert

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Hlggins, Terence L.

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Dunnett, Jack

Hooley, Frank

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Eadie, Alex

Horam, John

Bradley, Tom

Edge, Geoff

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

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Huckfleld, Les

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Elliott, Sir William

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Buchan, Norman

English, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Buchanan, Richard

Ennals, David

Hunter, Adam

Buchanan-Smith, Allck

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Bulmer, Esmond

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

Eyre, Reginald

Janner, Greville

Campbell, Ian

Farr, John

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Canavan, Dennis

Faulds, Andrew

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

Cant, R. B.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Carmlchael, Neil

Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Carson, John

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

John, Brynmor

Carter, Ray

Flannery, Martin

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Ford, Ben

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Forrester, John

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Clemitson, Ivor

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

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

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Cohen, Stanley

Freeson, Reginald

Jopling, Michael

Coleman, Donald

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Kaufman, Gerald

Conlan, Bernard

George, Bruce

Kelley, Richard

The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 110.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

O'Halloran, Michael

Speed, Keith

Kinnock, Neil

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Spriggs, Leslie

Lambie, David

Orbach, Maurice

Stallard, A. W.

Lamborn, Harry

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lamond, James

Ovenden, John

Stanley, John

Lamont, Norman

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Padley, Walter

Stewart, Donald (Western Islet)

Lawson, Nigel

Page, John (Harrow West)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)

Leadbitter, Ted

Palmer, Arthur

Sloddart, David

Lo Marchant, Spencer

Park, George

Stott, Roger

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Parker, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Parry, Robert

Strang, Gavin

Lipton, Marcus

Pattie, Geoffrey

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Litterick, Tom

Pavitt, Laurie

Swain, Thomas

Loyden, Eddie

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Luard, Evan

Percival, Ian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Perry, Ernest

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Mabon, Dr J Dlckson

Phipps, Dr Colin

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

McCartney, Hugh

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

McElhone, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Thompson, George

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Price, William (Rugby)

Thorne, Stan (Preston Soutti)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Prior, Rt Hon James

Tierney, Sydney

Mackintosh, John P.

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Tinn, James

Maclennan, Robert

Radlce, Giles

Tomiinson, John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Raison, Timothy

Torney, Tom

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Townsend, Cyril D.

McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Urwin, T. W.

McNamara, Kevin

Reid, George

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Madden, Max

Remon, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Viggers, Peter

Magee, Bryan

Richardson, Miss Jo

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

Mahon, Simon

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Marks, Kenneth

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Watkins, David

Marquand, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Watkinson, John

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Watt, Hamish

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Weatherill, Bernard

Marten, Neil

Roderick, Caerwyn

Weetch, Ken

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Weitzman, David

Mather, Carol

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Wellbeloved, James

Maude, Angus

Rooker, J. W.

Welsh, Andrew

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Roper, John

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Mawby, Ray

Rose, Paul B.

White, James (Pollok)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Whitehead, Phillip

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Whltelaw, Rt Hon William

Meacher, Michael

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Whitlock, William

Mendelson, John

Rowlands, Ted

Wigley, Dafydd

Mikardo, Ian

Royle, Sir Anthony

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Ryman, John

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbfide)

Sandelson, Neville

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Illord N)

Seiby, Harry

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mills, Peter

Shaw, Arnold (Illord South)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Molyneaux, James

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Moonman, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Morris, Charles R. (Opeflshaw)

Sllkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Woodall, Alec

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

Woof, Robert

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Sillars, James

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Moyle, Roland

Silverman, Julius

Young, David (Bolton E)

Neave, Airey

Silvester, Fred

Neubert, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Newens, Stanley

Small, William

Mr. James Hamilton and

Noble, Mike

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Mr. Peter Snape.

Oakes, Gordon

Spearing, Nigel

[For Noes see c. 1467–8]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint by the honourable Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

FIREARMS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 with respect to the duration of firearm certificates and shotgun certificates.
I am seeking to introduce this Bill to get the Government out of a serious difficulty in which they find themselves. Lord Harris wrote to me on 15th October saying:
"The Home Secretary has at present no power to do this under the 1968 Act".
If the Government will accept the Bill and facilitate its passage, they can meet the principal objection of most holders of firearm and shotgun certificates to the substantial increase in fees which they now face.
I remind the House that in 1969 a firearm and shotgun certificate cost 5s. It was raised to £2 10s. at the end of 1969. It was increased to £3 10s. in 1971, and in 1975 it was increased to £7. In October the Government laid an order increasing the fee for the granting of a firearm certificate to £12—an increase of 151 per cent, in the last four years—for the renewal of a firearm certificate from £4·50 to £10, and all other firearm and shotgun fees in proportion.
I am in no way asking for any form of subsidy. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has signed his name on the back of my Bill in support of it must convince the House that there is no question of the sporting community asking that their firearm and shotgun certificates should be subsidised in any way.
We accept the argument that the scheme should be self-financing. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is in her place. I think that the hon. Lady and the House are aware that the Long Room Committee, on which all users of shotguns and firearms are represented, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), has expressed grave doubts about the way that police costs are made up. We have seen references in Hansard to police
1386
costs of over £50 for checking the renewal of one firearm certificate in the Greater London area. Many of the owners and users of firearms question the extent of the checking which seems to be necessary and the amount of police time which is now spent on it. Many perfectly honourable and honest citizens, when they come to renew their certificates for sound sporting reasons, find themselves subject to a whole host of questions and inquiries which they feel are a waste of police time.
It has been estimated that these new fees put a burden of over £1 million on the sporting community. I fear that the expenses now—£12 for a firearm certificate—will put a premium on having an unlicensed weapon in one's possession. I am sure the House does not want that.
If we double the fee, the only way to reduce the cost to the individual is to double the time for which the certificate is issued. That is what this simple Bill would do. It seeks to extend the period from three years to six years for the granting of these certificates. A driving licence is far more lethal than a shotgun certificate. For the total sum of £5, one has a licence to slaughter on the roads until one is senile or dies.
We are asking the Government to follow up the sympathy they have expressed about this problem by facilitating the passage of the Bill or by giving an undertaking that, when the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill comes before this House in the next Session, they will at least agree to extend the period for shotgun and firearm certificates.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Marcus Kimball, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

FIREARMS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)
  FIREARMS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Marcus Kimball accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 with respect to the duration of firearm certificates and shot-gun certificates: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 256.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords amendments considered.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice some time ago that I would seek to raise a point of order at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill relating to your selection, which was not placed or made available in the " No " Lobby until some time between a quarter to and a quarter past three this afternoon.
  I put it to you that, so to speak, by the grace of God, we have had longer to consider your selection than would normally have been the case if other proceedings had not interrupted the com-

  That the Lords Amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill be considered by reference to the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 2, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 5, Clauses 17 to 32, Schedule 6, Clauses 33 to 35, Schedule 7, Clauses 36 and 37, Schedule 1, new Schedules, Clauses 38 to 43, Schedules 8 and 9.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

  Mr. Francis Pym: The House is very well aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends are thoroughly dissatisfied with the manner in which the Bill has been handled in every conceivable way. In due course, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall wish to move a manuscript amendment to the motion. However, at the outset I wish to say that we are extremely unhappy about the way in which we are being treated on the Bill. We do not think that we have been given adequate notice or that proper parliamentary time intervals and procedures have in any way been adhered to.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has just mentioned the difficulties over the list of amendments selected. However, you will notice yourself, Mr. Speaker, that all the Government amendments on the Amendment Paper are starred, indicating the fact, of which we are all aware, that until last night no one in the House knew that this business was to come before the House today.
  We have felt all along that the guillotine originally proposed on Report and carried by the House was completely
  1388
  mencement of the Bill this afternoon. If we had not had the prolonged debate on the privilege motion, which has put back the time of commencement of these proceedings, those of us who are interested in these amendments would have had only about half an hour to absorb your selection. With respect, that is not fair to Members of Parliament on both sides. There are no fewer than 137 different amendments in 49 groupings. It is not adequate for hon. Members to have only about half a hour to consider how these debates should take place.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate complaint, and I apologise to him and to the House. I was in some difficulty. I do not want to go into it in too great detail. I appreciate that the notices should have been posted earlier. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the inconvenience he has suffered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  unjustified. There had been no delay of any kind in Committee. The Opposition had been fulfilling their role with reasonableness and fair play, and there was proper progress. The thanks we got for that was the knife brought down by the Leader of the House. There was no parliamentary case whatever for a guillotine at that stage.
  The Bill is inimical to agriculture. The only possible gain from the Bill is Socialism. That is something that we are against, and it is quite wrong to guillotine that. Under that guillotine there was no discussion whatsoever of Clause 30. The manuscript amendment relates to advancing Clause 30 to an earlier stage in the Bill. Since the guillotine on Report we have seen another guillotine introduced in a way that can only be described as thoroughly hostile to another place, because the knives were brought down before another place could even conclude its consideration of the amendments, so that we had no idea what decisions their Lordships would come to. Only last night did we hear that their amendments would be taken today.
  When my hon. Friends sought to obtain details of the Government's

  1389
  reaction to their Lordships' amendments, they were unable to find that out until five minutes to one o'clock this morning. The list of amendments that their Lordships passed comprised nearly 100 Government amendments and 32 other amendments—more than three times as many Government amendments. When one hears something of the things said by the Government Front Bench about the way their Lordships have handled the Bill, it is right to draw to the attention of this House the fact that in Committee in another place there were 40 Government amendments and only 18 Opposition amendments, and that on Report in another place there were no fewer than 60 further Government amendments and only 21 Opposition amendments.
  In the event, however, there are five really significant and important changes that another place has introduced into the Bill. The first is an amendment to Clause 1 relating to the definition of agriculture and, in particular, livestock. The second is on the forestry side. The third concerns the responsibility of local authorities to rehouse those who previously lived in tied cottages; that is what is known as the "best endeavours" clause. The fourth concerns the qualifying period; that is, the length of time a worker must have been involved in agriculture and in a particular farm before he can qualify for the privileges afforded to certain persons under the Bill. The fifth concerns the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a man for misconduct.
  What was the Government's attitude to their Lordships' decisions? We did not know yesterday. We did not know until today. All the amendments that the Government have tabled for us to consider this afternoon are starred. I think that that is a parliamentary disgrace. It bears no relation to any kind of reasonable procedure that anyone has ever known. In view of the fact that we treated the Bill, although we were against it, in the way in which we did, it absolutely offends us that we should receive the treatment that we are receiving.
  6.15 p.m.
  I do not believe that the Leader of the House is remotely interested in what we understand as parliamentary government. He wants simply to railroad Socialism through this machine. In view of all the
  1390
  things he used to say when he sat below the Gangway, it is a fantastic disgrace that he has the presumption to bring this matter before the House today. I am sorry that he is not in his place. He ought to be in his place. We know that he has had another problem to deal with today, but to try to treat the House in this way is a complete disgrace.
  For example, the Government have an amendment of their own to Lords Amendment No. 86. The Government amendment appears to be helpful, but, as it was only in the small hours of this morning that we had notice of it, how in all fairness can we take the legal and proper advice from people who are skilled, informed and expert in these matters in order to know whether it is really helpful? That is one obvious example. Another example, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) feels particularly strongly, is a Government amendment to Lords Amendment No. 77, which appears on the last page of the Amendment Paper. It is a very technical amendment. It deals with a point concerning the Rent Acts not entirely directed to agriculture, apparently. My hon. Friend would have liked much more than a few hours to study the significance of the amendment.
  That brings us to Clause 30, the " best endeavours " clause. This was never reached on Report because of the knives. It will not be reached today if the motion is carried. It was not reached on Report and it will not be reached now. I thought that the House of Commons was all about airing grievances. What we are now involved in is an exercise which can be described as a hush-up, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I resent it.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the motion, in line 2, after 'Schedule 2', insert 'Clause 30'.
  There are two other manuscript amendments which are consequential. They are: in line 3, at the end, insert ' to 29 ': in line 4, at the beginning, delete first' to ' and insert 'Clauses 31 and'.
  The net effect of the amendment to the motion would be that after considering Clause 1 and Schedule 2 we would then consider Clause 30, which is not the only really important clause in the Bill but is certainly one of the important

  1391
  clauses. It would be quite wrong if we went through this business today without giving time to consider that clause. Therefore, we move those amendments not because we think that they make a slight adjustment to something of which we approve but as an absolute protest at the way in which we have been treated.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not given permission yet, but I am about to do so. I am about to accept the manuscript amendment. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) will understand that I accept the manuscript amendment, in line 2, after ' Schedule 2 ', insert ' Clause 30', with which we may discuss the other manuscript amendments, but he will appreciate that at this stage he moves only one amendment.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has taken the opportunity of this discussion on a procedural matter to attack the Bill as a Socialist measure. We plead guilty to that charge. This is a Bill that will bring social justice to the agricultural community. It will give farm workers and their families a security of tenure and a protection against eviction which is long overdue. Therefore, we are in no doubt that this is a very basic and radical reform, and one of which the present Government are proud.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to attack my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I rebut—[HON. MEMBER: "Where is he? "] My right hon. Friend has had a great many demands put on his time, coming very shortly after an illness and caused to a large extent by the confrontation that has taken place between the Conservative-dominated second Chamber and the House of Commons. That is what today's proceedings are all about.
  Hon. Members: Nonsense.
  Mr. Pym: It is about the mishandling of legislative business by the Leader of the House. That is what it is about.
  Mr. Strang: I shall come to that point very soon. I do not want to take up valuable time. We have a full six hours
  1392
  on this measure, and I for one should like to see the time used constructively. Hon. Members must be aware that hours and hours have been spent in debating this measure in Committee and in the other place, and now, as a result of their Lordships' amendments, we are to spend another six hours. I acknowledge that it is an important measure, but it has been debated at great length.
  I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. I think he can reasonably argue that he and his hon. Friends have been subjected to an element of inconvenience as a result of the Government deciding to bring forward these proceedings by one day. That is the complaint, as I understand it—that the right hon. Gentleman expected this debate to take place tomorrow but it is taking place today. I am glad that he acknowledges that.
  Let me make our position clear. We recognise that there is an element of genuine inconvenience here, but I think that all hon. Members have been aware that we are not in a position to predict precisely what will be the business in the Commons at present—[An HON. MEMBER: " For how long? "] I think that that is a fair question. For how long depends, among other things, on the attitude of the leadership of the Conservative Opposition and the other place. For how long shall we carry on this Session? I do not know the answer to that.
  Mr. Pym: That is a monstrous thing to say. The Government sent a whole host of major Bills to another place very late in the Session, creating a log-jam the like of which has never been known before, and to say that the responsibility for that lies with another place is quite wrong. It is the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Government's business managers for arranging their legislative programme in this way. The Treasury Bench must take its responsibility.
  Mr. Strang: I shall proceed to demonstrate, when we come to debate it, that the first amendment is a wrecking amendment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. That is what this is about. It is about an attempt by their Lordships to frustrate the Government's intentions here. They have sought to wreck this measure, and the Government, quite

  1393
  rightly, are using their majority and the votes which they can command in the House of Commons to redress the damage. That is what this is about.
  I come now to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, because we genuinely want to have a debate. There is no question of that. The Government want to use the six hours to debate the issues of substance and importance—debating them, I may add, in some cases for the third and fourth time, since that is what it will amount to. These points which have been raised by the other place are not new great points of substance. They are wrecking amendments in some cases, and in some instances they are straight decisions going against decisions reached in the Standing Committee.
  I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman—this is genuinely meant to be helpful to him—that we are not prepared to accept his manuscript amendment but we are prepared to facilitate his objectives. We are anxious to move on, and I noted his particular reference to Clause 30. We are anxious to conduct our affairs in a way that will enable us to move on quickly and avoid any undue delay on some of the matters arising earlier, certain of which, I agree, are important.
  Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to respond to our offer and accept that we proceed in the order which we propose, on the understanding that we shall seek to facilitate a debate on the particular matter on which he wishes to spend some time.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be so kind as to give his views on Lords Amendment No. 77, which introduces New Schedule 1A? Does he not agree that this constitutes a fundamental redrafting of Clause 2? Does he not recognise that it comprises some 75 lines of vital redefinition of sections of the Rent Act 1968? Does he acknowledge that this first became available to the House at noon yesterday, and does he think that this is a satisfactory way of legislating?
  Mr. Charles Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot be allowed to get away with what he said. In effect, he was complaining about the existence of the other place. He should
  1394
  recall that the other place exists in its present form because of the opposition to reform which came from the present Leader of the House. Therefore, to complain now about the other place carries no weight whatever. If the hon. Gentleman had read the newspapers and used his ears in recent weeks, he would have realised that many of their Lordships think that it is high time that reform took place. If it has not, the only reason is that the present Government are concerned with irrelevant and unimportant matters. Moreover, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot use the illness of the Leader of the House as an excuse for the right hon. Gentleman not being here now to deal with complaints against his performance today.
  The short notice given to the House of the debate on this measure is a disgrace. Once again, two things are poved: first, the incompetence of the Leader of the House in the way he organises his business, and, second, the fact that the Leader of the House believes that the Commons, let alone the other place, should be used as a rubber stamp to push Government legislation through without argument and as quickly as possible.
  The only happy thought left with us about the way the Government have dealt with business today is the knowledge that in the not too distant future the Leader of the House will once again be in Opposition. We shall then recall his performance as Leader of the House, and we shall realise that the great flights of oratory in which he will then indulge will be no more than a mass of meaningless rhetoric, without integrity and implying no more than a desire on the right hon. Gentleman's part to impress us with his words.
  What has happened today is a disgrace, and I hope that the country, and the farming industry in particular, will take note of it.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I felt angry enough before the Minister replied, and I feel more angry now. If he really wanted to meet our grievances —I assure him that they are sincere and honest—he could have done so easily by accepting our amendment to the procedure motion. We could then have debated Clause 30, which both Ministers

  1395
  know touches matters of profound importance on which we must have a discussion. I have never been one to raise points of order in the House, and I hope that I am regarded as a fair and modest man, but I am extremely angry at the way the House has been treated. The Government's behaviour is thoroughly shabby.
  The Minister referred to the debates in Committee. We tried to be constructive throughout. I certainly did, and sometimes I agreed with the Government. We had excellent relations in the Standing Committee. There was no filibustering of any kind, and there was no guillotine. But when we reached Report in this House there was no meaningful discussion whatever and no opportunity to discuss the many amendments still to be dealt with.
  Those of us who took an interest in the Bill in Committee and who spent quite a lot of time trying to study these matters were hoping to play a useful part in the debate now to follow. But we must have proper warning in order to prepare our speeches on these complicated amendments, and we have had no warning of any kind. How is it possible to make a sensible contribution if the Government announce their business in this way at the last minute? It is no wonder that people outside Parliament are utterly disillusioned with the way we handle our affairs. It is a mockery. If the Minister genuinely wanted to help us, he could have accepted our amendment. I regard his rejection of it as outrageous, and I wish to record my disgust and protest at the way we have been treated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): May I ask the House to recall that this is a very narrow debate about the point at which we should consider Clause 30?
  Mr. John Ellis: I rejoice that on this occasion I have an opportunity to speak, because I was not able to do so at an earlier stage. I put it to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, as I see it, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) put a very fair point. Sweeping all the verbiage away from it, he said that there were four or five main issues which he wished to debate. That is fair enough, but there is
  1396
  no point in the right hon. Member complaining of injustice or waxing eloquent, because most of these things have been discussed before.
  If all that the amendment seeks is to have a debate on one of these five matters before the others I hope that will be possible. I do not think my hon. Friends would have any objection. There can be no objection, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the matter in that light.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Strang: We are all glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) is in a position to participate in these proceedings. I am sure that even Opposition Members would want to pay tribute to the contribution that my hon. Friend made in Standing Committee as a Government Whip. Like him, I regret the rather provocative manner in which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) introduced his remarks.
  We want to make progress. It is not our purpose to frustrate the debate on these issues. I tried to emphasise that at the outset. As a gesture of our genuine attempt to have a constructive use of these further six hours on the Floor of the House, we are prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for at last acceding to my right hon. Friend's request. It is a pity he did not do so earlier. There is one point that I should like to take up with him—that is, his remark that the House has suffered inconvenience because the Bill was brought on much earlier than hon. Members anticipated.
  It goes far beyond inconvenience. It is a profound discourtesy and contempt of the House and of hon. Members in this House. I shall give as an example how I was placed in respect of this matter. During the latter part of yesterday evening I happened to be in my constituency. I returned home at about 11.30 last night to find a massage from my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) telling me that the Bill was coming on today. Since we were both concerned with handling the Bill for the Opposition in Committee, we were very much concerned about this.

  1397
  I repaired at once to the House and arrived here at about a quarter to midnight to discuss with my hon. Friend what these amendments were. May I say in passing that I did not receive the customary courtesy either from the Minister or from any member of his Department advising me that the Bill was coming forward earlier than had been intended. Nor was any communication delivered about what would be the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments. That is normally a courtesy which is extended between the two Front Benches, but no message was received by me or left anywhere for me.
  The consequence was that I came to the House, and through the kind offices of the Public Bill Office I was able to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment deals with Clause 30. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is straying well beyond that.
  Mr. Rossi: I shall come to that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall also make another application to you about the nature of the starred amendments. If I may develop my argument, you will see that at the end I shall make a request to you, with your leave.
  Through the courtesy of the Public Bill Office, I was given a list of the proposed amendments and the provisional scheduling of them. There were 129 amendments. As hon. Members know, if one is to do this matter properly one has to compare the Lords amendments with the text of the Bill to see how relevant they are. One must then refer back to the Lords Hansard to see exactly what the debate was and what the amendments are all about in order that we may form a judgment on whether to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments.
  On the basis of only 10 minutes for each amendment, that is 21 hours' work. That is the burden which was imposed upon us last night. It is absolutely impossible—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be that as it may, I want to hear the argument why Clause 30 should not appear in the order in which it is set out on the Order Paper. The Minister has accepted the amendment.
  Mr. Rossi: I am dealing with this matter and also the submission that I
  1398
  wish to make to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may debate the jurisdiction with regard to starred amendments——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us deal with one matter at a time. That is much simpler and clearer to the House. I should like to hear any argument why Clause 30 should not be placed in the position in which it would be if the amendment were carried.
  Mr. Rossi: I shall enlarge upon the amount of time to consider these matters and you will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Clause 30 is dealt with by Lords Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49. These are two-thirds down the page. Would you like to make a calculation of 10 minutes per amendment in considering what is listed on the Amendment Paper before we reach the amendments to Clause 30? That is the point I have been putting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you heard what I was saying.
  This is relevant to the order in which we take these matters and the amount of time that the Government have allowed to consider them. On the whole, we have not been given the time to consider these matters as we should. My right hon. and hon. Friends behind me did not sec what these amendments were until 2.55 this afternoon, when the list was put in the Lobby. That is not the way in which the House should be treated or the way in which hon. Members should be asked to consider important and serious matters. It is a contempt of the whole parliamentary system.
  I appreciate that what I am saying puts the Chair in an extremely difficult position. But these are starred amendments. It is within the discretion of the Chair to decide whether or not they should be selected for debate. That is the normal procedure of the House. It is within your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider whether any starred amendments should be selected for debate. The list before us is a provisional selection by Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing binding upon you.
  Therefore, in order to protect the House and hon. Members who have not had an opportunity to consider these matters, and on the pure arithmetic with respect to the minutes and hours involved

  1399
  in considering these matters properly, I invite you, without prejudice to my right hon. Friend's amendment, to say that you do not select any of the starred amendments. It is the function of the Chair to protect the House and hon. Members so that they can do their work properly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to vary the provisional list of selection made by Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the second point that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not arise. The first point is whether Clause 30 has to be placed in the position in which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has suggested. Unless anyone has any objection, I will put that point to the House now.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That being so, would not the right course be to recall Mr. Speaker so that he may hear this argument about whether the starred amendments should be selected? I am sure you will recognise that it is the whole truth that those of us who expected to be able to have a discussion as a group today about the debate tomorrow have come here with no chance of being able to read or to appreciate the amendments. It was after 3 o'clock today that this matter was first drawn to our attention.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has made a proper protest and we understand the difficulties in which the House has been placed in recent days. I was surprised that he made an attack on a Minister—whether my colleague or myself I do not know. The timing of a debate is not usually a matter for discussion between the Minister and the Shadow Minister. This was discussed through the usual channels. I apologise. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration and the inconvenience he has suffered. It was very proper to make the protest that he did. However, we have taken about 40 minutes of the six hours allotted to an important Bill. I therefore suggest that we now proceed, since we have accepted the reasonable amendment of the right hon.
  1400
  Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in view of the strong feelings about Clause 30.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we have been dealing with other points of order, perhaps I might say that I am confident that Mr. Speaker is well aware that the amendments were starred. The selection is his. I shall therefore now proceed to put the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: In line 3, at end insert ' to 29,'.
  In line 4, delete first ' to' and insert ' Clauses 31 and —[Mr. Pym.]
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill be considered by reference to the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 2, Clause 30, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 5, Clauses 17 to 29, Clauses 31 and 32, Schedule 6, Clauses 33 to 35, Schedule 7, Clauses 36 and 37, Schedule 1, new Schedules, Clauses 38 to 43, Schedules 8 and 9.

  RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
    Clause 1

      INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that we are to take at the same time Lords Amendments No. 2 and 5.
      Mr. Strang: This first group takes us straight to the heart of the matter. The scope of the definition of "agriculture" has already been debated at length. Lords Amendment No. 1 is important because it reveals the attitude of a majority of the Members of another place to this Bill: it is a wrecking amendment.
      The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has campaigned for many years for the abolition of the agricultural tied cottage. In the course of my interest in these issues, which goes back a number of years, I have discussed them with farm workers throughout the

      1401
      country. Some of them have been remarkably conscious that the Bill would have to be passed not only by this House but by the other place. They were aware, and more of them than ever are now aware, of the anachronistic composition of the second Chamber, which gives landed gentry the power to dominate its decisions. An overwhelming majority of the peers who voted for this wrecking amendment are hereditary peers—perhaps not surprisingly, since they number over 800, as opposed to 295 life peers.
      Mr. Mayhew: Would the Minister say what proportion of the Labour peers entitled to attend actually did so?
      Mr. Strang: We could have a great debate about the various proportions of different parties who voted on this amend ment, but I am making one central point of which farm workers have been very conscious—that there is a particular interest in this measure in the other place precisely because it is a basic advance and reform in the countryside—
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Talk about farming.
      Mr. Strang: I intend to do just that—
      Mr. Peter Mills: What rubbish—a basic reform!
      Mr. Strang: It has been said that to extend security of tenure to workers in sectors of agriculture involving livestock, and particularly to dairy stockmen, would damage the industry. The Government have argued that that is without foundation. There is no justification for speculating that the rehousing obligation in the Bill will not work and that livestock farmers will not be able to regain possession of their cottages if they need them for essential incoming workers. Nor have hon. Members or noble Lords been able to bring forward any convincing evidence to support that view. It is merely alarmism and has done nothing to further constructive debate on the Bill. By agreeing to these amendments the Lords have deliberately sought to deny the Bill's protection to the largest single group who should be eligible for it.
      This means that they would have no protection. It is still not widely appreciated in the country at large, or perhaps by hon. Members—it is certainly not
      1402
      appreciated by urban electors—that the farm worker and his family have no security whatever in their agricultural tied cottage; that if a farmer or a landlord takes a worker to court to get him out of the cottage, as the law stands the court has no alternative but to grant possession to the farmer. All that it can do is delay the process for a short time. It does not matter whether the farmer wants to leave the cottage standing empty, to sell it or to use it as a second home. That is irrelevant. If the amendment stands, this important section of the agricultural labour force will continue to have no legal protection in the occupation of their dwelling-houses.
      A high proportion—about 76 per cent.—of stockmen are housed by their employers and their houses account for about a quarter of the total cottage stock occupied by whole-time workers. This is not a small peripheral group: these people are right at the centre. It is obvious that the Government had the particular and often pressing need for their rehousing very much in mind when tailoring the Bill.
      My noble Friend Lord Peart said in another place that the amendments drove a coach and horses through the Bill. So they do, and so they were intended to. I do not see how anyone can refer to amendments which seek to remove such large numbers of people from the Bill as revision. They are wrecking amendments. If the Bill is left as the Lords suggests it will fail utterly to meet our objective.
      Let me briefly rehearse some of the arguments yet again. The Government fully recognise and always have recognised that there are occasions when it is necessary to house the workers on or close to the farm. That is why there are provisions in the Bill for farmers to make applications to rehouse outgoing workers in a way that enables local housing authorities to take into account not only the agricultural need but the urgency of any particular case. We are presently discussing with both sides of industry how best to guide housing authorities and the advisory committees on the weight to be attached to the various elements of agricultural need. The industry is wholly behind us in this exercise and I am confident that sensible and workable criteria will be evolved.

      1403
      As my noble Friend the Undersecretary of State for Scotland said on Second Reading in another place, I would expect that those sectors where the welfare of animals is directly involved would merit high priority ratings on grounds of agricultural need and urgency in the advice which local authorities will be receiving from agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees.
      The amendment to exclude the use of land for grazing, meadow or pasture land would exclude both work on land used for the grazing and free running of livestock and land producing grass for subsequent drying or ensiling. It is not acceptable, for the same reasons and considerations as apply to the proposed exclusion of dairy farming and livestock keeping and breeding.
      I have been at pains to express why I believe that it is right and proper for the Government to ask the House to reverse these amendments which strike at the heart of this basic reform. The reform has been campaigned for for many years by farm workers and their families. It is a reform for which the Government received a mandate at the last election. The Bill received a decisive Second Reading in this place. The only people who opposed the measure on Second Reading were either members of the Conservative Party or Ulster Unionists. The measure had a majority of 40 on Second Reading.
      Mr. David James: As we are both Scots, will the Minister tell me why our Scottish colleagues do not want to see anything of this?
      Mr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I hope, if I answer it once, that will dispose of it for the rest of the evening. The Government gave a commitment at the last election to farm workers and their families not just in England and Wales but in Scotland as well. When the measure is implemented it will give security to farm workers and their families in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland and his junior Minister have made clear that the Government accept this commitment to Scotland. It is usual for legislation affecting housing in Scotland to be included in a separate Bill. It is right and proper that decisions
      1404
      on the precise nature of the Scottish legislation and its timing should be a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Party does not intend to renege on the promise given by the Government to farm workers and their families in Scotland.
      Mr. David James: With respect—
      Mr. Strong: I cannot give way again. I have given way once.
      Mr. James Mr. James rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, he will not give way.
      Mr. Strang: I have tried to explain that this is a vital matter which has been voted for decisively by the House of Commons. It is right that the House should reject the amendment, which is a wrecking amendment.
      Mr. Pym: I should first like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to the adjustment of the placing of Clause 30. I very much appreciate it. At the outset, I declare an interest which, perhaps in the spirit of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, might also be taken as an omnibus declaration.
      The purpose of the amendment is to confine the effect of the Bill more narrowly and to exclude from it one sector of agriculture. Admittedly, that sector is as closely concerned with housing as is any other sector. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment, as the Minister described it.
      At the outset of his remarks the Minister showed incredible prejudice against another place. He talked about debates not being constructive, but has he read the debates in another place? If he does not consider them to be constructive, helpful and knowledgeable debates about agriculture, I do not know what he considers to be constructive debates. I do not think that he has gone into the matter. It is wrong for him to explain the position as he did. He was completely inaccurate, and indicated painfully clearly that he is motivated by sheer prejudice.
      The purpose of the amendment is to leave out one sector of farming. I think I heard the Minister say that the sector

      1405
      of agriculture affected by the amendment would cover about one-quarter of those engaged in farming. It is not a wrecking amendment, because the other three-quarters would remain.
      Whether or not we agree with the intention of the Bill, the Opposition understand at least one of the Government's motivations—that is, to try to deal with evictions that arise occasionally from time to time, and the consequential hardships. My hon. Friends have given no ground in their desire to avoid those hardships. We all want to avoid them, but not by creating a whole range of other hardships. The case that we have been making, and the case made by my noble Friends in another place, is that by doing it in this way other hardships will be created. The Bill singles out agriculture for treatment in this way, leaving 90 per cent, of tied accommodation untouched. It is not the principle of a tied house that the Government are going for here; it is just the agricultural element.
      It is fair for the Government to say that some farm workers want the Bill and always have wanted it. But many do not want it—perhaps most of them do not want it. The Bill will put them all in an extremely privileged position. They will enjoy more privileges than will workers in a great many other industries. We question the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary, in his enthusiasm, has sought to bring this about.
      Those in the agricultural world are very interested in the Bill. That is natural. Because of the nature of the work they do, all farmers are worried that their houses may not continue to be occupied by men who work on the farm. Under the Bill there is no certainty when the fanner will get repossession of a house to enable him to offer it to another man who will work on the farm. That is a particularly acute matter for livestock farmers. That is the point of the amendment.
      Livestock farmers have to look after their animals all round the clock. Poultry hen batteries, pig units and dairy herds all have to be looked after all round the clock, and the stockmen have to live on the job or very close to it. Stockmen understand their responsibilities and know that they have to live near the job. It is in their interests to do so, and they
      1406
      do it gladly. Stockmen do an extremely good job for the industry.
      When there is a change of stockman on the farm, there may be real difficulties. It is all right for a few days, or a few weeks. The farmer can look after the stock himself, if necessary all round the clock. If there is any long-term delay, however, complications may arise, which the Parliamentary Secretary has completely failed to recognise. Some farmers who get into these difficulties will say that the game is not worth the candle and that they cannot go on with it.
      I know that the Parliamentary Secretary brushes all this aside as though we do not know, do not care and do not understand what the Bill says. He takes the attitude that he knows best. My right hon. and hon. Friends do not think that he does know best and we think that he has not thought through the Bill's implications. No one knows how it will work in practice. No one knows how the local authorities will respond to these so-called "best endeavours".
      Therefore, we support their Lordships in proposing a more modest beginning for the Bill. If the Government are so passionate about putting through the Bill they will have their way, but we say that they should recognise that there are difficulties and uncertainties in it and that these exist in the most acute form for the livestock farmer.
      Let the Government implement the Bill on a more modest basis, initially, exclude the livestock farms, and see how it works. If it proves to be anywhere near as successful as the Parliamentary Secretary expects—though we do not—he can bring forward amendments in a few months' time to include the livestock sector.
      Surely common sense, experience and reason should lead the Government to accept the amendment and to try out the Bill on a more modest basis at first. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
      7.0 p.m.
      Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Bright-side): A lot of words such as " prejudice " and " privilege" are being flung about the House. I admit my prejudice on the side of farm workers, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will admit the prejudice of another place which is so apparent to everyone.

      1407
      Let us examine the antecedents of another place, how many of its Members went to Eton and other public schools and how many are landowners, so that we may see how representative and unprejudiced they are.
      We have been told that the Bill will make farm workers a privileged group. If so, that would be a pleasant change. They are important workers and they have always been a very under-privileged group. Do farm workers want the Bill? I have been a member of the farm workers' union for nearly 30 years and I have never attended a union meeting where there has been a call for the retention of the tied cottage system.
      Mr. Paul Hawkins: What about Scotland?
      Miss Maynard: The position in Scotland was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
      We are told that another place is a revising Chamber, but the amendment not only wrecks the Bill but rips it apart. It comes from people who have never lacked security themselves but who are determined to deny it to farm workers.
      We are told that the inclusion of this group in the Bill would have a damaging effect on the industry. I have been connected with the industry all my life, and I suggest to Opposition hon. Members that the archaic, feudal, out-of-date tied cottage system does the most damage to the industry and means that it has an ageing labour force. The Opposition ought to be as concerned about that as is everyone else who cares about agriculture.
      The real reason behind the wish to exclude these workers is that they are the most difficult to attract into the industry because theirs is a seven-days-a-week job, with long hours and a tremendous responsibility for pedigree herds.
      The argument about evictions has been used again and I repeat what has been said many times before. Evictions are merely the tip of the iceberg. It does not matter whether a farmer evicts a man, his wife and family. What matters is that the power to do it is there.
      The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that he wants to avoid hardship. If that is so, he should
      1408
      support the Bill. To argue that it is essential for stockmen and dairy men to live on the farm is to ignore completely the fact that there are such things as cars and telephones which make it easy for a stockman to reach the farm quickly. We do not live in the era of carrier pigeons; we are living in the twentieth century.
      Let us examine the argument that the industry will be wrecked by the Bill. We were told that the industry would be wrecked when farm workers were given Saturday afternoons off and again when the Agricultural Wages Board was established. Yet the Opposition are now great supporters of the Board.
      Whenever there has been any reform in our society, whether in agriculture or anywhere else, employers have always argued that industries would be wrecked. The real wreckers are those in another place who would have us support this amendment. I know that this House will throw it out.
      Sir Timothy Kitson: The hon. Lady is a member of the farm workers' union in the North Riding. She has spoken about cars and telephones but has not mentioned a word about the welfare of stock. The union does not have many members in Wensley-dale and Swaledale, where it does not matter whether a worker has a car or a telephone; the real problem is how to get a worker to the farm in the winter. Will the hon. Lady say something about the welfare of animals?
      Miss Maynard: The hon. Gentleman says that I know only about Yorkshire farm workers and speak for them. I remind him that I was national vice-president of the union for six years and have held national responsibilities, travelled extensively and met farm workers from all over the country.
      The welfare of stock is obviously important, but it is not more important than the welfare of human beings. I sometimes wonder whether that view is shared by everybody. I remember sitting in a county court during the eviction case of a couple when the farmer said that he must have their house—though it then stood empty for two and a half years after the eviction. The judge in that case said that, although it seemed a hard thing for him to say, land was more important than people. He was making

      1409
      the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) that animals and land are more important than people. I believe that people are more important.
      Wensleydale is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so he should know about it. I have had many connections with it and it is one of my favourite beauty areas. Nearly every farm there is a family concern, and that is why there are not many members of the union in that area. Consequently, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention does not arise.
      Mr. Farr: I support Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, which are the crux of the Bill. It is sad that, however cogently arguments are put in this debate, the issue will be decided by the vast majority of hon. Members who have not heard any of the speeches.
      It is difficult when one intervenes at this late stage in the passage of the Bill to put any new angles. Even if there were new angles which might interest the House, putting them would have no effect because of the weight of votes which will be going into the Government Lobby. I wish to raise a couple of points put to me not by the NFU but by a stock farmer and a dairy farmer in the Midlands. They have explained how difficult life will be for them if the amendments are rejected.
      A farmer and his brother who farm on a small scale have told me that, with the aid of a building society Ioan and a county council grant, they have built farm cottages for their employees. If the amendment is rejected, farmers will not bother to do that any more. Although the number involved might not be large, farmers would be made to build cottages for their workers if the Bill were enacted in its present form.
      The other new point relates to the difficulty of possession. If the Bill is enacted as it stands and a farmer finds difficulty in gaining possession of his stockman's house because the local authority cannot provide alternative accommodation, if his employee is incapable of looking after his stock any longer the farmer will think twice before employing again a stockman who does not have accommodation of his own. Some stockmen can travel to a farm every
      1410
      day from a council house by motor cycle or by car and a farmer will therefore be reluctant to take on a stockman who is dependent on a stockman's house, because of the difficulty of regaining possession. A farmer might be loth, having gone through the difficult process of gaining possession, to let it again, particularly if he can employ a stockman who already has a council house. He would regard that as better than again employing a man who could be a positive disruptive influence on a farming enterprise living in the stockman's cottage but not working on the farm.
      Mr. Thomas Swain: Is it not the custom that when an hon. Member addresses the House he should declare his interest in the subject on which he is about to speak? The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is a gentleman farmer, but he has not so far declared his interests, which, I am told, are vast.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member raising a point of order, or is he making an intervention?
      Mr. Swain: I have been a Member of the House for 17 years—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order with the Chair?
      Mr. Swain: It is an intervention-cum-point of order. I have been here for 17 years—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be making a hybrid point of order.
      Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member should take his hands out of his pockets.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Swain: I am keeping my hands in my pockets to stop the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from stealing my money. Is it not a custom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Members should declare an interest when discussing an issue in which they are concerned? Can the hon. Member for Harborough give specific numbers of the houses built in the past 25 years?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have the sense of the hon. Member's point of order. There is some doubt, as I discovered yesterday, about whether an hon. Member, having declared an interest in the Register of Members' Interests, should still declare his interest during debate. My ruling then was that he must still declare it, but I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) to decide whether he wants to declare his interest in farming.
      Mr. Farr: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My interest in this subject is declared in the register, but I shall be guided by your ruling. I understood that once an hon. Member had declared his interest during the passage of a Bill in the House, that was sufficient. I declared my interest both on Second Reading and on Report. It is a waste of time to declare it again, especially as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was not there at the time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred to the strange attitude of the Government in selecting agricultural tied cottages. That selection has puzzled us, but we have not had a satisfactory answer. Of a national pool of 165,000 tied cottages, only 65,000 are occupied by agricultural workers. The remaining 100,000 are owned by the National Coal Board, the British Waterways Board, the British Steel Corporation and the British Railways Board. It is strange that the Government should single out agricultural landlords. It must be some form of spiteful victimisation, because it can have nothing to do with the record of agricultural landlords. Their record bears comparison to that of all the others.
      It is important for us to accept Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5. The Government have been big-headed and have defied the advice of the NFU, the Milk Marketing Board, the British Pig Producers Association, the Country Landowners Association and—if they ever read it—the excellent independent report produced by Miss Gasson of Cambridge University. The advice given by those bodies reflected the attitude of those who know what the situation is. But their advice has been denied by the Government. They have been steered towards
      1412
      their target of abolishing agricultural tied cottages by the extreme left wing of their party on whom they depend for remaining in Government.
      Only 2 per cent. of dairy farms in Britain have council houses within walking or cycling distance. The remainder depend on stockmen who live in a tied cottage or on the farmer doing the work himself. Unless the amendments are accepted, grave difficulties will result.
      Mr. John Watkinson: I have no interest to declare, except in so far as I represent an agricultural area.
      The Opposition have taken exception to the Parliamentary Secretary's description of the amendments as wrecking amendments, but it must be conceded by any reasonable person that if the other place removes from the ambit of the Bill 50 per cent, of the people whom we intended to be covered when we passed it, it must at least emasculate the Bill. It removes an enormous percentage of those whom we have set out to cover—an enormous number of agricultural workers whom, as a matter of principle, we sought to protect.
      Mr. Pym: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the figure was a quarter, which is rather different from a half.
      Mr. Watkinson: I accept that correction. I misheard my hon. Friend. But the right hon. Gentleman must agree that it is a significant proportion.
      Representing an agricultural constituency, I meet my farmers reasonably regularly. I believe that the views expressed by Conservative Members have been hysterical and—to repeat the term used by my hon. Friend—alarmist. I have discussed the issue with farmers in my area. I have not found that the problem is uppermost in their minds. That is not to say that they are not concerned about it, or that I do not understand their concern, but they are far more concerned about problems relating to the drought and the green pound.
      When we have discussed the issue I have acknowledged that there are problems, but I have tried to put to them, as my party has tried to put to the nation, that the principle at stake is whether it is desirable that farm workers

      1413
      should have their working conditions so inextricably tied up with their living conditions. The farmers to whom I have spoken have felt unhappy about this, but have pointed to the practical difficulties raised by hon. Members. However, Conservative Members must accept that a principle is involved and that sooner or later we must stand up and be counted on that principle. That is what we are doing with the Bill.
      A stockman in my constituency came to my surgery and said " I've come to talk to you about the tied cottages Bill. I am not in favour of it. I earn a very good wage. I have free accommodation and a good boss, and I am happy." But then I asked him the question that has been put so often by my hon. Friend: "What happens to you, a hale and hearty worker now, if you fall ill? If you die, what happens to your family?" There was a long pause, as there inevitably is when such a question is put, and no answer could be given. We are trying to deal with that problem, trying to provide a basic security to such men and their families. That is the essence of the Bill.
      At the same time, we are trying to remove from farm workers who face the problem of eviction the stigma associated with going to court. I speak as a lawyer. I do not know how many Conservative Members present have been before a court, or know what it is like to do so. Even if it is merely a matter of pleading guilty or facing a fait accompli, when the individual may have to do no more than to appear before a judge, there is a stigma.
      It cannot be something of which any of us is proud that a significant number of people must appear before a court to obtain housing. We are attempting to remove an objectionable stigma which attaches to those unfortunate enough to be asked to leave their cottage. That is an honourable intention, which I would have hoped Conservative Members would welcome.
      Hon. Members have pointed out the difficulties associated with the stockman and herdsman. I accept that there are difficulties, but let us face the brute fact that even under the present arrangements the farmer cannot get his stockman out of the cottage for a period of six months after he has first taken action.
      1414
      The farmers are somehow coping with that. Conservative Members have not been honest about the matter. As farmers, they know that that happens and that colleagues of theirs who are farmers have survived the problem.
      The Labour Party is committed to an honourable principle. I accept that in the farming community, including that in my own constituency, there are doubts and fears about the matter, but we have nailed our colours to the mast and said that it is not right that people's work should be so inextricably tied up with their housing. That is an honourable cause, and for that reason I support the Bill.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson). He presented his case with sweet reasonableness, and there is no doubt that he could be, and perhaps is, a very successful lawyer. But what is important is not necessarily what the lawyers say. What they leave unsaid is even more important. I am concerned about the Government's proposals, and fully support the amendments made by another place. I congratulate it on its careful, positive and constructive consideration of this very important Bill.
      I intervened from a sedentary position in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and he indicated that he would mention the industry. Regrettably, he left it and its future out in the cold. He did not mention agricultural production or the damage the Bill may well cause to the livestock industry.
      Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of my speech in Hansard tomorrow he will see that I paid particular attention to that point. I discussed the role of the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees and made clear that the Government had built into the Bill a procedure whereby, if a farmer really needed his house for an incoming worker, the committee would advise that there was agricultural need. We have been over this ground time and again. The committee can even advise that there is not just need but urgency, and the local authority must then respond.
      Mr. Winterton: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In my view he did not deal with the point adequately.

      1415
      I need not remind the House that calving takes place during the year on livestock and dairy farms. A farmer may have in his tied accommodation a man who is no longer working for him, perhaps because of ill health or because he has taken another job, and night after night the farmer may be forced to spend long hours in helping cows to calve when he should be in bed, because cows do not always conveniently calve between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
      Mr. Swain: Are they never born within those hours?
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Winterton: I do not say that it never happens, but calvings do not necessarily take place within a convenient working day. Great strain and pressure can be put upon livestock and dairy farmers at certain times during the year —strain and pressure which would not occur very often if the Lords amendment were accepted. The Minister and the Government have not answered these questions.
      Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only recently entered the Chamber.
      Mr. Buchan: I have only recently come in, and I apologise to the House for that. The hon. Gentleman knows my normal involvement in agriculture. When the hon. Gentleman's wife is pregnant, does he ensure that the obstetrician remains in his house throughout the period?
      Mr. Winterton: I am happy to say that on the three occasions that my wife has been pregnant and produced a fine child for me, I have taken her to the hospital—it has always been at night—and there has always been someone on duty. There is adequate staffing in most of our hospitals. They have skilled staffs, who realise that they have to work on a shift system. They are not available throughout both day and night, but when I have taken my wife to hospital she has been given the most excellent attention. That disposes of that rather irrelevant question easily and quickly.
      I found it interesting that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss
      1416
      Maynard) talked about security. The Government's tax proposals and the other pernicious legislation that they are pushing through the House are undermining the security of certain people who are fortunate enough to live on estates and in country houses which are of great benefit to the nation. Their future is insecure under a Socialist Administration. What security do they have? Likewise, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West easily overlooked the pertinent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). He spoke about the great number of tied cottages occupied by people within the coal industry and the steel industry, and in the employ of the water authorities and local government. All these people are living in tied accommodation. When will the Government pick upon these other sectors and introduce similar legislation?
      It is perhaps relevant to remind the the House that the Government may think—perhaps they are right—that a majority of farmers, who are private individuals with private enterprise businesses, vote for a party other than the Socialist Party, and that they can get away with introducing damaging legislation such as this without affecting their electoral chances. I put that to the House because it is a relevant factor.
      I represent an area in Cheshire that has an important livestock industry. Many people have made representations to me—for example, members of the NFU Council and members of the NFU locally in Cheshire and Macclesfield—expressing grave concern about the problems that they will face as a result of this legislation. Would the Minister be happy to get up week after week during the calving season to assist and attend cows? Would he be happy to get up week after week to attend pigs, or poultry? I have had personal experience of the poultry industry, although I have no interest to declare. When electricity is cut off there are grave problems for those who are responsible for the huge poultry units. What happens when the electric fans go off? The answer is that tens of thousands of birds will be in jeopardy if no one is readily available immediately to open all the accesses to allow air in, or even to switch on emergency equipment. Grave losses could be

      1417
      sustained if no one were immediately available. Have all these matters been properly considered by the Government?
      In my view, too much legislation is being pushed through the House—this Bill is an example—that is party politically motivated. The hon. Member for Brightside talked about the poor agricultural worker. I am delighted that the hon. Lady has returned to her seat. There are a few poor agricultural workers, but in one breath she described them as poor and under-privileged while in the next she talked about the same people having cars and telephones. I am not sure that those factors go together.
      Mr. Swain: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Winterton: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again. He made a useless exhibition of himself on his last intervention. I am reminded that his security of tenure has not been too good as a Member of this place. I gather that the union that sponsors him lays down—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall not go into those matters.
      Mr. Swain: The hon. Member should not be so childish.
      Mr. Winterton: We are talking about security of tenure, and I was saying that the hon. Gentleman's union insists that he retires at 65. I personally regret that. Back to the amendment—surely it is important that a worker who is closely involved with animals—unfortunately the welfare of animals has not featured sufficiently in our debates—should live close to his work. If he finds that he must leave his job, and the house goes with the job, the house should be vacated. I wonder how many cases of genuine hardship the Minister or Labour Members can put forward in comparison with the total number of agricultural service cottages. I suspect that they could put forward only very few.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, this is a politically motivated Bill. Those in another place have done a great service. If the Minister and his hon. Friends had read the Hansards covering the debates in another place, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have done, they would have seen that in no way was the consideration that was
      1418
      given to this measure dogmatic or bigoted. Indeed, their Lordships considered it diligently and constructively.
      This is not a wrecking amendment. It seeks to exclude from the Bill a vital sector of the agriculture industry that needs its tied cottages and accommodation for those who serve it and the livestock that is the essence of the industry. I have great pleasure in supporting the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr Pym). Once again, I thank those in another place for the tremendous job that they have done in trying to improve this unfortunate Bill.
      Mr. John Ellis: A matter that must be made clear if we are to have a fair debate is whether the Opposition are against the abolition of tied cottages. If they are, that is a fair point of view. By means of the amendment, however, are they seeking to demonstrate that the provisions affecting livestock are unacceptable while the rest of the Bill is acceptable?
      I believe that we should have a fair debate, and I meet the Opposition by saying that livestock has special needs. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said that we must give special attention to poultry as well as cows calving. He said that if this iniquitous Bill becomes an Act there will be great suffering among livestock farmers. He said that if the fans go off, tens of thousands of birds will be suffocated. Where has he been living lately?
      Modern conditions are such, irrespective of tied cottages, that unfortunately disasters take place almost day by day. If the hon. Gentleman reads the provincial Press in the Library—there are not many headlines of this sort in the national Press—he will see that they happen frequently. Modern methods of industrial farming, especially in poultry, lead to occasions when breakdowns can result in 50,000 birds being found suffocated. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) shakes his head in dissent. I have made a considerable study of these matters and I assure him that there is chapter and verse to confirm what I have said.
      Why cannot we see more trends in agriculture in the poultry, beef and pig industries embracing automatic methods

      1419
      of time switches and automatic feeding? If those systems are to be perfected, the industry should surely adopt the same approach as that adopted by other industries involving men working shifts.
      We hear a great deal from the Opposition about fanners having to stay up night after night because animals calve at such awkward times. Again, why cannot some form of shift work be introduced? Let us apply some common sense to the matter. Therefore, I believe that many of the arguments advanced by the Opposition on the Bill are fallacious.
      Has anybody calculated how many tied cottages are involved on the farms and in the villages? I know from my own observations that farms with stock do not always have a hindhouse. Some farms have such accommodation but others do not. Certainly some farms employ men who live in nearby villages. In other words, arrangements are made to cope with the situation. Therefore, on the basis of reasoning that argument is not a fair runner.
      Labour Members are often accused by the Opposition of being ideological and of adopting a doctrinaire approach. Some of us have lived in these villages. Do any Conservative Members know what it means to live in a house and to know that one day a knock on the door may mean that one has to vacate the premises and find alternative accommodation? We say that that is wrong in all circumstances. It is not good for the man concerned, for the employer or for the industry.
      Mr. Farr: What about National Coal Board accommodation?
      Mr. Ellis: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) instances National Coal Board accommodation, but on how many occasions have miners been thrown out of their homes? Many of these eviction cases involve workers on the land. We say that this amounts to a social ill.
      We believe that once the Bill is enacted the industry will be able to cope and that there will be a much happier relationship on the land which will benefit agriculture and will be seen to do so in future years.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: I wish to take this opportunity to declare my interest. Before I entered this House I was a full-time farmer. I now employ four workers, who do an excellent job of work. I have given a great deal of thought, as a practical farmer and as a politician, to Lords Amendment No. 1 and I find it impossible to support it. If we support the Lords amendment, we shall discriminate in favour of one group of workers against another.
      Mr. Michael Jopling: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is not prepared to support the Lords amendment. Perhaps he will explain why the Liberal Party in the other place voted unanimously in favour of it. He may like to know that a total of six Liberal peers voted for it and, indeed, that one of them, Lord Mackie, referred to the amendment as " monumental good
      sense ".
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that situation, but I was elected to this House by the people of Cardigan and, as agricultural spokesman for the Liberal Party, I am here to represent my constituents' views rather than the views of noble Lords in another place.
      If the amendment is accepted, I shall have to return to Cardigan and tell my three stockmen that they will not be protected under the Bill, but at the same time I shall be able to tell my tractor driver that he is safeguarded by these provisions. That surely is wrong. I am sure that within a period of a year relationships! on my farm between1 the tractor driver and the stockmen would not go well. There are many farmers in Wales, and, indeed, in other parts of Britain, who employ tractor drivers, shepherds and stockmen.
      In considering this matter, we should examine a former Prime Minister's words expressed only last year at the Royal Show. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said on that occasion:
      "The Government's policy is to establish a framework which can give confidence for the future—for the consumer and for the producer so that he can plan and invest. At this time above all, we need to make the best and most economic use of our own resources, not only of land but the skills of our agricultural workers and farmers."

      1421
      A survey was published soon after that speech in which a farmer was quoted as saying:
      "We would have more confidence in the future if we knew we would be allowed to keep the staff housing we have. This is a key to future confidence. We cannot produce without labour."
      I believe that we are not abolishing the tied cottage system, because the staff housing will remain. We must do our utmost to secure staff housing for our stockmen and others. A farm is dependent on the efficient and dedicated efforts of its work force if its output is to increase. We have only to examine the figures over the last 15 years to see how dramatically the work force has declined. In 1960, 505,000 full-time workers were employed in agriculture. At present the figure is only 223,000. If we are to increase production, can we afford a further decrease in the labour force? I believe that if we are to succeed we must hold on to the present labour force and look after those men in the next 20 years.
      I believe that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have no connection with agriculture but who are still worried about the welfare of livestock. Many people believe that stock will suffer, and, indeed, will be neglected, if the Lords amendment is not accepted. However, I do not take that view. I believe that the majority of stockmen will remain in the cottages in which they already live. I believe that the stockmen will not run away but will remain at their work.
      I disagree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who said that many chickens might be burnt overnight and that cows might not be able to calve. I know stockmen and I know the kind of work force that exists in agriculture. They look after the stock when the cows calve. They will be living in the staff house provided for them by the management. Therefore, there is no need to worry on that score at all. It is our duty as farmers, as employers, to look after the interests of our employees, who have given such excellent service to the industry.
      Whatever we decide tonight, we must ensure that the agriculture industry continues to thrive and that it is not prevented from expanding. We must ensure the health and well-being of livestock and
      1422
      give every encouragement to producers to increase their production from the land. In my view, therefore, we must not discriminate on behalf of one group of workers against the others. I shall be asking my hon. Friends to vote against the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who brings to the debate a combination of knowledge and experience, and a degree of impartiality which, unfortunately, is not shared by the majority of those sitting on the Opposition Benches. I wonder how much real political benefit accrues to the Opposition from seeking to make political capital from the Bill, to the extent that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was attempting to do.
      I believe that the Bill is a serious attempt to balance the conflicting problems which have to be faced in this issue and that the amendment which the Lords have introduced would cut a very substantial part of the heart out of the Bill.
      I remind hon. Members that if the Lords amendment were carried, whole villages would be adversely affected. I know one village in Essex where every house is owned by the farming company, a very large dairy organisation catering for a large part of Essex. Every house in the village is owned by that farming company I was parliamentary candidate in the constituency some years ago and found that it was virtually impossible to get a single person to tell me on the doorstep what his political views were because of apprehensions as to the attitude of the employer, the farming company.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke of the Bill as having been forced on the Government by the militant left-wing of the Labour Party. I do not think that he would describe me as militant Left-wing, but I have spoken of my experience in the constituency, and there is absolutely no doubt of it whatsoever. Those living in tied cottages in agricultural areas feel all through their lives a degree of insecurity. They dare not express themselves politically to their bosses in a way which is fundamental

      1423
      to the expression of proper individuality and freedom in our society.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If that is the case—and I accept that the hon. Gentleman holds that point of view sincerely—will he direct his attention to the other large sectors of industry which provide tied accommodation, and indicate whether he would support the abolition of tied accommodation in those industries? Will he say whether the reservations he has expressed about people living in agricultural tied accommodation are also reflected to these other sectors as well?
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was coming to that very point. I greatly welcome the Bill as a first step towards the abolition of tied accommodation in any field. I take the point about the National Coal Board, although I do not think that miners would feel any degree of apprehension about the Coal Board coming down on them if they were to display a Tory poster in a window.
      Mr. Swain: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board has already announced that every house in its possession, from the managerial level down to the lowest level, is up for sale to the sitting tenant or to the local authority? In my area alone during the past four years 968 houses have changed hands from the National Coal Board to the local authorities. God bless the Coal Board for selling them.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am very glad to learn of that progress, but there are many other people involved. There are the school caretakers, employees of local authorities, employees in catering establishments, managers of laundrettes, and so on. There is a very great degree of abuse where the house goes with the job. I shall be very anxious to see the principle which we have started in the Bill extended to cover all these other categories.
      I believe that in the Bill the balance is right and that we have tackled the problem correctly, but it involves a risk that the agricultural tenant who is threatened with eviction will override the priority of other people on the housing waiting list in the area; others on the waiting list will be displeased. Never-
      1424
      theless, I believe that the balance in the Bill is correct. I remind Conservative Members that, as has been said, at present if a farmer wishes to gain possession of a tied cottage from the family of an agricultural worker, or from the worker himself, there is a six-months' delay. I agree that the real effect of the Bill may well be to impose a duty on the local authority to find accommodation.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has the hon. Member looked at the Bill's wording?
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am familial with the words of the Bill. I was present in Committee and the hon. Member was not.
      Nevertheless, a strong obligation is imposed on the local authority, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of local authorities—most of them are Conservative-dominated—will seek to do what is necessary. I believe that the farmer will find it much easier to get the outgoing tenant or worker rehoused by the local authority, and will be able to get his new employee into the accommodation more quickly than if the Bill had not been introduced.
      The balance of the Bill, I believe, is a fair one. I hope, as I have already1 said, that it will be possible to extend it to a great many other areas, but we have to take note of the fact that we cannot put an evicted laundrette manager straight into council accommodation over the heads of others who have been on the waiting list for some time. This is an experiment, in the sense that we shall be able to see how it works, and then we must learn, from experience with the Bill, how it can be applied elsewhere. Every piece of legislation is to some extent an experiment. The hon. Member for Macclesfield may grin, but every social change involves a degree of experimentation.
      I feel that the Bill is likely to work satisfactorily. If we were to accept the Lords amendment it would mean allowing whole villages to remain subservient to a single employer, with every person knowing that he could lose his home and his job at the same time. If the amendment were to be accepted the Bill would not be worth having. I therefore trust that the amendment will be rejected.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I start by declaring an interest. I have lived in a tied cottage, and I do not think that many hon. Members can say that. I can certainly say that I did not have any problems.
      I take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary when he talks about a wrecking amendment. We do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment in the sense in which he speaks. We are trying to show our concern at what will happen because of these measures. Without being rude, I would emphasise that our concern is based on experience. From my knowledge of the industry and of stockmen generally, I believe that most stockmen want to live very close to their work. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but this is true. This amendment is not a wrecking amendment, it simply shows concern based on experience.
      8.0 p.m.
      I take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary when he talks about "basic advances in the countryside". This shows how little he knows about the countryside; perhaps he has forgotten. However, that phrase will hang around his neck like a cow's tether in years to come, especially when we see the Bill's result on many stock farms.
      The Parliamentary Secretary also said that this had been a campaign for many years. I suggest that not every campaign is wise. Some have even proved disastrous. I do not say that this campaign is disastrous, but certainly I believe it to be unwise. We must protect the workers and the farmers, but above all we must protect the agricultural industry as a whole.
      It is very sad that the Government feel that they have to bring in a measure like this to deal with a very small number of farmers who have let down the farming community in this way. It is sad that the Government see fit to bring in a measure of this kind when so many fanners are utterly responsible in this respect.
      It is also important to highlight why the Government have picked on agriculture. We have never had a satisfactory answer to that question. They talk about moving into other spheres. In west Devon, which is truly rural, there is a large number of tied cottages. On Dartmoor, most of the prison officers are in
      1426
      tied houses. Will the Government extend this principle to Dartmoor? If they do, it will be very difficult to operate Dartmoor Prison from Tavistock or elsewhere. Why should the Government pick on agriculture? If I were told that legislation to deal with other sections of industry would be introduced I might be a little happier.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard) said one of the saddest things I have heard in this House for a long time. She said that farm workers were under-privileged. That is an insult to them. I do not believe that they feel under-privileged one little bit. That is not my experience in working and living with them. Generally, I have found them to be a proud bunch of men—proud because they know their job. I think that that was a very sad phrase the hon. Lady used.
      The hon. Lady also talked about stockmen always being able to use the telephone. What a remarkable statement. I cannot imagine a cow 'phoning to say that it needs a stockman. The whole trouble is that the hon. Lady and others like her do not realise just how stockmen feel about these matters. The important thing to them is to have that last look around their yards or over their flocks. They are not always paid for it, but they enjoy it. If they see trouble they put it right at once and that saves them a lot of work in the long run. But they must be on the spot. To talk about the telephone shows how little the hon. Lady knows about the real problems of stockmen.
      Being a stockman is, of course, a tie. Some hon. Members in this House have never worked with cows daily, as I have. It means milking them 14 times a week, and very often it means no holidays. Of course it is a tie, and of course it is difficult. Naturally, we want to move towards a time when there is far more active relief for stockmen so that they have more time for their own use, but is it wrong to think that they are not concerned about their stock. In many cases they count their stock as their own, and looking after it is their life. Woe betide the farmer who gives a stockman too many orders, because in most cases it is the stockman who want to run the show.

      1427
      This whole business of tied cottages has been exaggerated. If a count were taken of every stockman in this country it would be found that most would say that they want to live near their stock, in order to help themselves. To talk about the telephone shows the poverty of the Labour Party in these matters.
      This is a very sad debate in many ways. I admit that there is a small minority of farmers of whom I am ashamed, but it is a small number, and to bring in a measure like this to deal with them will do nothing but harm to the farming industry, and in particular to stock farming.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: If the hon. Member believes that this is such a small minority which is abusing the system, would he agree that only a very small number of farm workers abuse it also? Why should he be apprehensive about a system whereby a farm worker remains in a cottage unless other accommodation is there for him to turn to?
      Mr. Hawkins: I was brought up among stockmen. I have an interest to declare, in that I managed several estates with tied cottages. This is one of my major interests in Norfolk, where this campaign has been continuing for 40 or 50 years. I appreciate the arguments that have come from Norfolk and I understand them. I would want to see the system done away with if I knew that enough new cottages were available to go around so that an incoming stockman was not put to any great hardship.
      The Government never think of the incoming stockman in the situation that arises when a stockman dies and his widow wants to get into a council house. The incoming stockman is the man who has been employed to look after the flock or the herd and sometimes he cannot take up his duties without the tied cottage system. That is where we find ourselves in difficulty. Quite frankly, I find that there is always one particularly bad tied cottage case in my area which comes up during the General Election period. I wonder whether it is done deliberately by my opponent. Personally, I would like to see the system done away with if I knew that there were enough cottages in the area to go round and that there was a guarantee for the new man of a "cottage on the job".
      1428
      The stockman is the salt of all workers, and it is true that the stock is his stock. It was always "my horses", and there have been instances of a horseman stealing from the next-door corn bin to get his horses extra feed.
      Mr. John Ellis: There is no point at issue between us here. I know of a case in which an employee was not particularly concerned about the wages for himself, but when it was suggested that he should consider cutting down rations for his animals, he was so angry that he left.
      Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with that. As I have said, I should like this system done away with if that were possible. But the venom displayed by the Parliamentary Secretary was enough to make anyone oppose him. However, I have doubts whether it is right to divide farm workers into two classes—whether it is right to give stockmen less security than other farm workers. I am worried on that point, and also because it will be extremely difficult for local authorities to carry out the rehousing that the Government envisage. There are already priority lists for people who are without housing. Quite rightly, all the Service Ministries recommend that Service men who have not had the chance to get housing points with a local authority should be given an advantage. The Bill will provide yet a third group of people who will be put ahead of those who, by right of long standing, have a place on the council house list.
      I hope that we shall find sufficient cottages in the right places, because without them this scheme will not work. The incoming stockman who wants to look after his stock properly and to be with them will not get a house, and it is that sort of person that we want to take care of.
      Mr. Jopling: I begin by declaring my interest. One thing that has emerged from the debate is the clear indication of the way in which the guillotine has provided totally insufficient time hi which to deal with the Lords amendments. We have seen the extent to which Labour Members have participated in the debate, which has taken a considerable amount of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) put his finger on the point when he said that this had been a sad debate in some ways. Many of us

      1429
      have publicly acknowledged that the Bill owes its birth, to a large extent, to the activities of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard). In her speech today she demonstrated her bitterness and venom, and her reliance on the life-long class warfare which she has carried on, and showed some of the misguided philosophy that lies behind the Bill.
      As we have proceeded further with the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary has shown, as one of my hon. Friends remarked, increased venom in answering the debates on the amendments. Labour Members have clearly shown that the Bill is backed more by their desire to fulfil arbitrary political objections than the effect that it is likely to have on the industry and those who work in it.
      When the Parliamentary Secretary opened the debate he spoke about the amendment's standing between the Government and its political objectives. That clearly summed up the position of Labour Members, whose attitude is far more political than practical. They have spent very little of their speeches discussing the merits of the amendments, the welfare of farm animals, or the convenience of farm workers. All the talk about cars and telephones is just so much nonsense. We know that Labour Members are hell-bent to secure their political objectives. That is clearly demonstrated by their attitude to Scotland. Their only reason for not applying the Bill to Scotland is that farm workers there are against it.
      8.15 p.m.
      Labour Members have this evening tried to dress up their arguments with an attack on the other place. That is totally irrelevant, especially in view of what happened last week on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, on which the actions of the other place enabled us here to think again on those matters.
      I should like to take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said about little attention having been paid to the views and studies that have been produced about the impact of the Bill. The Minister said that the Bill would not lead to a reduction in agricultural production, or have a bad effect on the livestock industry. Let me refer him to page 3 paragraph 7 of the document that Miss Ruth Gasson produced. It stated that:
      1430
      "While livestock producers as a whole have a very good case for requiring workers to live on the premises, pedigree breeders and milk producers were the most insistent that their enterprises would be unworkable without a key man living on the spot."
      The Government have not considered sufficiently the effect of the Bill on agricultural production or on their White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources". The Bill will set back further the attainment of the targets in that White Paper.
      The Government have defied the advice of those who know about agriculture. We have seen the totally impractical attitudes displayed by the hon. Members for Brightside and Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) towards the agriculture industry and those who work in it.
      Mr. John Ellis: If the hon. Member is suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and I are motivated only by prejudice and malice, will he explain why the Conservatives have lost the support of the Liberals? Does he suggest that the Liberals are motivated in the same way?
      Mr. Jopling: I could not think of a more helpful intervention by the hon. Member. The Liberal Party in the country is a totally unco-ordinated group, which does one thing in this place and something totally different in another. No doubt we shall see more examples of this nonsense. We do not know what the Liberals are doing, and I do not think that they know themselves.
      We have heard too little from Labour Members about the problems of incoming stockmen, so I believe that we should press the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) expressed honestly-felt doubts about the amendments. I hope that he will recall te opening remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), that it is surely best, in view of the uncertainties surrounding the Bill, to start with the non-livestock sector. We must try for a few years to see how it works, and deal with the livestock side later.
      I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary intends to reply to the debate. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in support of the other place on these amendments.
      Mr. Strang: I shall reply briefly, because I understand that the Opposition want to make progress. Indeed, that was why we accepted their amendment to the procedure.
      Virtually all the arguments about this matter have been gone over time and again. The issue is quite simple. The Government believe that a farm worker and his family should have a right to the roof over their heads comparable with the right that is taken for granted by the vast majority of workers and their families.
      This Bill is about security. It is about ending the insecurity of the farm worker with a young family who is worried about the future if he loses his job. It is about ending the insecurity of the wife who sees her husband's health deteriorating while working on the farm and wonders what will happen to the family when he is no longer able to work. It is about ending the insecurity of the old farm worker who goes on working beyond the age of 65 because he does not have a house to which he can retire.
      That is what the Bill is about. That is why the Government cannot accept this wrecking amendment, which would exclude about 25 per cent. of farm workers and their families from coverage of this legislation. They would have no legal protection whatsoever.
      The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said that there were very few evictions each year. I am not sure how many evictions are carried out. The Tavistock Institute reckoned that there were about 1,200 court orders a year.
      Mr. Mills: The Parliamentary Secretary must realise that there are very few real evictions. Many of the court orders are taken out in collaboration

      Division No. 412.]

      AYES

      [8.24 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Buchanan, Richard

      Allaun, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Anderson, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Archer, Peter

      Bishop, E. S.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Campbell, Ian

      Ashley, Jack

      Boardman, H.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashton, Joe

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cant, R. B.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Carter, Ray

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bradley, Tom

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Bates, Alt

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Bean, R. E.

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Beith. A. J.

      Buchan, Norman

      Coleman, Donald

      with the farm workers concerned so that they can get other houses.
      Mr. Strang: I do not dispute that some of the court orders are taken out in collaboration with farm workers, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) said, it is somewhat demeaning and unfair that farm workers should be dragged through the courts, even if it is in collusion with their employers, to obtain the offer of alternative accommodation by local authorities. Sensible, progressive, practical farmers welcome this measure because it will end that degrading process, which some of them dislike just as much as their workers.
      The issue is simple. We cannot accept the exclusion of this vast number of workers from the coverage of this legislation. I think that the House was impressed by the point made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), based on his own experience—namely, how can we tolerate a situation in which one farm worker is in a cottage and has a basic protection because he drives a tractor, whereas the farm worker in the cottage next door, because he works with livestock, has no legal rights regarding his accommodation when he ceases to work for his employer?
      This is not a question of how many evictions there are or how many court orders are taken out. That is the tip of the iceberg. That is the manifestation of the situation. We believe that it is wrong that a farm worker's accommodation should be dependent on the attitude of his employer. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 253.

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Janner, Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cowans, Harry

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooling)

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kelley, Richard

      Roper, John

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kinnock, Neil

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamond, James

      Ryman, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Deakins, Eric

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lee, John

      Selby, Harry

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dempsey, James

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Doig, Peter

      Litterick, Tom

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Luard, Evan

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dunn, James A.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Eadie, Alex

      Mabon, Dr J Dickson

      Small, William

      Edge, Geoff

      McCartney, Hugh

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McElhone, Frank

      Snape, Peter

      English, Michael

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ennals, David

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stoddart, David

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Stott, Roger

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Strang, Gavin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Madden, Max

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Magee, Bryan

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mahon, Simon

      Swain, Thomas

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marquand, David

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Forrester, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

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

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Meacher, Michael

      Tierney, Sydney

      Freud, Clement

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Tomlinson, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mendelson, John

      Torney, Tom

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Urwin, T. W.

      George, Bruce

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Ginsburg, David

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

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

      Golding, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Gould, Bryan

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Watkins, David

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Watkinson, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Moyle, Roland

      Weetch, Ken

      Grocott, Bruce

      Newens Stanley

      Weitzman, David

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Noble, Mike

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Oakes, Gordon

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Harper, Joseph

      Ogden, Eric

      White, James (Pollok)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Orbach, Maurice

      Whitlock, William

      Hatton, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Ovenden, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Padley, Walter

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Hooley, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Horam, John

      Pardoe, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

      Park, George

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Parker, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Huckfield, Les

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Pendry, Tom

      Woof, Robert

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Penhaligon, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Hunter, Adam

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Prentice. Rt Hon Reg

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Mr. James Tinn

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      1434

      1435

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gorst, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Alison, Michael

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gray, Hamish

      Mudd, David

      Baker, Kenneth

      Grieve, Percy

      Neave, Airey

      Banks, Robert

      Grist, Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bell, Ronald

      Grylls, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hall, Sir John

      Newton, Tony

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nott, John

      Benyon, W.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Bitten, John

      Hannam, John

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Blaker, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Body, Richard

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Percival, Ian

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hicks, Robert

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hodgson, Robin

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Brittan, Leon

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hordern, Peter

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Brotherton, Michael

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Howell. David (Guildford)

      Raison, Timothy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Buck, Antony

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Burden, F. A.

      James, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Carlisle, Mark

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Carson, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Channon, Paul

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kilfedder, James

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Clegg, Walter

      Kimball, Marcus

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Cockcroft, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Cope, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Scott, Nicholas

      Cordle, John H.

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lamont, Norman

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Corrie, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Costain, A. P.

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shersby, Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Crowder, F. P.

      Lawson, Nigel

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Smith. Dudley (Warwick)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Speed, Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lloyd, Ian

      Spence, John

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Loveridge, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sproat, Iain

      Dunlop, John

      McCusker, H.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanley, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacGregor, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stokes, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Farr, John

      Mates, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fell, Anthony

      Mather, Carol

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Maude, Angus

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mawby, Ray

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Trotter, Neville

      Forman, Nigel

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fox, Marcus

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mills, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wakeham, John

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Moate, Roger

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester).

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Molyneaux, James

      Walters, Dennis

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Monro, Hector

      Warren, Kenneth

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wells, John

      1436

      1437

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Fred Silvester and

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out "and
      (v) forestry;"
      Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following Lords amendments: No. 4, Nos. 7 to 9, Nos. 53 to 57, Nos. 59 to 61, and Nos. 72, 74 81, 83, 84, 118 and 129.
      Mr. Strang: All these Lords amendments are concerned with forestry, and the total effect of them, by removing forestry from the list of activities included in agriculture, would be to preclude the application of the Bill at any time to whole-time workers in forestry. This is not acceptable.
      I remind the House that in the consultative document we noted that existing tied cottage legislation would apply to many forestry workers and that
      "pay and conditions for many forestry workers are subject to the Agricultural Wages Act".
      It was clear to us when we came to draft legislation that the links between forestry and the remainder of agriculture were such that forestry was an integral part of the agriculture industry and should be included in the Bill.
      There was a need to improve the information available on the situation in forestry, particularly with a view to being able to give housing authorities a clear indication of their likely obligations towards this sector. A survey is presently being conducted on behalf of the Forestry Commission by the Tavistock Institute to provide this information. The specific reference to forestry in the Bill is provided to ensure that a clear distinction can be made between workers who are covered from the appointed day for agriculture and those who are covered from the later appointed day for forestry.
      I should add that we expect the Forestry Commission, which is the largest woodland owner in the country, to treat
      1438
      its tied cottage occupants—when the legislation is brought into effect for forestry—exactly as private forestry landlords will be required to do. Although the Forestry Commission is exempt from a statutory obligation under the Bill, there will be no question of discrimination in practice between the one sector and the other.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I first declare my interest as an owner of woodlands and, of course, of the houses that go with those woodlands. In the rest of the proceedings, I hope that my interest can also be taken to apply to agriculture.
      I hope that the Government will think again about this. The forestry situation is most extraordinary. As it stands at the moment, the Bill does not apply to forestry until the appointed day arrives. It will not apply to Scotland if and when the appointed day is designated. From the last debate it is clear that the Scottish Union of Agricultural Workers does not want the Bill to apply to agriculture, and there have been no moves to have it applied to forestry in Scotland.
      The Forestry Commission itself is excluded, with the 1,500 houses that it owns for its own employees. If and when the Bill applies to forestry it will therefore apply to a very small proportion of the industry itself. To date, no previous legislation concerned with agriculture and forestry has defined forestry as forming part of agriculture. Therefore, there is no precedent whatever for including it in legislation such as this.
      The next point is that, by and large, forestry exists in extremely isolated areas. This point was brought out to the full during the debates in the other place. Therefore, the need for employees to be on the spot is absolute. I ask the Minister point-blank whether the advice that he has received from the Forestry Commission is that the industry cannot continue if it cannot be assured of accommodation for its work force within a reasonable distance of its operations.
      This summer has proved conclusively the need for this, because we have had the great menace of fires. I share my own experience with the House, because

      1439
      I have lost a considerable acreage of young trees. In fact, it was only the heroic efforts of the fire brigade, and my own staff, that managed to stop the destruction spreading further. The same thing happened in parts of Yorkshire and in Scotland. The need for staff to be near at hand in these isolated areas has been proved conclusively during this hot, dry summer.
      The Government would do much better to accept, first, that no demand has been made by the industry and its workers for forestry to be included in the Bill. Secondly, the problems of definition are very great. Most forestry operations combine the growing of trees with the processing of the timber. That is an industrial process, and would have to be excluded from the Bill.
      Thirdly, as I have already said, a large part of the industry is excluded in any event.
      Fourthly, the location and organisation of the forestry industry presents great difficulties.
      It seems that the Government are seeking to save face by delaying the application of the Bill to forestry. It would be far more honest and straightforward, and would benefit the stability and progress of the industry, if they came clean and took forestry out completely. I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Jasper More: The eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has been so compelling that I would not have ventured to take part in the debate but for the Minister's opening words, which were so disgraceful as to be hardly credible. He said that forestry is an integral part of agriculture. It is, of course, a far more important industry than agriculture.
      The Bill's farcical nature is evident when one considers the balance of forestry among the different parts of the United Kingdom. The major effort in forestry now is in Scotland, but as both Scotland and Northern Ireland will be exempt from the Bill we are really talking about England and Wales. It is farcical to pass legislation applying these provisions only to England and Wales.
      1440
      All that my hon. Friend has said about the problems of working in isolated areas and the dangers of fire—which were so evident both in 1976 and in 1975—needs no further emphasis. But it is difficult to leave this matter without referring to the Minister's extraordinary words about the Forestry Commission—that it was to be asked, persuaded or somehow cajoled into treating its employees exactly the same as those employed by private forestry. That gives the ultimate air of unreality to the Government's motion. I have the greatest pleasure in giving my utmost support to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will see sense and decide to withdraw his stupid motion.
      Mr. Watkinson: I am moved to speak only because of the claim of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) that agriculture is less important than forestry. That might conceivably be true in my constituency, which includes the Forest of Dean and where forestry is a major industry, but it could not apply across the country. I support the motion and reiterate the point which lies behind the Bill—that is, that we are determined to see an end to tied cottages generally within the country and particularly in agriculture.
      Mr. Jasper More: When the hon. Gentleman says "within the country", does he include Scotland and Ireland?
      Mr. Watkinson: We have been through that many times. They are not included in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
      There is a principle at stake here. We wish to see an end to tied cottages. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) spoke eloquently about this matter, but I do not think that even he could pretend that the force of the argument used in the preceding debate about the necessity for having dairymen and stockmen on the premises is not weightier than the argument he used about forestry. We all know of the exceptional circumstances this year. In my constituency problems arose from fires, but the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that the most important element in bringing those fires under control was the fire brigade, which in my area had to travel several miles to deal with the fires.
      I welcome the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister to carry

      1441
      out an investigation of forest tied-cottage dwellings. I shall support him in rejecting the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Strang: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some questions which have been asked. The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has been consistently in favour of the protection and coverage of forestry workers as well as of agricultural workers. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), but my impression was that he sought to apply that across the border. We are not discussing Scotland because the legislation does not apply to Scotland. The Forestry Commission has not opposed the implementation of the measure.
      I do not want to be drawn into the argument about whether forestry or agri-

      Division No. 413.]

      AYES

      [8.52 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Allaun, Frank

      Cronin, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Anderson, Donald

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Archer, Peter

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hardy, Peter

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cryer, Bob

      Harper, Joseph

      Ashley, Jack

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hatton, Frank

      Atkinson, Norman

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hooley, Frank

      Bates, Alf

      Deakins, Eric

      Horam, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

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

      Beith, A. J.

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Dempsey, James

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Doig, Peter

      Huckfield, Les

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Boardman, H.

      Dunn, James A.

      Hunter, Adam

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dunnett, Jack

      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. (Provan)

      English, Michael

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Ennals, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      John, Brynmor

      Buchanan, Richard

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Cant, R. B.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Kelley, Richard

      Carmichael, Nell

      Ford, Ben

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Carter, Ray

      Forrester, John

      Kinnock, Neil

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lambie, David

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

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

      Lamborn, Harry

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lamond, James

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Freud, Clement

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Coleman, Donald

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lee, John

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      George, Bruce

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lipton, Marcus

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Ginsburg, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Corbett, Robin

      Golding, John

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Cowans, Harry

      Gould, Bryan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Luard, Evan

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Graham, Ted

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      culture is more important. I think that on reflection we would all agree that they are both basic and enormously important industries in our national economy. They are interrelated. Very often there is coordination between forestry and farming. In some instances the farmer or small landowner works his forestry with his farm.
      I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Watkinson) said. I am glad to have his support, well knowing the deep interest he takes in forestry matters and his commitment to forestry in his constituency.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 248.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Parker, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Mabon, Dr J Dickson

      Parry, Robert

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Pendry, Tom

      Swain, Thomas

      McElhone, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Perry, Ernest

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thome, Stan (Preston South)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Radice, Giles

      Tierney, Sydney

      Madden, Max

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Tinn, James

      Magee, Bryan

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Tomlinson, John

      Mahon, Simon

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Torney, Tom

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Marquand, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Watkins, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Roper, John

      Watkinson, John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Weetch, Ken

      Mendelson, John

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      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 (Pollok)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Moonman, Eric

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Whitlock, William

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Selby, Harry

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Moyle, Roland

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Newens, Stanley

      Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Noble, Mike

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Ogden, Eric

      Silverman, Julius

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Orbach, Maurice

      Small, William

      Woodall, Alec

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Woof, Robert

      Ovenden, John

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Snaps, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Padley, Walter

      Spearing, Nigel

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Palmer, Arthur

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Pardoe, John

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Park, George

      Stott, Roger

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Channon, Paul

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fry, Peter

      Alison, Michael

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Clegg, Walter

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Cockcroft, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Banks, Robert

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Bell, Ronald

      Cope, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Cordle, John H.

      Gorst, John

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Benyon, W.

      Corrie, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Costain, A. P.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Biffen, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Gray, Hamish

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Crowder, F. P.

      Grieve, Percy

      Blaker, Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Grist, Ian

      Body, Richard

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Grylls, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hall, Sir John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown]

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Dunlop, John

      Hannam, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Brittan, Leon

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hastings, Stephen

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Emery, Peter

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Brotherton, Michael

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hawkins, Paul

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Farr, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Buck, Antony

      Fell, Anthony

      Hicks, Robert

      Budgen, Nick

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Hodgson, Robin

      Burden, F. A.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Holland, Philip

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hordern, Peter

      Carlisle, Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Carson, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fox, Marcus

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      1444

      1445

      Hurd, Douglas

      Miscampbell, Norman

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Moate, Roger

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      James, David

      Molyneaux, James

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

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

      Monro, Hector

      Shepherd, Colin

      Jessel, Toby

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Shersby, Michael

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Sims, Roger

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Jopling, Michael

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Judd, Frank

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Speed, Keith

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Spence, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Neave, Airey

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sproat, Iain

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Neubert, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Newton, Tony

      Stanley, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Nott, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Knox, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Lamont, Norman

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Stokes, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Percival, Ian

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Loveridge, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Trotter, Neville

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      McCusker, H.

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      van Straubenzee, W. R

      Macfarlane. Nell

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      MacGregor, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Viggers, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Raison, Timothy

      Wakeham, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Made), David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Walters, Dennis

      Marten, Neil

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mates, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mather, Carol

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Maude, Angus

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Mawby, Ray

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Younger, Hon George

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Mills, Peter

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 dis-agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
      "(3A) In this Act "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy" have the meanings given by Schedule (Meaning of "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy") to this Act."
      Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 10, 38 to 40—plus Government Amendment —75 to 77—plus Government Amendments—108, 123, 125 and 127.
      Mr. Armstrong: The House will be pleased to hear that the amendments are less formidable than their length would suggest. Their main effect is to transfer the contents of Clause 2 to a new schedule and to deal with two points of substance which were troubling the
      1446
      Opposition. They were welcomed by spokesmen for the Opposition in another place and I trust that they will be equally welcome here.
      The first point of substance covered in the new schedule concerns board. Out policy intention is that no worker receiving board should be protected, just as under the Rent Acts no tenant who receives board qualifies for protection. Under the Bill in its current form, where a farmer provided a qualifying worker with board but charged him no rent, such a worker would be protected, though a worker who paid some rent in similar circumstances would not be protected. That is not the effect that we set out to achieve. The new schedule sets matters right. It also deals in similar form with attendance. I imagine, however, that in the agricultural world attendance is not likely to loom large, although the question of board could in some parts.
      The second point of substance concerns hostels. The amendments make

      1447
      sure that occupants of hostels are excluded from protection, which is not to extend to a worker sharing a dwelling for four or more persons where each person has one room, and only one, to himself. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have both said that the residual problem of hostels would not be solved easily. The detailed nature of the amendments on the subject—amendments that are complicated and technical—bear out our warnings, but I am sure that the end result is one on which both the Government and Opposition are agreed.
      Mr. Rossi: Earlier this evening I submitted a manuscript to Lords Amendment No. 77. I understand that Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to select it but that it is still being duplicated for circulation to hon. Members. This is part of the problem if the Government are taken unawares, with the result that we have little time to consider these matters. The Government are in as much difficulty now as possibly we were in the early hours of the morning because they brought this matter forward so quickly.
      My amendment seeks to insert in Lords Amendment No. 77
      "for the purposes of this schedule".
      I seek to do so to make clear that the modifications that are being made to Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 are purely for the purposes of the schedule and for no other reason and that they relate to agricultural tenancies and no others.
      I must confess that when I first read the schedule, which is written in extremely complex and complicated language, dealing with highly technical matters under the Rent Acts, I was somewhat alarmed. If one reads paragraph 3 of the schedule in isolation, it makes the bald statement that Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 is being modified to a certain extent. That is what the language of sub-paragraph (3) states. I appreciate that the foregoing paragraphs appear to imply that the relevant licence and the relevant tenancy are defined by reference to subsequent amendments in paragraph 3 to which I am referring.
      On one construction of the schedule, it can be said that the only effect of sub-paragraph (3) in law is inasmuch as
      1448
      it relates to the preceding paragraphs 1 and 2. That is the conclusion that can be reached if paragraphs 1 and 2 are read first. However, if we take sub-paragraph (3) in isolation, someone coming to the Bill for the first time could correctly say that it is a bald statement of law without qualification that Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 is modified. If that construction can be put on the paragraph the ramifications are enormous.
      It is to ensure that no doubt can arise that I wish to insert the words in the amendment. Unless it is made clear beyond peradventure, doubt could be caused. We start in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 with the statement that we omit paragraph (a) of Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968. That sub-paragraph of Section 2 of the 1968 Act ensures that tenancies at a low rent are not protected tenancies. If we do not ensure that end by removing paragraph 2(a) of the 1968 Act, it could happen that if the wrong interpretation were put on the schedule a person would find that he had let into possession a protected tenant and had been denied his home. That would be the position if he had to leave his house for some time and, in order to prevent squatters moving in, he let it to a friend at a nominal rent—for example, £1 a week, a shilling a week or, as is done quite frequently, a case of whisky at the end of six months as payment in kind.
      Similarly, complications could arise in the hotel industry. Hoteliers often acquire accommodation and let it to their work force at nominal rents so that they can attract staff to their hotels. I am referring not to people who reside in a hotel under service occupancies but to staff who are outside the hotel in accommodation provided for them by the hotel at nominal rents. If the Lords amendment remains as it is, unqualified, the danger may arise that those hotels will find that all the accommodation would become subject to protected tenancies. I am advised that the effect on the tourist industry would be considerable and very much to its disadvantage. Therefore, we must make clear that no such suggestion is implied by the legislation.
      9.15 p.m.
      Paragraph 3(4) of the new Schedule 1A could cause considerable difficulty. That provision recasts the conditions under which attendance is taken into account in

      1449
      deciding whether a tenancy is protected. The Rent Act 1968 contains words to the effect that the attendance must represent a substantial part of the rent paid. That matter has now been determined by the Court of Appeal in the case of Woodward v. Docherty, although in that case the court was dealing with a furnished tenancy. Nevertheless, attendance in terms of furnished tenancies is dealt with in the same sub-paragraph and it was considered in that way by the Court of Appeal.
      The effect of the sub-paragraph is to override the decision of the Court of Appeal. The courts would be thrown back to the somewhat unsatisfactory situation that obtained in earlier years as thrown up by the case of Sagoo v. Goel. The courts were there concerned not with assessing the value of attendance or furniture in relation to rent but with the value of the services or furniture provided to the tenant irrespective of any arithmetical calculation of rent. That would be an unsatisfactory departure in regard to tenants—I speak in general terms rather than in terms of agricultural tenants—if they were denied the protection given them by the Court of Appeal in the case of Woodward v. Docherty.
      Unless we are careful to ensure that paragraph 3(4) of the schedule relates only to what is contained in the schedule under the kind of construction that I suggest, the implications for the general law of landlord and tenant could be consider able. That is the reason for my amendment. Since the Minister said in opening this discussion that the Government in tended to limit these matters simply to agricultural tenancies and not extend them to the general law of landlord and tenant under the Rent Act, I hope that he will accept this small amendment to make the situation clear beyond any shadow of doubt.
      The other matter I wish to mention concerns the Minister's amendment to Lords Amendment No. 77. As I understand the situation, paragraph 4 of the new schedule is now being deleted. That paragraph gives the concession for which we asked in regard to hostels. Will the Minister in reply explain why, having said that this concession is being given to hostel accommodation, he should now seek to amend the schedule by removing that reference?
      1450
      I appreciate that there is another amendment in this group of amendments—I think it is Lords Amendment No. 40, to Clause 24—in which there is a further provision relating to hostel accommodation. But that again is being amended by the Minister by a further amendment which has appeared on the Amendment Paper, and there must be some watering down of this concession.
      I ask the Minister to forgive me for asking for this explanation of his amendments following his opening statement, but he will appreciate that the Opposition have been put in great difficulty by the shortness of time in which to study these matters. They are extremely intricate and, therefore, I have not readily been able to follow why he should be taking reference to hostels out of Schedule 1 but leaving it in Clause 24 in a form that he is now seeking to modify.
      Miss Maynard: I find this—and I am sure other hon. Members do—a very technical and difficult matter to understand. I want to make it clear that we do not want for farm workers any more than we would ask for any other group of workers. That applies to farm workers whether they live in hostels or in any other accommodation.
      There was one important admission from the Conservative Front Bench in talking about the accommodation offered in the catering industry. It was said that this accommodation was often offered at nominal rents—as, of course, tied accommodation is in agriculture—in order to attract labour to the industry. Workers in the catering industry are notoriously badly paid, as are agricultural workers. I have always found that tied accommodation at nominal rent was one way of attracting labour into a low-paid industry. We have had an admission tonight from the Conservative Front Bench in relation to another industry.
      Mr. Graham Page: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in his request for an amendment at the beginning of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1A so that the schedule shall only apply to agricultural tenancies. If I may invite the Minister to intervene and say that he accepts that, I need not speak any further.
      Mr. Armstrong: I give that assurance.
      Mr. Page: I am grateful to the Minister for that firm assurance. It shortens the debate considerably.
      I declare an interest. Some time ago I wrote a book on the Rent Acts. The more the Government revise the Rent Acts, the more likely are the publishers to ask me for a second edition.
      Mr. Mayhew: Nobody has ever asked me to write a book on the revision of the Rent Acts, and nobody is likely to do so. I wish, however, to voice a very angry protest at the mode in which this revision of one of the 13 Rent Acts to which we still have from time to time to refer is being made in Amendment No. 77.
      The Rent Acts range from 1915 to 1974. The corpus of law that they constitute is properly described as monumental, but hardly stands as a monument to the limpid clarity of the legislation that we turn out from this House.
      I think it nothing short of a disgrace that we are now, at this short notice, being invited to consider a new schedule that consists of 75 lines of closely drafted amendments to Clause 2, which itself sets out to modify provisions of the 196S Rent Act.
      The Rent Acts to which we now have to refer constitute a kind of archaeological dig. Everyone knows that they are ranged one upon another. Some derive support from those beneath them, and others from those alongside. Therefore, everyone must know the effect on each individual slice of this sandwich cake in order to get accurate advice about the law. Nevertheless, all these acts received proper debate in this House, to the best of my knowledge. None was subjected to a guillotine, and certainly none was subjected to substantial amendments to the extent of 75 lines in a completely new schedule rearranging the definitions, brought forward in a debate that was itself subject to the guillotine, at rather less than 30 hours' notice.
      This House is not just a means of sustaining a Government in office. Neither is it just a means of getting the Government out of an inconvenient spot at any given time. Its function, first and foremost, is to make law. The Minister knows in his heart of hearts that it is quite indefensible to seek to make law by
      1452
      means such as this amendment. How can hon. Members give their minds satisfactorily to this degree of lawmaking—75 lines of new definitions recasting Clause 2 at such short notice? The danger is that the Government will be tempted to think that they can do this.
      The Rent Acts constitute a difficult field of law, and many humble people depend on accurate advice about their real meaning. Here, once again, we are doing an in-defensible thing. We are not taking the trouble to satisfy ourselves that we know that what we are saying is right. If we fail to do our parliamentary job of making law carefully, it costs us nothing at all. We are comfortably protected from the consequences of our own negligence—we take great care to see to that. The cost falls upon those people who have the misfortune to be affected by the law that we make so heedlessly and lightly. Other people have to pay to find out the meaning and the effect of the law which Ministers are paid to make clear.
      I dare say that the Minister will claim that this is a tightening-up operation, designed to meet objections expressed here and in another place. But we have not been given sufficient time to discover whether these amendments are sufficiently clearly expressed, or whether they do the job they purport to do. It is the people affected by our laws who suffer. They have to act on the best advice available to them, which later may be held by a bare majority of judges to have been wrong.
      Anyone who has any knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant, and particularly of the Rent Acts, will condemn the Government's action today as an iniquitous scandal and a blatant affront to the law for which, from Clay Cross to Grunwick Laboratories, they have frequently shown contempt.
      Mr. Armstrong: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has used such exaggerated language in giving his proper attention to something which we have not had a great deal of time to consider. I was in some difficulty here because of the manuscript amendment, but I do not complain about it. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the valuable advice he gave me on Rent Act

      1453
      legislation—which is difficult—during our deliberations in Standing Committee.
      When I first came to the House, having previously been a schoolmaster, I was determined that any Bill with which I was associated would be made clear to the layman. How foolish I was to think that that was a simple operation! Since then we have been in the hands of the lawyers. Rent Act legislation is complex and difficult. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells that if we discussed the subject from now until next Wednesday the House would not be very full and I do not know that the subject would be much clearer to those of us who were present. That is why we are having a thorough review of Rent Act legislation. I do not accept the criticism that what we are seeking to do in the amendments is scandalous behaviour.
      9.30 p.m.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that I am advised that his manuscript amendment is not strictly necessary because paragraphs 1 and 2 of the new schedule spell out the details adequately. However, since his amendment may make it little clearer to those who have to work the Act and understand it, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I am pleased to concede anything that makes legislation clearer, and for that reason I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Speaker: I remind the Minister that since he has accepted the amendment he must bear that in mind after the guillotine falls, when it is he who will have to move the amendment.
      Mr. Armstrong: Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that I shall bear it in mind. We are thinking of little else in North-West Durham.
      Let me deal with the point about hostels which is dealt with by paragraph (4) of the new schedule in Lords Amendment No. 77. The paragraph was inserted to make sure that the occupants of hostels were excluded from protection. The seven Government amendments to Amendment No. 77, remove paragraph 4 from the new schedule and transfer its effect into Clause 24.
      1454
      Government Amendment No. 40 is a matter of drafting. Together, the Government amendments seek to achieve the same effect in a somewhat neater way. There is no watering down of the provisions. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) led me astray many times in the Standing Committee dealing with the reorganisation of local government. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his intervention today. He is an acknowledged expert on Rent Act legislation.
      I must tell the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells that the whole effect of the Lords amendment is to apply the relevant sections of the Rent Acts to agricultural licensees or tenants not now protected by the Rent Act legislation. It does not have any effect on those already protected by the Rent Acts.
      I am grateful to hon. Member for their detailed submissions on this matter. The complexity of it is one of the reasons why we are now having the full Rent Act review. I hope that what I have said will commend itself to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 disagreed to.

    Schedule 2

      PROTECTED OCCUPIERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT
      Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 34, leave out line 47 and insert:
      "182 out of the last 208 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer."
      Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      There have been lengthy and interesting debates both here and in another place on the question of the qualifying period of work in agriculture. In the Lords in Committee two amendments were tabled, one by the Conservative Opposition calling for two years with one employer or four years in the industry, and the other by the Liberals calling for five years in the industry, of which one year must be for the current employer.
      At that point, the Conservative Opposition said that they believed that their amendment was better than that set down by the Liberals, particularly in the case

      1455
      of the farm worker who, having worked in the industry for many years, had difficulties with his last employer before completing 50 weeks with him and stood to lose his housing security. This is an important point to which I shall return later.
      The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggested that perhaps I had not taken sufficient interest in the Lords proceedings on these matters. I assure him that I have been extremely interested. Although I resented the wrecking amendment—Lords Amendment No. 1—I do not mean to imply that there were no interesting debates in the other place on this measure. Indeed, I made a point of witnessing the Lords debate on this issue because it seemed to me that it was likely to arouse further controversy in that place.
      One matter which impressed me was the extent to which Lord Collison, a former General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, was able to make some impact on a number of Conservative peers. The noble Lord made a number of distinguished and useful contributions to the debates derived from his long experience with the industry and his knowledge of farm workers. The telling point which he made was the position of the old farm worker who had worked for 40 or more years in the industry and who, in his sixties, had to move to another employment. I shall take an exceptional situation where perhaps his employer of long standing went bankrupt, so that the worker had to find another job. If he reached retirement age in less than 50 weeks after moving to a new farm, under the Liberal amendment, which was carried, he would have no protection whatsoever.
      The purpose of this amendment is to make it harder for workers to qualify for housing security. The amendment would extend the qualifying period from two years in agriculture generally to four years in agriculture, one year of which must have been with the current employer. This means that a worker who had already fully qualified for housing security would, if he moved to another farm job and another cottage, be deprived of that security until he had completed
      1456
      a further year's service with his new employer. The scope for abuse would be large, since a farmer could always sack a worker just before the qualifying period was completed. The amendment thus deprives workers of that sense of security which the Bill is designed to instil.
      It is obviously fair that there should be a qualifying period of service for workers who are to benefit from the security of housing which the Bill's provisions would afford and to ensure that people do not see a brief spell of work in agriculture as a short cut to that security. We have decided on two years, taking account of consultations we have had with both sides of the industry. Two years is a reasonable period in which to prove one's bona fides. Two years is also the period suggested by the Association of District Councils, which is the body intimately concerned with the practicalities of rehousing agricultural workers.
      I hope that I have explained the effect of the amendment sufficiently effectively to ensure that hon. Members who might be inclined to vote for it do so in full knowledge of its consequences. I shall not make any party capital out of this, but I know that there has been a difference of opinion—thank goodness for it—on some issues with regard to this measure between the Liberal Party in this place and the Liberal Party in the other place.
      I should be very surprised if Liberal Members of this House were able to support this Liberal amendment. Indeed, I should like to think that Conservative Members might have second thoughts about supporting it. particularly as their own leader in the other place was genuinely impressed. I think, by the force of the argument which is based quite simply on the fact that it would make an absolute mockery of this issue if a worker had to have completed one year's service with his current or last employer in order to gain protection.
      Therefore, I hope that Opposition Members will not feel inclined to press the amendment.
      Mr. Jopling: One thing that has pleased me so far in this short debate is that we have had a tone and attitude from the Parliamentary Secretary rather different from that which we had in our

      1457
      first debate today. He has adopted a more reasonable attitude, which he had throughout the Committee stage.
      The amendment brings us back to the original philosophic approach to the Bill, on the question whether there should be a qualifying period at all. It is as well to acknowledge that the Government, to give them credit, have always taken the view that there should be a qualifying period of some sort. That was set out in the consultative document. We certainly welcomed it. What the Parliamentary Secretary has not referred to is the fact that it is this matter of a qualifying period that has caused more disquiet and concern in the farming industry than any other single factor; with the exception of the implications of Clause 30, to which we shall be moving next.
      I observe that some groups want a qualifying period of five years. They include organisations such as the National Farmers' Union. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that is only to be expected. However, they include organisations such as the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is a rather less political organisation, and the Milk Marketing Board, which I should have thought was a totally non-political organisation. All those bodies have been saying that there ought to be a five-year qualifying period.
      At present the Bill says that the period should be two years. The amendment proposes a good and reasonable compromise of four years. It introduces a new element into the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said—that to qualify, a worker must have done a year's service with one employer. However one drafts the Bill, there will be some hardship somewhere. I think that we all recognise that one has to draw arbitrary lines.
      9.45 p.m.
      We welcome the introduction of a condition that in order to qualify a worker must have worked for a certain period with his present employer. Otherwise, if a farm worker has completed his qualifying period in agriculture, whether it be two, four or even five years, there will be a temptation for him to move, perhaps to a better house than the one he has and perhaps one close to some work he wants to take up outside agricul-
      1458
      ture. It is that type of attitude which I think, all of us are intent on not assisting.
      Therefore, to introduce a condition that there must be a period of service with the existing employer is good. I think that it will tend to cut out the temptation for a farm worker merely to take on a job because the house happens to be a good one and near to some non-agricultural employment which he may wish to take up.
      Second, to give a longer period of qualification, increased from two years to four, would give added protection to the farming industry against a certain minority. Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) leaps to her feet and jumps down my throat-she can do both at the same time—to tell me that there are very few farm workers who take that attitude, let me say that I accept at once that there are few who would abuse the system in the way that I have suggested. At the same time, however, it is right for the industry to ask to be better protected against that minority. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this amendment and agree to the extension of the qualifying period from two years to four.
      The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Leader of the Opposition in another place was somewhat sympathetic to the point of view put from the Government Benches, but I think I am right in saying that in the end he voted for the amendment.
      I turn now, as I have done twice before this evening, to hon. Members on the Liberal Bench. I hope that in our support for this amendment we shall have the pleasure of their company in the Lobby. This was a Liberal amendment, and there were 11 Liberal peers who came to support it. I hope that with the support of the Liberal Members, which I trust we shall have, we shall be able to press the amendment and carry it against the wishes of the Government. But, who knows?—they may have changed their minds in the meantime.
      Mr. John MacGregor: Over a year ago I held many discussions with farming representatives in my constituency, including a day-long seminar. But because of the way in which

      1459
      the Bill was handled, and because I was not on the Standing Committee, as I was then on another Committee considering another Bill, I have not until now been able to express any of the views held by the farming community in Norfolk on the provisions of the Bill.
      I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said about the two issues which are continuing to bother farmers. One is the qualifying period and the other is the need to put a statutory obligation on local authorities. We shall come to the latter in a moment, but I think that the two are closely connected.
      One of the worries of local authorities is that if a statutory obligation is placed upon them there may be heavy demands at various times upon their housing accommodation. There is, therefore, the need to remove the non-genuine cases among people who happen to be in farm cottages at the time and to get down to the proper core. That is what the Lords amendment does. Therefore, I believe that the two matters go closely together.
      I have read all the debates in the House of Lords, and it seemed to me that, although the leader of the Conservative Opposition there took note of the points made, he still stuck to his guns, regarding the amendment as important to the farming community.
      I believe we all agree that this is a matter of striking the right balance—protecting local authorities from queue-jumping and from people who come into rural areas and perhaps use the clauses of the Bill in order to jump the queue into a council house, while at the same time protecting the farmer against someone coming in with no intention of working on his farm.
      The Minister said that the amendment would make an absolute mockery of the Bill. That is putting it too strongly. We are simply trying to get the right balance. On the whole the four-year clause, and particularly the one-year clause, gives a more reasonable protection without in any way hampering or restricting the rights of the genuine cases among farm workers. Indeed, many farmers would like to have seen either a five-year or three-year clause, but I am sure they will be happy to settle for this compromise as being a reasonable one.
      1460
      Twelve months is not a long time for any person to earn his rights under the Bill. It protects the farmer from the situation where someone comes to his farm not with any intention of working there but because it is an area to which he wishes to go or because it is better accommodation, and he works there only a month to have the protection under the Bill granted to him, while the farmer finds himself in extreme difficulty. Twelve months is not too long to earn the rights under the Bill for full protection to be applied to the farm worker.
      The Minister gave one example perhaps to justify his claim that the amendment made an absolute mockery. That was an example of someone who had worked in agriculture all his life and who in the year of his retirement had moved somewhere else. That is no doubt an accurate example, but I believe that it would apply to very few cases. The question that the House must consider is whether on balance one should agree with the Minister and deal with the extreme case of the farm worker who has spent 40 years in the industry and has to move at the last minute, or whether it is right to put in a few extra protections for the farmer to deal with the equally dangerous situation of a farm worker going in with no intention of working for him in order to gain accommodation on which he has set his eye.
      It seems to me that the amendment would afford a reasonable balance. It does not in any way affect the objectives or ultimate purpose of the Bill. It gives the protection that the farming community feels is necessary. I am bound to say that the misgivings and fears in the farming community about the two-year protection are still very strong. A great deal of benefit would be gained by the Minister if, even at this late stage, he accepted the amendment which the Lords carried.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: Amendment No. 78 is a Liberal amendment. It gives me great pleasure to support it. The Lords have been constructive in their approach to change the qualifying period. The amendment seeks to change the qualifying period from two years to four years, with the stipulation that the last year must be in the employment of the farmer who owns the house in respect of which the worker seeks security of tenure.

      1461
      The two-year period at present provided in the Bill is felt by many organisations, including the NFU and the Farmers' Union of Wales, to be too short. Many organisations have argued in favour of a period of five years, others for eight years and others for 10 years.
      I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition are agreeing with the Liberals about a change and that they will support us in the Division Lobby. I was delighted to hear the views of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).
      In my view, and in the view of many others, a period of two years is too short to prevent the Bill's being used as a short cut to a council house or a stautory tenancy. Many people would be prepared to work for two years in agriculture if it meant that they could be sure of a house at the end of that period. Having established the right to a house, they could then do what they had intended to do—take a job in the nearest town. It seems simpler to have a minimum period for the industry, as the Bill provides. Unfortunately, it is too short. It gives me great pleasure to support the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I support the argument for the longer qualifying period. Any employer considering two candidates for a job will, if he thinks the qualifying period is too short, seek to minimise the risk by choosing an older man, who is mature, whose character is formed, and whose family is established, in preference to a younger man. We are beginning to see this happening under the Employment Protection Act, which provides a much shorter qualifying period.
      In the countryside we need more young people who will create families and add to the community. Many rural areas in

      Division No. 414.]

      AYES

      [9.59 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Buchan, Norman

      Allaun, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Anderson, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Archer, Peter

      Bishop, E. S.

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Ashley, Jack

      Boardman, H.

      Campbell, Ian

      Ashton, Joe

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Canavan, Dennis

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Cant, R. B.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Bradley, Tom

      Carter, Ray

      Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Bates, Alf

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Bean, R. E.

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      my part of the world are depopulated. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind.
      Miss Maynard: I do not know whether Conservative Members really believe that just to get a house anyone would work for two years in an industry which pays the kind of wages that agriculture does. It is ludicrous to say so. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) that we need more young people. I said earlier that there is an aging labour force in agriculture. The way to get more young people is to pay them a decent rate, since they are among the most skilled workers in the country. The answer is not a qualifying period of four years.
      Mr. Pym: I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) will accept, as a consequence of that statement, that it is about time this Government made sure, first, that farmers had adequate margins for their products and, second, that the taxation system enabled them to retain enough of those margins. Where on earth else does she think that money will come from?
      I hope that the Minister will remember what he said about the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) half an hour ago. He said then the hon. Gentleman was marvellous—he was so sensible and practical, he came straight from the farm. The hon. Gentleman is the same man, with the same practical experience, and he thinks that a period of four years is preferable to a period of two. The Minister should therefore agree with him a second time.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 262.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Coletnan, Donald

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Janner, Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Corbett, Robin

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Cowans, Harry

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roper, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kelley, Richard

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lambie, David

      Rymati, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sandelson, Neville

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Selby, Harry

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, John

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyrts)

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Litterick, Tom

      Strkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dunn, James A.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunnett, Jack

      Luard, Evan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Small, William

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Mabon, Dr J Dickson

      Snape, Peter

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spearing, Nigel

      English, Michael

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ennals, David

      McElhone, Frank

      Stoddart, David

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Swain, Thomas

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Flannery, Martin

      Magee, Bryan

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mahon, Simon

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Ford, Ben

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thorne, Slan (Preston South)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Marquand, David

      Tierney, Sydney

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

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tinn, James

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Tomlinson, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Torney, Tom

      Garrelt, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Urwin, T. W.

      George, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

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

      Ginsburg, David

      Mendelson, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Golding, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gould, Bryan

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Watkins, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Watkinson, John

      Graham, Ted

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Weetch, Ken

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Moonman, Eric

      Weilzman, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Hamilton, James (Sothwell)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hardy, Peter

      Moyle, Roland

      Whitlock, William

      Harper, Joseph

      Newens, Stanley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Noble, Mike

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ogden, Eric

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Hatton, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Orbach, Maurice

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ovenden, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Hooley, Frank

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Horam, John

      Padley, Walter

      Woodall, Alec

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

      Palmer, Arthur

      Woof, Robert

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Park, George

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Huckfield, Les

      Parker, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Parry, Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pendry, Tom

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      Hunter, Arlam

      Perry, Ernest

      1464

      1465

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gorst, John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Alison, Michael

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gray, Hamish

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Banks, Robert

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mudd, David

      Bell, Ronald

      Grist, Ian

      Neave, Airey

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Grylls, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hall, Sir John

      Neubert, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Newton, Tony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nott, John

      Biffen, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hannam,John

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Blaker, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Body, Richard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hawkins, Paul

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pardoe, John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hicks, Robert

      Penhaligon, David

      Brittan, Leon

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Percival, Ian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Holland, Philip

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Buck, Antony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Raison, Timothy

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Burden, F. A.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Carlisle, Mark

      James, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Carson, John

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

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Channon, Paul

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinslead)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Clegg, Walter

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Cockcroft, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cope, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Cordle, John H.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Corrie, John

      Knox, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Costain, A. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Critchley, Julian

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shersby, Michael

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Silvester, Fred

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Le Marcham, Spencer

      Sims, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lloyd, Ian

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Dunlop, John

      Loveridge, John

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Speed, Keith

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McCusker, H. ,

      Spence, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Emery, Peter

      MacGregor, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Eyre, Reginald

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stanley, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Farr, John

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fell, Anthony

      Marten, Neil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Forman, Nigel

      Mawby, Ray

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Maxwell-Hyslon, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Fry, Peter

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Mills, Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Trotter, Neville

      Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Moate, Roger

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Monro, Hector

      1466

      1467

      Viggers, Peter

      Warren, Kenneth

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Younger, Hon George

      Wakeham, John

      Wells, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Alan Beith and

      Walters, Dennis

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. Geraint Howells.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further proceedings stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Energy Bill [Lords], the Industrial Common Ownership Bill and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the further consideration of the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE (MOTION)
  Division List No. 411—Noes [see c. 1383–4]

  Division No. 411.]

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Paul

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hodgson, Robin

  Pardoe, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Holland, Philip

  Penhaligon, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Body, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Britain, Leon

  Jessel, Toby

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Budgen, Nick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shepherd, Colin

  Carlisle, Mark

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Shersby, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Churchill, W. S.

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Clegg, Walter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Cockcroft, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Spence, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McCusker, H.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stokes, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  MacGregor, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dunlop, John

  Made!, David

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Fell, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Wakeham, John

  Fry, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morgan, Geraint

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Younger, Hon George

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mudd, David

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Nelson. Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Mr. Clement Freud and

  Hannam, Jon

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Ronald Bell.

  RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Lords amendment: No. 79 in page 35, line 33, leave out
  "of which a person ("the occupier") is in exclusive occupation under"
  and insert
  "in relation to which a person ("the occupier") has".
  Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 18, 115, 124 and 126.
  Mr. Armstrong: These amendments remove redundant wording describing the licence or tenancy held by a protected occupier under the Bill. They are drafting amendments and do not alter the sense of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 80 in page 35, line 45, leave out "to work".
  Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  It is a purely drafting amendment to remove unnecessary words.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 81 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 38, line 31, leave out "under this paragraph" and insert
  'made under this paragraph—

  (a) may contain transitional and other supplemental and incidental provisions, and

  (b)"

  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  It is common form for an order-making power to cover the possibility of transitional, supplemental and incidental provisions. This is a prudent policy which is worth following in relation to this power.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 disagreed to

  RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
    Clause 30

      DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED
      Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 24, line 3, leave out from "dwelling-house" to "are" in line 7 and insert
      "within three months of their receiving the application or, if an application is made for the services of a committee under section 31 of this Act, within two months of their receiving the committee's advice.
      (6A) The notification shall state—

      (a) if the authority".

      Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment requires local authorities to notify decisions on rehousing applications within two months of receiving ADHAC advice or, if there is no ADHAC advice, within three months of the date of application.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 24, line 10, leave out "they shall use their best endeavours to provide the" and insert
      "it shall be their duty to secure the provision of"
      Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 47.
      Mr. Armstrong: We now come to that area of the Bill which, above all others, has proved controversial. These amendments have served to prolong the controversy in a way that I regard as singularly dogmatic.
      The rehousing duty for local authorities proposed in the Bill as it left the House was a strong duty. It was abundantly clear that local authorities were in no doubt on this point. The replacement by Amendment No. 46 of the phrase which enjoined local authorities to "use their best endeavours", a phrase we have heard a great deal in past months, with a phrase purporting to lay on them a straightforward duty stems from the misconception that the new wording adds a legal force that was previously lacking.

      1471
      It ignores the fact that the original obligation placed on local authorities unambiguously required them to do their utmost, and recognised that more than their utmost was not feasible.
      If Amendment No. 46 is misconceived, its effect when taken together with Amendment No. 47 is irresponsible. I use the word "irresponsible" advisedly, because that is the very apt description used by the Association of District Councils, speaking for the housing authorities, which are to be responsible for carrying out the new duty. This is strong language from the association, but the strength of the language is warranted.
      The other place has tried to remove from housing authorities a vital discretion to decide the priorities of housing allocation. Like many other hon. Members, I have been a member of a housing committee. The members of such committees have to make agonising decisions from time to time. There are no blueprints that anyone can supply that will automatically guide a housing committee that is faced with a choice of priorities. The amendment would attempt to give absolute instructions to housing authorities that have vial decisions to make. The result would be that automatic overriding priority would be given to applications from farmers that were valid under the criteria set out in Clause 29 irrespective of other claimants beyond agriculture, irrespective of the housing authority's resources and irrespective even of whether the application was urgent in agricultural terms. That would represent a totally unjustified intrusion into the responsibilities of the elected representatives who sit on local housing authorities. It would inevitably lead to distortion in that those who would suffer would be those in desperate need of rehousing.
      I suspect that in their heart of hearts their Lordships realise that this place cannot possibly accept either the letter or the spirit of the amendments. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber with day-to-day experience of working on housing committees will know that the amendment is not acceptable given the relationship that we now have with local government. If they apply their minds coolly to the clause as it reached them, their Lordships should be able to see that without their amend-
      1472
      ments the Bill offers to farmers provisions from which they stand to benefit a great deal. If I may say so, they stand to benefit a great deal more in many instances than is their position under the present system. I trust that the House will return the message in no uncertain terms to another place that the amendments cannot be accepted.
      Mr. Pym: I agree with the Minister that this is a highly controversial matter. It is one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that there was no opportunity upon Report for the House to address itself to the matter. Had it not been for the belated but welcome acceptance of the amendment that I moved this afternoon, we should not have had an opportunity to discuss it now.
      The clause involves not only agriculture but local authorities. I remind the House of the attitude that I have taken all the way through. One of the reasons for my thinking that the Bill is so fundamentally wrong is that I believe it to be fundamentally wrong for agriculture that farmers should be in a position of doubt and uncertainty about the future repossession of houses that go with farms, not knowing whether the man will be rehoused so that they can engage another man. That uncertainty is totally wrong for the industry.
      I have always been at the forefront of those who argue, as the Minister has done, that it is equally wrong to put an absolute commitment upon the local authority to give complete and absolute priority so that farmers' doubts can be allayed. It seems to be the design of the Bill that produces such an impossible conundrum. That is one of its greatest weaknesses. Many of us feel that it is wrong to impose an absolute priority on the local authority, yet we do not feel that to leave the Bill as it stands is acceptable from the farmer's point of view.
      What the Minister said in trying to reject their Lordships' amendment increased rather than diminished my anxiety. He said that when the Bill left the House local authorities already had imposed upon them a strong and real duty. They certainly had a duty to use their best endeavours, but what does that actually mean? What does it mean to

      1473
      the farmer and the farm worker in real terms? No one has yet been able to answer that question.
      The Minister went on to say that, if their Lordships' amendment were accepted, that would have removed a vital discretion on the part of housing authorities in allocating houses. If that vital discretion is removed, what does the phrase "best endeavours" mean? If the Lords amendment is rejected, local authorities retain that discretion in allocating houses. That is the fear and anxiety that now affect agriculture.
      I believe that five amendments to the subsection, and certainly four in relation to the clause, should now be mentioned The two amendments with which we are now dealing place a duty to secure the provision of housing for farm workers displaced from their jobs. Amendment No. 48 deals with the special circumstances that arise when an advisory committee says that the freedom of a house for another worker is of such urgency that provision should be made by the local authority within a period of three months. That surely is a reasonable obligation to impose.
      Amendment No. 86 refers to temporary accommodation, and the Government have tabled an amendment that will be helpful in that respect. Finally Amendment No. 49 deals with the position where, despite the duty imposed by Amendment No. 46, authorities are unable for any reason physically to provide a house. In those circumstances farmers would be entitled with no further argument to provide a mobile home without any requirements in planning terms, and that could overcome a difficulty in relation to a farmer's business. Therefore, in that general sense one must examine these five amendments together, although I appreciate that we are now dealing with two only.
      On first reading of the amendments, one would think that certainly Amendment No. 46 imposed an absolute duty and that that was the end of the matter. But what they did in another place was not as severe, as positive or as definite as that. Their Lordships allowed for the fact that it could happen, through nobody's fault, that a local authority would be unable to provide alternative accommodation physically. That is why they inserted these other amendments.
      1474
      We must examine Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 in that light.
      I do not regard the way in which the Bill left the House as providing adequate protection for farmers. I have acknowledged that an absolute compelling duty almost to the point of turning somebody out is an unreasonable proposition from the local authority's point of view. But as the matter has returned from another place, taking these amendments together, there is a practical alternative which would give a greater degree of reassurance to the industry that houses would become available and that other arrangements would be made, particularly in circumstances when the advisory committee recommended that that was essential from the point of view of the needs of a particular farm.
      In that sense, the House would be well advised to acept all these amendments from another place. I do not accept the impression gained by the Minister in relation to the debates in another place. I believe that there was a genuine search for a new position between the unsatisfactory "best endeavours" as we now know them, and the absolute obligation that at the other end of the scale no matter what happens. Their Lordships made an effort to introduce practical and sensible amendments to achieve that objective. I hope the House will support them.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has said in this matter. The duty has been expressed in these words:
      "If I may turn to the question of the requirements to be met by the new duty—and I emphasise that it is the duty placed upon local authorities—this is the first time that in an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will be, a statutory duty has been put upon local authorities to rehouse any group."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5th October 1976; Vol. 374, c. 1166.]
      The author of those words was saying that there should be a duty, even though it was the first time. Those are the words not of any Tory or Liberal but of Baroness Birk in stating what she conceived to be the duty, speaking on behalf of the Government. If we use her words as the test, the words which are contained in the Bill as it stands at the moment are quite inadequate. To use one's best endeavours to achieve something is not in any way an enforceable legal duty. I

      1475
      know of no lawyer who would accept that it is an enforceable legal duty.
      10.30 p.m.
      The Minister will remember well that in Committee a number of us tried to find a way round this problem. I said then, and repeat now, that one cannot find the way round the problem, as my right hon. Friend said, just in one set of words in this particular paragraph. The right way to do it is to say that there is the duty imposed upon the local authority—Baroness Birk in another place, indeed, adverted to this—but at the same time to limit it by certain severe restrictions in the other clauses.
      It seems to me that the other place—much assisted, if I may say so, by a perusal of some of the debates which took place in the Committee stage here—from its own very wide experience put forward the ideas which are contained now in its amendments. As has rightly been said, in doing so in particular it realised first of all that it would be necessary to have some machinery to decide on the appropriate cases.
      I did not say before, and I do not argue now, that every single case where the person has been dispossessed provides an urgent case for the Agricultural Dwelling-house Advisory Committee, ADHAC, to provide the accommodation which is necessary for the newcomer—the person, for example, who wants to leave and go elsewhere. It is right, therefore, that that duty should obtain first of all in the cases of real urgency, where a certificate of urgency has been granted.
      As I see it, that is precisely what is laid down by Amendment No. 48—that where ADHAC advises that suitable alternative accommodation ought to be provided as a matter of urgency, the authority must provide that within three months. Plainly it is right that it should provide it, surely, if it is an urgent case. Indeed, there is no one in the agricultural world—not the agricultural workers or anybody—who would not accept that that is reasonable.
      Then it is said that a particular time limit should not be imposed. I will not argue that, because that really is within the province of the later amendment to which we shall be coming.
      1476
      We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are asking that notice be taken of the Lords, who have considered this matter from a practical angle, and have recommended that undue burdens should not be put on local authorities. Many hon. Members have served on local authorities, and no hon. Member would want to impose on the Association of District Councils an undue burden to provide housing which we know it will not be able to provide.
      But if, as in this case, the burden is imposed for a very limited number of people who have service tenancies—namely, agricultural workers—this puts those people in a privileged position. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard), who has pressed this matter on behalf of her union, has introduced " Maynard's Mischief" into the Bill because she has managed to get a privileged position for a tiny minority of workers—a position which the miners, the police, local authority servants and many school caretakers cannot get.
      In cases of urgency there should be a specific duty imposed on local authorities, and this is what the Lords have aimed to do. In order that it should not be too great a duty it should be limited to cases of urgency. If the local authorities fail to do this within a period of three months, they may be driven to extreme measures to find temporary accommodation. The Government gave way on an amendment to enable us to run hostels with reasonable success without their being protected by the Rent Act. This is one of the benefits of Amendment No. 77. It is equally important that some form of temporary accommodation should otherwise be provided by way of hostels or caravans.
      In trying to get through this very narrow position between the fact that one does not want to impose too onerous a burden on local authorities on the one hand and the fact that one wants to help the agriculturists on the other, one is left with the unfortunate thought that this Bill should have been brought in by the Ministry of Agriculture and not by the Department of the Environment. It is really an agricultural matter. Nevertheless, faced with these

      1477
      difficulties we find that the balance preserved in the other place is a sensible one, and the Government would be wise to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: Running through the debate on these amendments is a platitudinous approach by Conservatives towards their colleagues in another place. The House of Lords has done much deliberately to wreck a succession of Bills, and the verdict on its behaviour has been given by this House. Conservative speakers have talked today about the impartiality of the House of Lords in this matter. They claim that Members of another place have no particular axe to grind. However, I suspect that many of them have a deep and vested interest in the farming industry. I wonder how many Members of another place, who sent these amendments back to us, have actually worked as agricultural labourers and been victims of the tied cottage system. I doubt if there is one.
      It is not true to say, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) implied, that this amendment, which makes it obligatory for local authorities to provide alternative accommodation, did not get enough mileage during the Bill's passage. He should examine the Committee proceedings. The clause occupied more time than any other. Every Opposition Member spoke on it, and it was because of the time taken by Opposition Members that I and my hon. Friends made our contributions brief. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that the debate has been hurried through with insufficient chance for hon. Members to speak.
      The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, as was said so often in Committee, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) has had her way and is trying now to ram the Bill down the throat of the House on behalf of the members of her union. Successive Governments this century, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, have passed socially progressive Bills. This subject has been argued about for years. The topic has not arisen just because an engineering constituency in Sheffield adopted as its Labour candidate a lady from the agriculture industry. I remember as a boy hearing discussion of the iniquitous position of farm labourers who at that time
      1478
      could be bundled out of their dwellings overnight and their furniture dumped in the country lanes so that the farmer could secure vacant possession. It is not my hon. Friend's Bill, it is the Government's Bill. The Government are fulfilling a manifesto commitment.
      Let me turn to the point about the system being made mandatory on local authorities. The Opposition have put forward some strange arguments. The Bill could lead to increased public expenditure. Most of the local authorities which will be affected by the Bill are not those with vast numbers of houses. The overwhelming majority of council houses are situated around urban centres such as Greater London, Birmingham and the metropolitan counties and districts. We are not, therefore, concerned with authorities with vast numbers of council houses.
      The Opposition frequently refer to the sale of council houses. The majority of such sales take place, I suspect, not in the inner city areas but in the desirable country areas. The stock of houses concerned with the effects of the Bill is, therefore, diminishing. In addition, public spending cuts are curtailing municipal house building programmes. I suspect that authorities in rural areas have been among the first to stop building council houses because they have no crying need for them.
      Mr. Benyon: We are only talking about cases in which the ADHAC decides that the agricultural need is paramount. Therefore, the number of cases would be far fewer and there would be a saving of public expenditure.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Dean: It may be that they will be the only cases which will be referred to the local authority by the ADHAC. In Committee the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that ADHAC may make some unfair decisions. I should point out that, as farmers are part of the community in which they live, it is quite on the cards that some will be local councillors who will be appointed to the ADHAC and that they will be making recommendations. I am not concerned whether there are many or few cases. A fundamental principle is involved. As an ex-chairman of a large housing authority,

      1479
      I know the awful decisions which sometimes have to be taken when deciding priorities.
      If we accept the amendment, we are saying that any case recommended by the ADHAC should go to the top of the queue. We are recommending that it should be given priority over people who are seriously medically disadvantaged to whom priority should be given. My experience as chairman of one authority which had over 90,000 houses was that it could give help with immediate rehousing only to four-star cases. Those were people with medical conditions which I should not wish on anybody. They were the most tragic cases one could imagine. However we look at this situation, somebody would go to the top of the queue irrespective of the needs of others for housing.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even now, housing authorities have high priorities for key workers, whether they be industrial or agricultural?
      Mr. Dean: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing two ways. In his earlier contribution he said just the opposite. Indeed, he implied that if a park keeper, a teacher or a school caretaker were to retire or to have his employment terminated, he would have no protection. I should like to know of any large authority with any conscience about housing which has evicted a school caretaker on his retirement.
      I have experience of cases, almost on the domino system, where a school caretaker who has been living in a very desirable bungalow in the grounds of a school has reached retirement age and should move on and that has created a sequence of vacancies. I also have experience of situations where the last or the second last man in the chain has come to my surgery and said "I cannot move to my job because the man who retired is very demanding in the type of accommodation that he wants and will not move ". Most local authorities bend over backwards to ensure that a man who retires or leaves his employment goes into accommodation which is acceptable to him. That is not the legal position, but that is how it works. People are not put on the streets and told to go somewhere.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that there are many colleges of education and other such establishments not under local authority control where there is no protection.
      Mr. Dean: I was not referring to that type of accommodation. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his speech, specifically referred to school caretakers. Many such people are accommodated in local authority houses. We must deal with those who are particularly affected by this type of provision.
      It will be extremely difficult to tell a local authority to rehouse a couple, for example, if the authority has only two-or three-bedroomed house available. Could it, in all justice, say "You could have a three-bedroomed house but a family lower down the road has been waiting for three or four years"—or 10 years in some areas—"and we are sorry but you will have to wait. The house is adequate to the size of your family but there is a couple that we have been instructed to rehouse"? It will not work.
      When talking mainly about farm workers with small families and childless couples, we must remember that one of the biggest shortages at present—the leeway has never been made up—is in one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed accommodation. That is the present situation. We are trying to impose upon local authorities a mandatory responsibility to carry out something that would be physically impossible for them to carry out.
      Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman seems to be acknowledging that many local authorities will have considerable difficulties in rehousing these people, will he say what the farmer is expected to do?
      Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is standing the argument on its head. He has made his point on that. He is trying to open up the debate on the whole theme of the Bill and what it is about. We are now discussing an amendment to a clause. I prefer to relate my argument to that.
      I could mention numerous cases in the argument in which it could be said "It is all right. No one can evict because we cannot find houses." However, the situation here is quite different.

      1481
      If one tells a local authority that it must rehouse someone, in most cases it would be physically impossible for it to do so. I was the chairman of the national committee of the old AMC. In the main I have found that when this sort of request is made to local authorities, couched in terms of "strongest endeavours", they play the game and attempt to comply with it. No one could justifiably ask for more.
      The Minister has referred to what the Association of District Councils says about the situation. That is the parent authority of those who will be most affected by the clause. It would be disastrous to try to impose upon it something that it could not possibly carry out.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: By the Bill the Government are proposing to interfere in a doctrinal fashion in the rights of the owner of property, over both its use and occupation and its disposition. It does not lie within the mouths of Labour Members to say that after the Government have interfered in this way, the resulting unfairness and injustice must lie where it falls. Unless the amendment is adopted, it will lie with the owners of the property alone. Because of their particular position and our need for a thriving agricultural industry, that is manifestly unfair.
      The mischief will be created by the Government. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and fair for the Government to say that government at lower level, local government, must attend to the unfairnesses and injustices that might result from the application of this policy.
      This is a doctrinaire policy. If it is justified—I do not say that all doctrinaire policies are unjustified—it must follow that, it having been justified at Government level, at local government level we are entitled to say "Local government will have to clear up the mess that we have created because of this application of our view of these matters."
      That point is completely overlooked by Labour Members. They are assuming that the unfairnesses and injustices that will result from the Bill's interference with owners' rights must rest with owners and that all the hardship, nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience and loss must be suffered by them. It is proposed that we should
      1482
      impose this burden upon them, and yet it is within our power to say that there is an authority, the local authority, that can mitigate this nuisance and annoyance.
      I can illustrate the utter unwisdom of both the Bill and the Government's approach to this amendment by reference to a case in my constituency. Although my constituency is in Greater London, I am fortunate in that it contains a good number of farms since it lies just north of the Kent boundary, on the periphery of London. We are experiencing the problems to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) referred. Being on the periphery of an urban area, we have problems of accommodation, but they are not problems of accommodating agricultural workers.
      Some five or six years ago, however, a local owner of property in my constituency was allowed to convert his dairy into living accommodation, subject to the planning condition imposed by the local authority—one may say that it was rightly and properly imposed at that time—that the property when converted to residential use should be occupied by an agricultural worker. At that time this was possible. The gentleman concerned, being wealthy enough to employ a certain number of staff, was able to engage someone who occupied the cottage and worked on the property as an agricultural worker.
      The owner died two years ago, the family suffered financially as a consequence, and the widow was unable to maintain the property in the state in which it had hitherto been kept. As a result, she was not able to afford an agricultural worker any longer. Her son moved into the residential accommodation to which I have referred, and he happened to be a local councillor whose job was in London. The local authority was then obliged to serve an enforcement notice upon him saying that he was in occupation of a property restricted to occupation by agricultural workers, so that his occupation of it was illegal.
      The son, as I have said, was a local councillor. What could he do about it?—nothing, so it transpired. There was an appeal against the enforcement notice, which was turned down by the Minister. I raised the matter on the Adjournment in the House. The response was always "No"—the property was reserved for an

      1483
      agricultural worker and no one else could occupy it, even though the owner of the property could no longer afford to pay for an agricultural worker to live on the property. The outcome was that that person with his wife and two children had to move out, and the premises have been empty for the past two years, because there is no agricultural worker locally who wishes to occupy them.
      That seems to me to be an excellent illustration of the nonsense which we create in tenancies, whether agricultural tenancies or tenancies involving just the ordinary relations between landlord and tenant. In the long run, interference of this kind leads to greater and greater confusion, I see the Minister for Housing and Construction shaking his head, but, unfortunately, that is the situation, and if only he and others would come to grips with it and start to make the whole range of legislation governing housing—
      The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): That sounds as though it should be a contribution to a debate on planning, because I imagine that that is the background to the hon. Gentleman's problem, not the kind of legislation now before the House.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that, but it is a question of approach to these problems. The same attitude governs the approach to planning as governs the approach to housing generally and the problem of agricultural tenancies. If the Government insist upon intervening in this way by legislation imposing a rigid system upon the allocation and control of housing and its occupation, they will run up against these difficulties. Whether the rigid control be imposed through planning or through a Bill of this kind, the same difficulties will arise. It is up to the Minister to do something about it. Let him cease being so doctrinaire and think of ways by which he can help people rather than hinder them in this doctrinaire fashion.
      11.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Ellis: I am opposed to the Lords amendment, which lays a mandatory duty on local authorities. I do not think I have always been of that view. At a certain time in my life I would have been in favour of laying mandatory duties on local authorities. That was when I
      1484
      lived in Pickhill, where I knew the conditions in which people lived in tied cottages and the difficulties which attended people in getting decent homes. There was no sewerage scheme there, and a very limited amount of council house building.
      If hon. Members opposite are saying that people in rural areas are in difficulties, I well appreciate that, but I would also point out that many of those areas are controlled not by the Labour Party but by the Conservative Party and farmers have held the reins of power. As things are at present, they are free to apply their own rules, and if they prefer to house people in this category they can give them a high priority, perhaps the highest.
      If there is a lack of council dwellings in many rural areas, it is because the local authorities have not built houses over the years. I think of the situation at Pickhill where, when farm workers moved into the limited council accommodation and had security of tenure, they smartly got jobs elsewhere and worked for the county council, the railway or on local airfields. So the people who controlled the local authority said " We are not going to do that if they are going to move out of tied cottages into these houses built by the council and leave the industry".
      People said to me at the time "Why not stand for the local council?" I did. I set the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) on his way to becoming a Member of Parliament. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in his place because he acted as agent for the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks.
      Mr. Mills: A good agent.
      Mr. Ellis: Yes. They shot me away home. I got very few votes.
      The point I am making is that for that village there was the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, a farmer and he was on the council, while the councillor for the next village was a farmer also. That was Sinderby. The hon. Member for Westmorland was a councillor for Sinderby and the councillor for the next village of Howe was also a farmer, Mr. Greensit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) was on the council as well, but she was in a small minority.
      In such circumstances, if we are being realistic in discussing the problem, there

      1485
      are various rural areas of the country where certainly no one could plead that farmers did not have a real say in housing policy, and there are huge areas where one could say that they controlled that policy. An hon. Member opposite intervened in a speech by one of my hon. Friends to ask whether this would produce more council houses. I would say that farmers and the Conservative Party have for years been in a position in the rural areas to do something about conditions there. My main plank was that there should be basic amenities like a sewerage system.
      Mr. Michael Mates: That is why the hon. Gentleman lost.
      Mr. Ellis: That is right. I hope they got the sanitation system, because without that they could not get housing. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), who intervened so glibly, is right.
      I have no time for the amendment. If I have changed my view about laying mandatory powers on local authorities if is not for that reason. My experience at that time would have led me to do something about it and give them advice. But the people wanted the discussion to be about policies, and that is what took place. I am a local government man. I have served on other authorities as well.
      Mr. Jopling: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will temporarily turn deaf. The hon. Gentleman has made one or two remarks that are not quite accurate. During his first election campaign I was not the agent of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson). At the time the hon. Gentleman ran for the county council, and was defeated by 1,100 votes to 90. It was not against my hon. Friend, and I was not the agent.
      The other point that I wanted to make clear was with regard to sewerage works. I must put the record straight. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I was a member of that council I was instrumental in getting a sewerage scheme at Pickhill, in the village in which I lived and in all the other villages that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that honour is satisfied on both sides.
      Mr. Ellis: We are not departing so far out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since this relates to the provision of housing. I am glad that the hon. Member for Westmorland was later converted, perhaps because of some of the work that I had done earlier.
      It is pious nonsense to talk about the lack of council houses in those areas when hon. Gentlemen opposite, and farmers, had the power to do something about it. The hon. Member for Westmorland smiles, but I am sure he would agree that there is much cogency in that argument.
      I certainly accept that local authorities should have power in housing, and that they must make up their minds about priorities. It would be wrong for us to intercede in that realm. Equally I believe that it is up to the people in those areas to do something about it, if they so wish. Perhaps our debate will give local authorities a stimulus to improve housing conditions in some of those areas, because it is the rural areas that have the worst conditions.
      I would also refer to the availability of accommodation—something that no one has mentioned so far. Everyone concedes that over the years there has been a vast depletion in the number of people engaged on the land. In my own area, it is possible to go into village after village and see empty houses which had formerly been tied cottages. Although there has been an outflow from the land, there are still workers in those areas in tied cottages.
      But some of the shortages which have been referred to are not real. Some of the accommodation is old and has been flogged off to people who can pay exorbitant sums to buy a cottage in the countryside and who may have to spend a lot of money on those cottages.
      Mr. Mates: Good working people.
      Mr. Ellis: That may be, but it is not part of my argument. This amendment deals with people working in agriculture, and the argument is that the farmer will be disadvantaged if he does not have a house to give to a worker. I am trying to put the matter into perspective from my experience. Many of these places are terrible; they have rising damp and lack the basic amenities.

      1487
      The hon. Member for Peterfield talks glibly about these matters, but riding through all this problem is the conviction—it would be better if Conservative Members had some experience of it—that it is wrong to tie the roof over a man's head to the circumstances of his job. It creates resentment—
      Mr. Mates: What about the miners?
      Mr. Ellis: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I will let him do so. That red herring has been raised three times already.
      These men have been dispossessed and their families put on the streets. I hope that the Bill will stop all that.
      Mr. MacGregor: Like my hon. Friends, I regard this as a critical amendment. If it is not agreed to, the working of the Bill will have to be kept under review and perhaps a future Government will have to strengthen it along these lines.
      I recognise the difficulties. It is interesting that the Association of District Councils should take the line the Minister described. But the Government must keep a proper balance between the concern of the local authorities and the legitimate fears of the farming community. Some of the speeches of Labour Members have done nothing to assuage those fears.
      I found it difficult at times to follow what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) was talking about. At one point he seemed to suggest that it was unfair to impose this burden on local authorities because many could not carry it out. In that case, the fears of the farming community are well founded. Then, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there would not be too much difficulty in some cases, in which case the thing could be pushed a little further; this statutory obligation would meet the fears of the farming community.
      On Third Reading in another place, the noble Lord who led for the Opposition, who comes from the area which I represent and therefore is concerned with the same sort of fears, summed this up when he said that the words "best endeavours" had "scared the life" out of the agricultural community. He said that once a local authority had said that,
      1488
      after using its "best endeavours", it had been unable to rehouse someone, a vital house would be lost to a farmer for years.
      My own Norfolk NFU says that it is still "totally dissatisfied" with this aspect of the Bill. Of course the proposed solutions are not ideal, but there will be a range of alternatives under later amendments open to local authorities. All we are doing is trying to make the Bill practical. If not ideal, it would at least be better than when it originally left this House.
      It was a bit rich for the Minister to criticise the proposed statutory obligation on the ground that it meant that one section of the community would be given "overriding priority". Whose fault is that? This must be the fault of the Government who have introduced this legislation. They ought to recognise that and face up to the responsibilities inherent in their own legislation.
      11.15 p.m.
      I have been in touch with my two local district councils to ask how they feel they will be able to meet this "best endeavours" requirement. Their view—as councils which have worked locally with the NFU and the farm workers' union—is that they think they may be able to meet all the demands made in the Bill. But they stress the uncertainty and say that it is difficult to forecast the Bill's effect on numbers because it will create a new situation. They hope that the impact of the legislation will not be too great and that they will be able to satisfy the needs of the farming community in almost every case.
      The crucial point is that they cannot give an absolute guarantee, and that is what is worrying farmers. This is not giving farmers confidence. All we are doing in the amendment is pushing local authorities a little further while giving farmers the real assurance they seek. That is a very strong argument in favour of this group of amendments.
      Of course, there will be difficulties in rural areas. Hon. Members opposite have made play of the fact that this is because some local authorities in rural areas have not provided sufficient council housing. But in a very scattered rural area it is not an economic proposition to

      1489
      have groups of council houses everywhere one might want them to be.
      I hope that the Government and local authorities will recognise that there will be considerable need for flexibility in considering where alternative accommodation should be provided. In very big, scattered rural areas, it is not always possible to provide an ideal alternative in an ideal place.
      If the Government are to impose this new obligation upon local authorities, they must provide the finance. It is typical of this Government to lay more obligations on others without providing the necessary resources. We suspect that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the Rate Support Grant announcement next Monday, will make clear that there will be even fewer resources, in real terms, for local authorities next year.
      We are talking about rural areas, and it has been the practice of this Government during the past two years to reduce the grant to rural areas in favour of others. The Government are imposing obligations upon local authorities but reducing the finance they provide to enable the authorities to carry them out. In this case it is even worse because not only are the Government refusing to provide extra resources but they are going further and asking the private sector to shoulder the burden if the local authorities cannot. The Government are squirming out of obligations that they ought to face.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: There is a contradiction in that argument, because the hon. Gentleman is assuming that the housing situation is universal. The point about rural areas could be accepted by this side of the House, but the Opposition say that less should be spent on housing in the cities—where there are tremendous housing problems and where even priority medical cases cannot be housed—but that more should be spent on housing by rural local authorities. Can we be told exactly what the Opposition think about housing policy?
      Mr. MacGregor: I am under pressure to be brief, but the point I am trying to make is that where the Government impose new obligations—whether "best endeavours" or. statutory. obligations—it
      1490
      is fair to give the local authorities or industries upon which they are imposed the resources to carry them out. Unless this group of amendments is passed, most farmers will not build any more houses—costs have spiralled enough already—and they will also begin to get rid of their surplus housing. If farmers were given the reassurance contained in the amendment, that consequence would not necessarily follow.
      Miss Maynard: The speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) sounded like double dutch to me. For months now, we have been listening to the Opposition calling for public expenditure cuts. They cannot have it both ways by complaining when, as a result of the cuts, fewer houses are built in country areas.
      We have been getting the old argument from the agricultural industry tonight. The industry has always asked for special consideration, but the Government are saying that they are not giving it that special consideration on this occasion.
      The imposition of a mandatory duty on local authorities would be to tell them that they must face an open-ended commitment. Every time they rehoused a farm worker, his cottage could be relet and the whole procedure would start again. No one should expect local authorities to accept that situation, and hon. Members should remember that such an open-ended commitment would be at the expense of other people on the waiting lists.
      I am opposed to dictating to local authorities in this way. I was once a member of a local authority, and I think that councils are best equipped to decide how their houses should be let.
      I was perturbed by the remarks of hon. Members opposite on the need for flexibility and how farm workers might have to accept places which were not ideal. I hope that they are not suggesting that workers could be shunted off to a house miles away. The farm workers are not prepared to accept that sort of flexibility. They have had to put up with that sort of attitude for far too long.
      Hon. Members have asked what will happen if a local authority is unable to meet a request for housing. If skilled farm workers were paid what they are worth, they would be able to buy their

      1491
      own homes. Some hon. Members opposite have asked where the money is to come from. I remind them that in the 1950s, when the industry was raking in the money, the wonderful wages board was giving farm workers rises of 4, 6 and 8 bob a week. So do not let any hon. Member pretend that the money is not there for the industry to pay the rate for the job.
      Listening to farmers and hon. Members opposite talking about burdens and inconveniences is rather like listening to the white man complaining what a burden coloured people are to him. Farmers can get rid of the burden if they pay the rate for the job.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall be brief because of the pressure of time. I wish that hon. Members opposite would agree among themselves their reasons for rejecting the amendment.
      Hon. Members on the Government Back Benches seem to be under the impression that the phrase "best endeavours" means something less than a duty. They seem to have been sorely misled by their Front Bench, because in opening the debate the Minister said that he understood "best endeavours" to mean a strong duty and a clear duty. If the Minister finds himself constrained to use the word "duty" to describe the meaning of "best endeavours", "duty" should appear in the statute.
      Support for the view that the Minister appears to be adopting is to be found in subsection (9):
      "The authority shall not be obliged to provide suitable alternative accommodation if at the time when the accommodation becomes available".
      That assumes that there is something in the clause which obliges the authority to provide alternative accommodation—in other words, a duty to do so. If "best endeavours" did not import that duty, subsection (9) would not have been phrased in that way. Therefore, what the Minister is telling us is that "best endeavours" means a duty to provide alternative accommodation. Anybody who has been speaking to the issue that it provides less than a duty has been misled.
      If it is the Government's case that it means a duty to provide alternative
      1492
      secure accommodation, there does not seem to be the slightest reason why the amendment is being opposed. If that is the Minister's case, he should say so and explain why all this time has been wasted, not only here but in Committee. Why is he allowing his hon. Friends to retain the impression that there is a completely different meaning of "best endeavours" to that which clearly the courts will consider when they come to interpret those words?
      Mr. Wm. Ross: I intervene briefly in the debate for the first time because it appears to me that the amendment is the one on which the whole Bill turns. Its acceptance would remove most of the objections of the farming community to the Bill.
      There are objections to the amendment because it is said that it would create problems for the local authorities. I cannot accept that, because in Northern Ireland, where the housing authorities have problems beside which any problem experienced on this side of the Irish Sea pales into insignificance, the authorities are capable of dealing with the matter and have dealt with many thousands of such cases over the past year. Intimidation, arson and murder have forced many people out of their homes, not only in city areas but in rural areas. They go on an emergency list and are normally rehoused, some within 24 hours. If that can be done in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, I can see no reason why the same sort of work cannot be done in the peaceful and settled conditions of the rest of the United Kingdom.
      To say that councils and housing authorities cannot do it is to insult their ability, for it is being said that they are incapable of doing the job they were elected to do. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) wants to see farm workers paid better, she should accept responsibility when people such as I in future demand a realignment of the green pound.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: As one who has supported the Bill, I am a little worried about the local authorities' duty to rehouse. The Bill as it stands is totally inadequate in the crucial area of the local authorities' obligation to rehouse agricultural tenants who are no longer working on the land. In merely saying that the

      1493
      local authorities must
      "use their best endeavours to provide alternative accommodation,"
      it leaves a large loophole for unsympathetic local authorities not to be rehouse former agricultural tenants. To me, the term is very vague.
      Many local authorities will house ex-farm workers in any case, but the Bill should have such force as to put a legal obligation on all authorities to provide a council house for an agricultural worker if he is turned out of his tied cottage. As I said on Second Reading, the clause provides no method of appeal for the applicant to challenge the local authority's decision. If the Bill is to have any real effect, the clause must be strengthened to place on local authorities a statutory responsibility to provide accommodation if the local agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee decides that there is a proven case for rehousing on the ground of efficient agriculture.
      11.30 p.m.
      When I spoke on a previous occasion I emphasised that
      "Local authorities should have a statutory obligation to rehouse anyone in the agricultural industry leaving a licensed or otherwise tied cottage."—[Official Report, 4th May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 1124.]
      I am sure that many right hon. and hon, Members will agree that if the Bill is to succeed special housing finance should be made available to housing authorities to eanble them to implement an urgent building programme to deal with increased housing needs created by these proposals.
      Mr. Rossi: The ground that has been covered this evening is somewhat familiar for those who served in Committee. Therefore, I shall not go over the ground at great length. Unfortunately, just as the matter was left in an unsatisfactory and unresolved state at the end of our deliberations in Committee, so it has been left this evening by the Minister. I do not think that we are much further forward.
      The Minister, in inviting the House to reject the amendment, has put forward the proposition that "best endeavours" is the highest obligation that can be put upon local authorities short of an absolute duty. He then says that it would be irresponsible and calls in aid the advisory committees, to impose an absolute duty upon local authorities because they would
      1494
      not have the means to discharge it. He says that "best endeavours" is the best way of using words that will arrive at the balance that he is trying to achieve.
      The dilemma is caused through the Government bringing forward the Bill in the first place. They have created an impossible position for farmers, who are faced with cottages that they cannot get back. In the interests of efficient agriculture the Government concede that it is necessary to make alternative provision, and they have required the local authorities to make that provision. The local authorities say that they cannot make that provision. The advisory committees go further and say that it is irresponsible to impose an absolute duty upon them. They are saying that the do not want any duty at all. That is the message that came through to us loud and clear in Committee.
      The Committees have gone further because they are in a worse position than when we were considering the matter in Committee as a result of the changes that have taken place in Government policy. Since Committee there has been a severe cutback in the housing programme. There will be 30,000 fewer new houses built next year. The Government have cut back resources to local authorities. The Government say that such resources as there are must be concentrated on areas of urban stress. If the resources are to be concentrated on those areas, where are the local authorities in the rural areas to get the money to make the provision that is necessary if the Act is to operate in the way that the Minister suggests? Money has been severely slashed back even in the area of local government advances for mortgage purposes. Therefore, local authorities will be in tremendous difficulty. It is doubted whether they will be able to accept any obligation under the Act and whether the Act will work in the way that the Minister suggests.
      Let us examine the wording that the Minister says is so important—namely, "best endeavours"—as distinct from the words used by their Lordships in the amendment. That is the point that was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The Government will recall that we examined this matter in some detail in Committee, when we found that there were only six decided cases in the courts on the meaning of the wording "best endeavours". I do not

      1495
      propose to take the House through those six cases, but the dilemma that local authorites and farmers alike will be in when trying to decide what "best endeavours" means is indicated by two cases, one which was decided in 1911—namely, the Sheffield District Railway Company v. the Great Central Railway Company. The court decided in that case that "best endeavours" meant leaving no stone unturned. That is an extremely high duty indeed.
      More recently, in 1952, in Terrell's case, the court decided that "best endeavours" means "an obligation to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances." That is a far cry from leaving no stone unturned. Therefore, when, in future, farmers and local authorities look at the Act and say "What are the local authorities required to do; what is their obligation? ", are they to take into account Sheffield's case or Terrell's case—or do they go to law and bring more money into the pockets of the legal profession, until, eventually, the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decides what the words mean?
      It is most unsatisfactory that uncertainty of that kind should be created, simply because the Government are seeking a way out of a dilemma that they have created for themselves, seeking to compromise the uncompromisable—the conflict between the interests of agriculture and the difficulties that local authorities will have in discharging any obligation that the Government may give them without the resources to go with those obligations. Certainly, local authorities would be prepared to undertake any duty that this House imposed upon them, provided that the House also made available the resources. It is in that that the signal failure of the Government lies.
      Their Lordships' wording is not uncertain to the extent that the hon. Member's wording is uncertain, because the wording that their Lordships follow is the wording of Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which states that
      "it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to secure"
      that alternative accommodation is provided. It is the duty of the authority. That has been judicially decided also, because, in Hendy's case, which we also discussed in Committee, the Master of
      1496
      the Rolls said that this imposes on the local authority a duty to do its best; that and no more. He also said that a local authority had an obligation to do what is reasonable in the circumstances. What the Minister is saying is that an absolute duty is no more than the kind of duty that he told the Committee, and this evening told the House, he is seeking to impose upon local authorities; namely, a duty to do what is reasonable and practical in the circumstances.
      The Minister is using the wrong form of words, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and Members of the minority parties to join us in opposing the Government in this case, because all they are succeeding in doing is to create such an area of uncertainty that neither the farming industry nor the local authorities will be satisfied with, or will derive any comfort from, the situation. Trouble will be caused all round, or, if not trouble, certainly litigation.
      Mr. Armstrong: I should like to reply very briefly. There are two misconceptions that I want to deal with. The first is in relation to the attitude of the Opposition to local authorities. I must say that I was surprised and shocked tonight to hear their condemnation of local authorities, to the effect that they will evade their obligation under the Bill, because in their correspondence with hon. Members on the Government Benches here and in Committee local authorities have made it abundantly clear that they accept the obligation. Yet time after time Opposition speakers have suggested that district councils will not take the obligation seriously and will not rehouse workers.
      The other misconception is that to give security of tenure to farm workers will cause much more movement in and out of cottages. I cannot see how it can be argued that to give farm workers more security of tenure will cause more movement.
      I accept what was said about the farmers and their relationship with the workers. It is a very small minority of whom hon. Members have expressed themselves as being ashamed. Relationships are good. But we are anxious to give farm workers the same kind of security of tenure as most people in the country have been able to take for

      1497
      granted for many years. We are not seeking to down the industry in any way.
      I say at this Dispatch Box without fear of contradiction that I want farming to be attractive to young folk. I think that the relationship established over the years, where conditions of service are related to occupation of a dwelling-house, has reacted against the industry. I have talked to a great number of enlightened farmers who believe that the new system will work. But I am bound to say, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, that to impose not a general duty but a specific and compelling duty on local authorities to rehouse, whatever the priorities of the housing committee, is really not on.
      We all recognise that no local authorities will ever have surplus houses waiting for somebody to occupy them, and that it would be quite wrong to pass legislation giving one section of the community an advantage over all others. If rationing is necessary, housing authorities must have discretion to decide priorities according to individual and local circumstances.
      We are dealing here with a great human problem, and I was impressed that

      Division No. 415.]

      AYES

      [11.44 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Allaun, Frank

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      English, Michael

      Anderson, Donald

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Ennals, David

      Archer, Peter

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cohen, Stanley

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Ashley, Jack

      Coleman, Donald

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Ashton, Joe

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Faulds, Andrew

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon L.

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Corbett, Robin

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cowans, Harry

      Flannery, Martin

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bates, Alf

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Ford, Ben

      Bean, R. E.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Forrester, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cronin, John

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bishop, E. S.

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cryer, Bob

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Boardman, H.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      George, Bruce

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whilteh)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Davidson, Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Golding, John

      Bradley, Tom

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Gould, Bryan

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Graham, Ted

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Deakins, Eric

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Buchan, Norman

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buchanan, Richard

      Dempsey, James

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Doig, Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Campbell, Ian

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dunn, James A.

      Hatton, Frank

      Cant, R. B.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Carlisle, Mark

      Eadie, Alex

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Carmichael, Nell

      Edge, Geoff

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carter, Ray

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hooley, Frank

      in the debates in the House of Lords almost every one of the Opposition speakers who forced through these amendments began by saying that this was a problem which ought to be tackled, and that there were great human tragedies and so on because of the system as it now operates.
      Trying to amend the system brings great difficulty—I acknowledge that—but to say that because it is difficult to get the right balance we should not have the Bill at all seems to me to be a denial of the job that we are supposed to be doing in this Parliament. Certainly we cannot brush aside the evictions which have taken place, or brush aside the number of times that people have had to be taken to court. Where there is inhumanity, something has to be done. The Government believe that they have the right balance, and that to accept the Lords amendments would destroy that balance. I therefore hope that the House will agree with the proposition I have made.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 260.

      Horam, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Huckfield, Les

      Meacher, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mendelson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Small, William

      Hunter, Adam

      Millant, Rt Hon Bruce

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Snape, Peter

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Moonman, Eric

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Janner, Greville

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stoddart, David

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stott, Roger

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Moyle, Roland

      Strang, Gavin

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Newens, Stanley

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      John, Brynmor

      Noble, Mike

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Swain, Thomas

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Ogden, Eric

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ovenden, John

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Kelley, Richard

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thorne, Slan (Preston South)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Padley, Walter

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kinnock, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tomlinson, John

      Lambie, David

      Park, George

      Torney, Tom

      Lamborn, Harry

      Parker, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lamond, James

      Parry, Robert

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Pavitt, Laurie

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

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pendry, Tom

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lee, John

      Perry, Ernest

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Watkins, David

      Lipton, Marcus

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Watkinson, John

      Litterick, Tom

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Weetch, Ken

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Weitzman, David

      Loyden. Eddie

      Radice, Giles

      Well beloved, James

      Luard, Evan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      White, James (Pollok)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mabon, Dr J Dickson

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Whitlock, William

      McCartney, Hugh

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McDonald, Dr Oonegh

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      McEihone, Frank

      Roderick, Careen

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      McGuire. Michael (Ince)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Roper, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Woodall, Alec

      Madden, Max

      Rowland, Ted

      Woof, Robert

      Magee, Bryan

      Ryman, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mahon, Simon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Selby, Harry

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Marks, Kenneth

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Marquand, David

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Mr. James Tinn

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brotherton, Michael

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Alison, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Buck, Antony

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Awdry, Daniel

      Budgen, Nick

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Baker, Kenneth

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Dunlop, John

      Banks, Robert

      Burden, F. A.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Beith, A. J.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Bell, Ronald

      Carlisle, Mark

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Carson, John

      Emery, Peter

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Channon, Paul

      Eyre, Reginald

      Benyon, W.

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Bitten, John

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Farr, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)

      Fell, Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Clegg, Walter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Body, Richard

      Cockcroft, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cope, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Cordle, John H.

      Forman, Nigel

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Costain, A. P.

      Fox, Marcus

      Brittan, Leon

      Critchley, Julian

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Crowder, F. P.

      Freud, Clement

      1500

      1501

      Fry, Peter

      Loveridge, John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McCusker, H.

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Maclarlane, Neil

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      MacGregor, John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Madel, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Marten, Neil

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mates, Michael

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gray, Hamish

      Mather. Carol

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Grieve, Percy

      Maude, Angus

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald

      Shepherd, Colin

      Grist, Ian

      Mawby, Ray

      Shersby, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Silvester, Fred

      Hall, Sir John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mills, Peter

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hannam, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Speed, Keith

      Hastings, Stephen

      Moate, Roger

      Spence, John

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Monro, Hector

      Sproat, Iain

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Heseltine, Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Stanley, John

      Hicks, Robert

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Holland, Philip

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stokes, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Neave, Airey

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Neubert, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Newton, Tony

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hurd, Douglas

      Nott, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Townaend, Cyril D.

      James, David

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Trotter, Neville

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

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Jessel, Toby

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Pardoe, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Jopling, Michael

      Pattle, Geoffrey

      Wakeham, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Penhaligon, David

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Percival, Ian

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walters, Dennis

      Kilfedder, James

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kimball, Marcus

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Weatherill, Bernard

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Price, David (Eastlelgh)

      Wells, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Raison, Timothy

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Lamont, Norman

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Younger, Hon George

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 47 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
      "(7A) Where the committee advises under subsection (3) above that the authority ought to provide suitable alternative accommodation as a matter of urgency, the authority shall

      Division No. 416.]

      AYES

      [11.59 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Allaun, Frank

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Boardman, H.

      Archer, Peter

      Bates, Alf

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bean, R. E.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ashley, Jack

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Bradley, Tom

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      provide such accommodation within three months from the date of that advice,"
      Motion made, and Question put. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
      The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 262.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Orbach, Maurice

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hatton, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Ovenden, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Buchanan, Richard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Padley, Walter

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hooley, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Horam, John

      Park, George

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

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

      Parker, John

      Campbell, Ian

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Parry, Robert

      Canavan, Dennis

      Huckfleld, Les

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Pendry, Tom

      Carmlchael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Perry, Ernest

      Carter, Ray

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Radice, Giles

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Coleman, Donald

      Janner, Greville

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Corbett, Robin

      John, Brynmor

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cropland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roper, John

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cryer, Bob

      Kelley, Richard

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Ryman, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lambie, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamond, James

      Selby, Harry

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Latham. Arthur (Paddington)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon. Robert (Achton-u-Lyne)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lee, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lipton. Marcus

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dempsey, James

      Litterick, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Doig, Peter

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Silverman, Julius

      Dormand, J. D.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Luard, Evan

      Small, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dunn, James A.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Snape, Peter

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mabon, Dr J Dickson

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alex

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edge, Geoff

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stallard, A. W.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stoddart, David

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McGuire. Michael (Ince)

      Stott, Roger

      English, Michael

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Ennals, David

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Summerskill. Hon Dr Shirley

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Swain, Thomas

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Magee, Bryan

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mahon, Simon

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tierney, Sydney

      Ford, Ben

      Marquand, David

      Tinn, James

      Forrester, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tomlinson, John

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrecking)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Torney, Tom

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

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Urwin, T. W.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      George, Bruce

      Mendelson, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mikardo. Ian

      Wilkins, David

      Ginsburg, David

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Watkinson, John

      Golding, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Weetch, Ken

      Gould, Bryan

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Weitzman, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Moonman. Eric

      Well beloved, James

      Graham, Ted

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Grocott, Bruce

      Moyle, Roland

      Whitlock, William

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Newens, Stanley

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Hardy, Peter

      Noble, Mike

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Harper, Joseph

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Ogden, Eric

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huston)

      1504

      1505

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Wool, Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Woodall, Alec

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mr. Joseph Ashton

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mills, Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Alison, Michael

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moate, Roger

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gorst, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Monro, Hector

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Banks, Robert

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Beith, A. J.

      Gray, Hamish

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Bell, Ronald

      Grieve, Percy

      Morgan, Geraint

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Benyon, W.

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Biffen, John

      Hall, Sir John

      Mudd, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neave, Airey

      Blaker, Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Body, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Bottomley, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Nott, John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Onslow. Cranley

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Heseltine, Michael

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hicks, Robert

      Pardoe, John

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hodgson, Robin

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Buck, Antony

      Holland, Philip

      Penhaligon, David

      Budgen, Nick

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Peyton. Rt Hon John

      Burden, F. A.

      Howell. David (Guildford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Carson, John

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Channon, Paul

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Raison, Timothy

      Churchill, W. S.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rathbono, Tim

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      James, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

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

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jessel, Toby

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Clegg, Walter

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Cockcroft, John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Jopling, Michael

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Cope, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cordle, John H.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Carrie, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Costain, A. P.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Critchley, Julian

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Crowder, F. P.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Knox, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lamont, Norman

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Latham, Michael (Mellon)

      Scott, Nicholas

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dunlop, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shepherd, Colin

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shersby, Michael

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Silvester, Fred

      Emery, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Eyre, Reginald

      Loveridge, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Farr, John

      McCusker, H.

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Fell, Anthony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speed, Keith

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, John

      Spence, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Sproat, Iain

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Forman, Nigel

      Madel, David

      Stanley, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Marten, Neil

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Fox, Marcus

      Males, Michael

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Maude, Angus

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Freud, Clement

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Stokes, John

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Tapsell, Peter

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      1506

      1507

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Wakeham, John

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Younger, Hon George

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Walters, Dennis

      Trotter, Neville

      Warren, Kenneth

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wells, John

      Mr. Carol Mather

      Vaughen, Dr Gerard

      Whitelaw. Rt Hon William

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being after six hours after the commencement of proceedings of Lords amendments, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [8th November], designated Lords Amendment No. 51 as appearing to him to involve questions of Privilege, and then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions specified in that Order.
      Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment moved by the Government to a Lords amendment.

    Clause 24

      TENANT SHARING ACCOMMODATION WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN LANDLORD
      Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 19, line 44, at end insert—
      "(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected occupancy if—

      (a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and

      (b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above."

      Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, in paragraph (b), leave out from first "were" to "on" and insert
      'let, or were available for letting, as residential accommodation to separate tenants '. —[Mr. Bates.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 34, line 38, at end insert new Schedule 1A—

      MEANING OF "RELEVANT LICENCE" AND "RELEVANT TENANCY"
      1. In this Act "relevant licence" means any licence for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house which—

      (a) if it were a tenancy, and

      (b) if the provisions of the Rent Act 1968 mentioned in paragraph 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,
      1508
      would be a protected tenancy for the purposes of that Act.

      Relevant tenancy
      2. In this Act "relevant tenancy" means any tenancy of a dwelling-house which—

      (a) is not a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act 1968, but

      (b) would be such a tenancy if the provisions of that Act mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

      other than a tenancy to which Part I or Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies and a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
      Supplemental
      3. —(1) Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenancies excepted from the definition of "protected tenancy") is modified as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1) omit paragraph (a) (tenancy at a low rent) and paragraph (d) (tenancy of a dwelling-house comprised in any agricultural holding etc.).
      (3) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (tenancy of a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board or attendance) substitute the following paragraph—
      "(b) it is a bona fide term of the tenancy that the landlord provides the tenant with board or attendance".
      (4) For subsection (3) (payments in respect of attendance to form a substantial part of the whole rent) substitute the following subsection—
      "(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that meals provided in the course of a person's employment in agriculture do not constitute board for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above; and a term that the landlord provides the tenant with attendance shall not be taken to be a bona fide term for those purposes unless, having regard to its value to the tenant, the attendance is substantial."
      4. —(1) Section 102 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenant sharing accommodation with persons other than landlord) is modified as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1) (separate accommodation deemed to be dwelling-house let on or subject to protected or statutory tenancy) immediately before the words "the separate accommodation", in the last place where they occur, insert the words "then, subject to subsection (1A) below" and for the words "the following provisions of this section" substitute the words "subsections (2) to (7) below".
      (3) After subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
      "(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which

      1509
      would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected tenancy if—

      (a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and

      (b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above."

      5. The other provisions of the Rent Act 1968 which are relevant for the purposes of the above definitions, and which are therefore also applied by this Schedule, include—

      section 1 (definition of "protected tenancy");

      section 4 (no protected or statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to Crown);

      section 5 (no protected or statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to local authority, etc.);

      section 5A (no protected tenancy in certain cases where landlord's interest belongs to resident landlord);

      section 6 (rateable value and appropriate day);

      section 103 (certain sub-lettings not to exclude any part of sub-lessons premises from protection)."

      Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, in paragraph 1, leave out
      'for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling house'
      and insert
      'under which a person has the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house as a separate dwelling and'. —[Mr. Bates.]
      Mr. Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you of my manuscript amendment to this Lords amendment?
      Mr. Speaker: We shall come to that in due course.
      Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment: In paragraph 1(b), leave out from 'if' to end of line 11 and insert:
      section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenancies excepted from the definition of "protected tenancy") were modified as mentioned in paragraph 3 below'.
      In paragraph 2, leave out 'of a dwelling-house' and insert:
      'under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling and'.
      In paragraph 2(b), leave out from 'if' to end of sub-paragraph and insert:
      'section 2 of that Act were modified as mentioned in paragraph 3 below'.
      In paragraph 3(1), leave out from beginning to 'as' and insert:
      "The modifications of section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 are'.
      Leave out paragraph 4.
      In paragraph 5, leave out from "section 103" to end of sentence, beginning to end of line 81. —[Mr. Bates.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 121, in page 61, line 17, at end insert—
      "27A. In section 122(8) of the Housing Act 1974 (duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord's interest) after the words" Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 "insert the words" statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976"."
      Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, after second 'words', insert 'and a'. —[Mr. Bates.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: The guillotine Order now provides that I shall put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that the House should disagree with the Lords in a Lords amendment.
      As the House knows from its experience the other night, the strict interpretation of those words is that the motions to disagree should be moved and the Questions put on them one by one. That interpretation which I followed the other evening seems to have caused some concern and I have had representations from both sides of the House that the House would be willing to accept the moving together of consecutive sequences of motions to disagree provided that there is no wish in any quarter to divide on any of them.

    Schedule 3

      GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF DWELLING HOUSE SUBJECT TO PROTECTED OCCUPANCY OR STATUTORY TENANCY
      Lords Amendment No. 86, disagreed to.
      Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 40, line 45, at end insert—
      '4. If the accommodation offered is available for a limited period only, the housing authority's offer or notice under paragraph 1 above must contain an assurance that other accommodation—

      (a) the availability of which is not so limited,

      (b) which appears to them to be suitable, and

      (c) which fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 above,

      will be offered to the tenant as soon as practicable'.
      In page 60, line 42, at end insert—
      '4. If the accommodation offered is available for a limited period only, the housing authority's offer or notice under paragraph I above must contain an assurance that other accommodation—

      (a) the availability of which is not so limited,

      (b) which appears to them to be suitable, and

      (c) which fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 above,

      will be offered to the tenant as soon as practicable.'. —[Mr. Bates.]

      Division No. 417.]

      AYES

      [12.19 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Conlan, Bernard

      Forrester, John

      Allaun, Frank

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbett, Robin

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

      Archer, Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Freeson, Reginald

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Ashley, Jack

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      George, Bruce

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cronin, John

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Ginsburg, David

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Golding, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cryer, Bob

      Gould, Bryan

      Bates, Alf

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bean, R. E.

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Davidson, Arthur

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hardy, Peter

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Harper, Joseph

      Boardman, H.

      Deakins, Eric

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dempsey, James

      Hatton, Frank

      Bradley, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dormand, J. D.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hooley, Frank

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dunn, James A.

      Horam, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Buchanan, Richard

      Eadie, Alex

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Edge, Geoff

      Huckfield, Les

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Ian

      English, Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ennals, David

      Hunter, Adam

      Cant, R. B.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Carter, Ray

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Faulds, Andrew

      Janner, Greville

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Coleman, Donald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      John, Brynmor

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Ford, Ben

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Clause 30

      DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITY CONCERNED
      Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 24, line 20, at end insert—
      "8A) Where an agriculture dwelling-house advisory committee advises that in the interests of efficient agriculture there is urgent need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation, and the authority has been unable to provide such accommodation within three months from the date of the advice, the applicant shall have the right to use land in his occupation as a site for a caravan for agricultural worker without any requirement for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and without planning permission, until such time as suitable alternative accommodation is provided by the local authority.")
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 261.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Moyle, Roland

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Newens, Stanley

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Noble, Mike

      Stallard, A. W.

      Kelley, Richard

      Oakes, Gordon

      Stoddart, David

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ogden, Eric

      Stott, Roger

      Kinnock, Neil

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      Lambie, David

      Orbach, Maurice

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lamond, James

      Ovenden, John

      Swain, Thomas

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Leadbitler, Ted

      Padley, Walter

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Lee, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Park, George

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Litterick, Tom

      Parry, Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Tierney, Sydney

      Loyden. Eddie

      Pendry, Tom

      Tinn, James

      Luard, Evan

      Perry, Ernest

      Tomlinson, John

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Torney, Tom

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Price, William (Rugby)

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

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Radice, Giles

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      McElhone, Frank

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Watkins, David

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Watkinson, John

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Weetch, Ken

      Maclennan, Robert

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Weitzman, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wellbeloved, James

      McNamara, Kevin

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Madden, Max

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Magee, Bryan

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Whitlock, William

      Mahon, Simon

      Roper, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Rose, Paul B.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Marquand, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ryman, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson. William (Coventry SE)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Selby, Harry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Meacher, Michael

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Woodall, Alec

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Woof, Robert

      Mendelson, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Miller. Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Silverman, Julius

      Mr. Joseph Ashton and

      Moonman, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Small, William

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Farr, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fell, Anthony

      Alison, Michael

      Carson, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Channon, Paul

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Awdry, Daniel

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Baker, Kenneth

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Forman, Nigel

      Banks, Robert

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fox, Marcus

      Bell, Ronald

      Clegg, Walter

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Cockcroft, John

      Freud, Clement

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fry, Peter

      Benyon, W.

      Cope, John

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Cordie, John H.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Biffen, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Corrie, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Blaker, Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Body, Richard

      Critchley, Julian

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Crowder, F. P.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bottomley, Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Gorst, John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Brittan, Leon

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Gray, Hamish

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Grieve, Percy

      Brotherton, Michael

      Dunlop, John

      Grist, Ian

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grylls, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hall, Sir John

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Buck, Antony

      Emery, Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Budgen, Nick

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      1514

      1515

      Hastings, Stephen

      Maude, Angus

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Moate, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin

      Holland, Philip

      Molyneaux, James

      Shersby, Michael

      Hordern, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Sims, Roger

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Hurt, John (Bromley)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Speed, Keith

      Hurd, Douglas

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Spence, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Mudd, David

      Sproat, Iain

      James, David

      Neave, Airey

      Stanbrook, Ivor

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stanley, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Neubert, Michael

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Newton, Tony

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Nott, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Jopling Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stokes, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Tapsell, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)

      Kilfedder, James

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Kimball, Marcus

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Pardoe, John

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Knox, David

      Penhaligon, David

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Lamont, Norman

      Percival, Ian

      Trotter, Neville

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Lawson, Nigel

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Viggers, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wakeham, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Raison, Timothy

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Loveridge, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walters, Dennis

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Warren, Kenneth

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      McCusker, H.

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wells, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      MacGregor, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Younger, Hon George

      Madel, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Marten, Neil

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mates, Michael

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Jim Lester and

      Mather, Carol

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      12.30 a.m.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that there are no Divisions required on the remaining motions to disagree with Lords amendments. With the permission of the House, I shall read out the title of each amendment and put them together.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 88, 53 to 57, 59 to 61, 72, 74, 118 and 129 disagreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question in respect of the amendment which I have designated as involving privilege.
      Lords Amendment No. 51 agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I shall see that the correct entry is made in the Journal.
      1516
      I am now required to put forthwith the Question that the House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining amendments.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 10 to 39, 41 to 44, 50, 52, 58, 62 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 85, 87, 89 to 117, 119, 120 and 122 to 128 agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question,
      Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments. —[Mr. Armstrong.]
      put forthwith pursuant to the order [10th November] and agreed to.
      Motion made and Question proposed, That Mr. Ernest Armstrong, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Francis Pym, Mr. Hugh Rossi, Mr. Gavin Strang be members of the Committee. —[Mr. Armstrong.]
      Amendment proposed, after "Mr. Gavin Strang" insert "Mr. Wm. Ross"
      Question put forthwith, pursuant to the order [10th November], That the amendment be made:—

      Division No. 418.]

      AYES

      [12.35 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mills, Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Alison, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Moale, Roger

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Molyneaux, James

      Awdfy, Daniel

      Gorst, John

      Monfo, Hector

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Banks, Robert

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Bell, Ronald

      Gray, Hamish

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Benyon, W.

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hall, Sir John

      Neave, Airey

      Biffen, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neubert, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Newton, Tony

      Body, Richard

      Hannam, John

      Nott, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Brittan, Leon

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pardoe, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hodgson, Robin

      Penhaligon, David

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Holland, Philip

      Percival, Ian

      Buck, Antony

      Hordern, Peter

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Budgen, Nick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Burden, F. A.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Carson, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Raison, Timothy

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rathbone, Tim

      Channon, Paul

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Churchill, W. S.

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clegg, Walter

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Cockcroft, John

      Jopling Michael

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Cope, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cordle, John H.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kilfedder, James

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Corrie, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Critchley, Julian

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lamont, Norman

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shepherd, Colin

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Shersby, Michael

      Dunlop, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Silvester, Fred

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sims, Roger

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Elliott, Sir William

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Emery, Peter

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Eyre, Reginald

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speed, Keith

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McCusker, H.

      Spence, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Farr, John

      MacGregor, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Fell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stanley, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Fietcher-Cooke, Charles

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Forman, Nigel

      Marten, Nell

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Mather, Carol

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Freud, Clement

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Tebbit, Norman

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 282.

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Wakeham, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Trotter, Neville

      Walters, Dennis

      Younger, Hon George

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Warren, Kenneth

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wells, John

      Mr. Stephen Ross and

      Viggers, Peter

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Mr. Cyril Smith.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Allaun, Frank

      English, Michael

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Anderson, Donald

      Ennals, David

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Archer, Peter

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Ashley, Jack

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McElhone, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Faulds, Andrew

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Flannery, Martin

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Barnetl, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McNamara, Kevin

      Bates, Alf

      Ford, Ben

      Madden, Max

      Bean, R. E.

      Forrester, John

      Magee, Bryan

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

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

      Mahon, Simon

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Marquand, David

      Boardman, H.

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Golding, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Bradley, Tom

      Gould, Bryan

      Meacher, Michael

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Graham, Ted

      Mendelson, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Buchan, Norman

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hardy, Peter

      Moonman, Eric

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Campbell, Ian

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hatton, Frank

      Moyle, Roland

      Cant, R. B.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Newens, Stanley

      Carmichael, Neil

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Noble, Mike

      Carter, Ray

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hooley, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Horam, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Clemitson, Ivor

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

      Orbach, Maurice

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cohen, Stanley

      Huckfield, Les

      Ovenden, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Padley, Walter

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hunter, Adam

      Park, George

      Corbett, Robin

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Parker, John

      Cowans, Harry

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Parry, Robert

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Pendry, Tom

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Perry, Ernest

      Cronin, John

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Cryer, Bob

      John, Brynmor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Radice, Giles

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Kelley, Richard

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Deakins, Eric

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kinnock, Nell

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lambie, David

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Dempsey, James

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rooker, J. W.

      Doig, Peter

      Lamond, James

      Roper, John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce '

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lee, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dunn, James A.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ryman, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sandelson, Neville

      Eadle, Alex

      Litterick, Tom

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Edge, Geoff

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Selby, Harry

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

      Luard, Evan

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      1520

      1521

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Whitlock, William

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Silverman, Julius

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tomlinson, John

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Small, William

      Torroey, Tom

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Snape, Peter

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Woodall, Alec

      Stallard, A. W.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Woof, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Watkins, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      Watkinson, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Weetch, Ken

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Weitzman, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Swain, Thomas

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mr. David Stoddart and

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question,
      That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
      put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question,
      That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
      put forthwith, pursuant to the Order 10th November, and agreed to.

  ENERGY BILL [Lords]
  Lords amendment to Commons amendment considered.
  ENERGY BILL [Lords]
    Schedule 4

      REPEALS AND SAVINGS
      The Lords have agreed to the first amendment made by the Commons in page 25, line 26, at end insert:

      "S.I. 1976/1204

      The Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) Order 1976"

      with the following amendment: in line 3, at end insert,

      "S.I. 1976/1840

      The Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices (Amendment) Order 1976".

      Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

  INDUSTRIAL COMMON OWNERSHIP BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  INDUSTRIAL COMMON OWNERSHIP BILL
    Clause 1

      GRANTS AND LOANS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 19, leave out from "enterprises" to end of subsection.
      12.49 a.m.
      Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The effect of the amendment is to remove any specific designation in the composition of the membership of the relevant body which is to be constituted to encourage common ownership and co-operative enterprises.
      The composition of the relevant body was a matter of extensive debate both in this House and in the other place. I sense that the House is anxious to come to a decision on this, therefore I shall be brief. I stress that the relevant body ought to be widely representative and that it could not be so without trade union members within its membership. It could not be widely representative without trade union members, any more than it could be representative without the membership of persons experienced in common ownership and co-operative enterprises. Indeed, the two very much overlap.
      I hope, in the light of what I have said, that when the time comes the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to the composition of any body which seeks to be recognised as the relevant body as designated in the Bill.

      1523
      I have already referred to the fact that extensive debate has taken place both in this House and in the House of Lords in relation to the subject matter of the amendment. The amendment results from extensive consultations which have taken place in this House and in the other House. This is an agreed amendment which is acceptable to myself and to my co-sponsors. I recommend it to the House.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: I certainly think that the House would be wise to accept what the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) has said, and to accept the wording of the amendment, which, as he said, was worked out as an agreed compromise in the other place.
      The arguments have been well rehearsed many times before. It is quite late enough for us to have good reason not to go over them again in any detail. It is sufficient to say that many of us felt in both Houses that it was unwise that one particular group of persons should be specified in the law as being those who had to be present on this body.
      Certainly it seemed odd to us that if the body were to be required to have representatives of trade unions on it—and not just trade unionists but representatives of trade unions—there should not also be a requirement that it should have on it 600 persons who were experienced in the running of common ownership firms.
      We are well satisfied with the amendment as it is proposed, and I hope that there will be no attempt on the part of anybody on the Opposition Benches to argue against it, or, least of all, to vote against it, which would prejudice the further progress of the Bill at this stage.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): In this atmosphere of mutual accord and congratulation I shall delay the House only a moment or so and would not wish to disturb the even tenor of the hon. Member's remarks.
      In accepting the amendment we in no way accepted the arguments put forward by the Opposition in this House and in another place. We feel that if the relevant body is to function efficiently, and workpeople's interests are to be properly represented, it should include a repre-
      1524
      sentative of the trade unions among its membership.
      However, my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), who moved the acceptance so well, saw no reason to delay the Bill further by opposing the amendment, and since we very much want to see this important Private Member's Bill reach the statute book, the Government accept the amendment.
      In assessing the suitability of the relevant body for the purposes of the Bill, the Secretary of State will no doubt have full regard to whether the membership of the body includes a representative of trade unions. Having said that, I hope that the House will accept the motion.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 2

      COMMON OWNERSHIP ENTERPRISES AND CO-OPERATIVE ENTERPRISES
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 37, after "description)" insert
      "which do not discriminate between persons by reference to politics or religion".
      Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment seeks to meet a difficult point which had proved rather baffling to those involved in the Bill during the earlier stages. It has resulted from extensive consultation in both Houses and also with the Industrial Common Ownership movement. I record my thanks to ICOM for its invaluable help and advice given at all stages of the Bill, right from the initial drafting. I thank particularly the Chairman of ICOM, Mr. Roger Sawtell, and the organiser, Ms Manuela Sykes.
      A feeling was shared by all hon. Members that common ownership enterprises should be given the widest freedom in deciding their own rules of membership within the lines laid down in the legal definition, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. For this reason in page 2, line 37, the phrase
      "other factors of any description"
      was included. The difficulty of including that phrase and not restricting them in any way was that we found that the position was open to abuse, and it made

      1525
      it possible for common ownership enterprises to apply restrictive qualifications on membership.
      The amendment makes illegal discrimination on political or religious grounds. There is no reference to racial or sexual discrimination, because that was unnecessary, as that position is already covered in existing legislation. This is an agreed amendment resulting from widespread consultation. Its purpose is to preserve freedom without licence. Accordingly, I recommend it to the House.
      1 a.m.
      Mr. Tebbit: It would be idle to pretend that I personally care for this aspect of the Bill. I care very little more for it now than I did when it left this House originally. My concern, expressed then and now, was not about the power given in this part of the Bill being abused by those who would use the measure. I think that is most unlikely. My worry throughout was that as this place is obsessed—rightly perhaps—with precedent, we should think very carefully before we legislate in any circumstances.
      To include the power to exclude persons by factors of any description seems to me to be very bad legislation. Some time in the future some Parliamentary Secretary pushing through another piece of legislation about a quite different matter could find these words used in his legislation and could quote the precedent of this Bill, passed with the approval of both Houses. So we were extremely unhappy about the matter. I am still unhappy about the compromise amendment. I accept that it has been extremely difficult to find a suitable turn of phrase. I would have preferred the expression
      "or other factors of any description"
      to be removed from the Bill.
      I do not want to stop the Bill becoming law at this stage by attempting to insist that what I regard as an unsatisfactory wording should be removed.
      To stop the Bill now would be to rob the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) of the well-justified triumph of seeing the Bill reach the statute book. It has not had an easy passage and at times I think that the hon. Member almost
      1526
      despaired of it. There have been moments when some of us thought that perhaps it was being assisted by the Government—not unfairly, but certainly in a way which could have been extended to other Bills of similar merit.
      For all that, the Bill looks as though it will reach the statute book. I believe that it will do good by encouraging the concept of men and women owning and controlling their own commercial enterprises, and that must be good for the economy and for society. I congratulate the hon. Member and I wish the Bill and the common ownership movement well.
      Mr. Cryer: I should like the House to support the amendment. I can assure the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that it is very difficult to legislate and to produce a form of words which allows a degree of flexibility while excluding the possibility of that flexibility being used in an undesirable way. This may not be the perfect formulation of words, but at least an attempt has been made to retain a degree of flexibility while providing adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Hopefully we think that the amendment will work. It represents an improvement in the Bill and we are looking forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.
      I shall take this last opportunity to offer the congratulations of the Government to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins). I hope that the Bill will go a little way towards achieving an objective in which we in the Labour Party have always believed. Working people have a great deal more to contribute to the ownership, means, distribution and exchange of production than has been the case in our society in many respects.
      We believe that there is a well of talent and good will among working people that can in large part be met by a different form of organisation from that which governs our society now. We hope that industrial common ownership and co-operative enterprises will draw on this well of creative ability and good will in working people and that the Bill will be a small step towards an ever-fast developing movement.
      Question put and agreed to.

  DIRECTORATE OF OVERSEAS SURVEYS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper tonight are the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the Public Lending Right Bill. It would appear that the Public Lending Right Bill is not being moved by the Government. Can the procedures of the House be considered to be satisfactory when legislation which—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think it improper for a point of order of this sort to be raised during Adjournment time, and it is taking that time.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I cannot take points of order during the Adjournment time. The Bill has not been moved, and therefore I cannot hear points of order about that Bill.
  1.5 a.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: This debate for which I have asked concerns the move to Glasgow of 360 trained cartographers and other experts from their purpose-built headquarters at Tolworth in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). I should say at the outset that a good many of my hon. Friends have said that they would have wished to take part in the debate if there had been time, but, unfortunately, we are confined to half an hour.
  It is, I think, the unanimous opinion of all those who work at Tolworth that they do not want to make this move, but they do not take that view for personal or family reasons. Their real fear is for the future of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys itself and whether it will survive. The move is all part of the 1,000-post slice which the Ministry of Overseas Development must move from the London area up to Glasgow, upon the orders of the Government. The object of the exercise, according to the Hardman Report, is to take more jobs from the Londcn area to areas of high unemploy-
  1528
  ment, and also to take advantage of the lower cost of office space in those areas outside London. In this case neither of those objectives is fulfilled.
  The job of the members of the staff of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys is as follows. They play a small but important part in the aid programme to the Third World. When countries of the Third World are planning the development of resources, such development can be held up entirely through a lack of medium-scale maps. There is, therefore, a spin-off here in that trade is apt to follow the map rather than the flag. Immediately one has a map of an area, all sorts of other experts are needed to give advice. The service is therefore of importance to this country.
  I believe that the staff who work at Tolworth do it virtually as a vocation. They are not particularly highly paid, and there is very little chance of promotion. All they want to do is perform their job efficiently and get on with it in peace. Their present location at Tolworth is convenient for purposes of liaison. To begin with, they are near the Ministry, which is an advantage. They are reasonably near their printers at Southampton, the Ordnance Survey printers. They are near the Land Resources Division of the Ministry of Overseas Development, which is shortly to move to Basingstoke, and they are not far from the Hydrographic Survey office at Taunton, as well as being close to the mapping and charting establishment at Feltham.
  The equipment used is extremely sensitive and sophisticated and there will be great difficulty in moving this equipment up to Scoltand. It will be an expensive process—about £30,000 for the most sophisticated equipment, the stereo plotters—and experts will be required to come from abroad to relocate these machines and calibrate them. Moreover, it will entail the demolition of buildings in order to get them out. There is also a highly organised library of about 2 million photographs and 100,000 maps.
  The Hardman criteria for the movement of Government work out of London were really concerned with clerical grades, the principal idea being that there would be jobs in the clerical grades. Hardman did not concern himself with the more expert people in the Government service he saw the gain in respect of

  1529
  clerical staff. But among the staff at Tolworth the clerical grades account for only 12 per cent., and there are 88 per cent. of specialists or senior adiministrators. Therefore, the proposed move does not really fall within the criteria.
  In addition to this, it is expected that only five new trainees a year will be taken on in the new location. That is the total increase in jobs, and it will cost some £8,000 over four years to train cartographers who at present are recruited nationally from all over the country simply because of the difficulty of finding these people in one location.
  Therefore, one wonders how this training will take place. Possibly 100 people will not find themselves able to move and will have to be replaced. How are these people to be trained? Where will they come from? Will the Directorate be split in order to perform this task? These questions have not been answered.
  Then there is the question of the costs It has been estimated—I think that this was in a ministerial reply—that the capital cost of the move will be £2½ million. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the overall cost is far short of £5 million, which seems to me to be a very large sum of money to spend for no gain in any direction at all, either in jobs in an area of high employment or in increased efficiency.
  Then there are the costs of the severe loss in mapping production which the period of the move will entail, before, during and after the move, and the loss in contracts. It is expected that this will take five years to make up. Then one must count the cost in human terms in the dislocation from homes, families and so on. The ultimate cost is likely to be very great. It is no exaggeration to say that it could mean the destruction of the DOS through loss of output and loss of trained staff.
  Set in the context of the present economic crisis and the inevitable cuts in public expenditure, this proposal seems to be bureaucracy gone mad. If there were a political advantage of some sort, one could understand it. But there is no political advantage because there is likely to be no increase in jobs in the Glasgow area. In fact, the families of the people moving up there, working wives and
  1530
  working teenage children, will be requiring and demanding jobs.
  I am not blaming the Minister. I do not envy him in his task. However, he has a very good case to take to the Cabinet, and let us hope that common sense prevails.
  1.13 a.m.
  Sir Nigel Fisher: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for allowing me some of his time.
  The Directorate of Overseas Surveys is situated in my constituency and most of its home-based staff of 320 people are my constituents. I have met two deputations of them—I also discussed the matter some time ago with the then Parliamentary Secretary—and I am very much impressed with the arguments they advanced, as I believe the Minister has been impressed, although I do not want to put words into his mouth.
  I have a file of 116 letters on this issue from constituents—115 of them against the move, and one, from a Scotsman, in favour of the move.
  I understand the general Government policy of dispersal, but this really is an exceptional case and policy should never be so rigid that it cannot make exceptions where they are justified.
  As my hon. Friend has said, this is a specialist unit, 88 per cent. of the staff being specialists recruited nationally who could not be replaced by unemployed people in Glasgow without a four-year specialist training course at a cost of about £8,000 each. At least 100 of the present staff, I would think, will have to go to Glasgow, whether they like it or not, in order to train the new recruits and to do whatever work it is possible to do, although I should have thought, as my hon. Friend indicated, that the map-making side of things will suffer and that that aspect of our aid programme will suffer by the move.
  If to avoid that disadvantage the Ministry were able to persuade a larger number of the present staff to go to Glasgow, very little new employment would be created in the Glasgow area and there would be no benefit to anyone.
  The expense of the move is not confined to the training of new staff. Moving

  1531
  a specialist unit of this kind is not just a question of desks and files. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult and costly to move specialist high precision equipment.
  The accommodation provided at Tolworth is purpose-built. Similar accommodation would presumably have to be built again at some expense in the Glasgow area. The present premises would no doubt revert to the local authority which would have to convert them back to ordinary office use.
  I understand that, for up to three years, the Tolworth staff would be eligible for travelling expenses home at the weekends —a further cost of £4,000 or £5,000 a week for 100 people. It is incredible that, at a time when the Government are or should be making drastic cuts in public expenditure, an expensive move of this kind should even be considered.
  But these are the financial costs. But I am even more concerned with the human cost involved in this disruption of the home and family life of so many of my constituents. They are not just cogs in a machine.
  The consequences of this move in human terms should also count very much in the scales against it. Many of these people have been at Tolworth for 20 years or more. All their friends are there. Their wives and children may be working to supplement the family income. If so—I know of many cases where it is—far from creating employment opportunities in the Glasgow area, extra people from the South—wives and children—may be looking for work which does not exist.
  One of my constituents, recently married, faces the move to Glasgow while his wife, employed by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, faces a move to Cumbria. That small family will be totally disrupted. If these specialist-trained people refuse to move, they will have to find less skilled work in the Surbiton area with a corresponding fall in the family income at a period of high inflation.
  All in all, this move will cost the taxpayer considerable sums of money with virtually no benefit to anyone—certainly not very much benefit to Glasgow—and
  1532
  with maximum loss to the happiness and personal lives of my constituents.
  I am not blaming the Minister. I know where his sympathies lie, because I know his character. I have known him for a long time. I can only hope that the debate may serve to give him some aid in the representations which I understand he may be making to his Cabinet colleagues to try to secure an exception from general Government policy in favour of this small, efficient unit and those who work in it.
  1.18 a.m.
  Mr. John Moore: I, too, should like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for allowing me to make a brief contribution because I have constituents who are actively involved in this establishment at Tolworth. I hope that the Minister will, if possible, read the excellent study which I shall give him, prepared by Stephen Tucker of Shirley Way, Croydon, who works in the establishment and who, to that extent, puts the questions better than I can.
  All I can say is that this might be an opportunity for one of my more distinguished constituents, if not the most distinguished—the Minister—to illustrate flexibility in Government at this last moment to allow my constituents to benefit alongside those of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher.
  1.19 a.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) and Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for allowing me to join their ranks and to point out that I have constituents who will be affected by the move. Surely, the Government should not take any deliberate actions which will seriously disadvantage those specialist staff who are employed at Tolworth.
  I should like to concentrate on one particular point. The specialist staff at Tolworth are classified as mobile, as I understand it, a classification within Civil Service terminology which was assumed on behalf of many of them after they had joined their present employment. If they decide not to go to

  1533
  Glasgow they will have to leave the service without the benefit of redundancy payments and they will also have to seek other employment—a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton—employment in which they will not be able to utilise their specialist skills.
  This puts them in a particular, not to say a special, case, because it is not as though they can just go somewhere nearby and seek similar employment. They are in a special category because of the nature of the service they provide. It is largely a governmental type of service which is not done in the private sector and they will not be able to go round the corner, metaphorically speaking, and find another job. They will be devoid of the advantages of redundancy and will not be able to get advantages similar to those they have in their present jobs. That puts them in a seriously disadvantaged position.
  1.21 a.m.
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: I should also like to make a contribution and to congratulate the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) who has raised this subject.
  The whole question of job dispersal within the Civil Service is of extreme significance in Scotland. I should like to discuss some of the aspects of that question, but first let me say to some hon. Members opposite that we are quite civilised in Scotland. There is a general feeling, particularly in the West, that many people in the service feel that jobs should not be dispersed to Scotland on the basis that they fear losing the weighting allowances which they receive south of the border, and because they fear that they will not be able to understand us.
  I must declare a constituency interest because in Cumbernauld New Town in my constituency we have been pressing this question for a long time. This is one job dispersal which will be important for us in Cumbernauld. It would be a Government centre in Scotland and on that hinges a lot of future development for much of the West of Scotland.
  The dispersal of this Directorate would be a psychological boost to the whole of the West of Scotland. It has been regarded as a deprived area with many
  1534
  problems and the psychological boost of having this directorate there would be very meaningful to the area. We have suffered emigration. People have left because there have not been the job opportunities and there has been little incentive for them to stay. There is high unemployment in the area, higher than in other constituencies about which hon. Members have spoken, and ancillary to that is the question of job dispersal to Scotland.
  We hope that the Government will not be put off a policy of job dispersal to Scotland because of unemployment elsewhere. We ask them to remember the particular problems of the West of Scotland and to realise the great psychological boost which this move would provide for us in the West of Scotland. Too few jobs in the Civil Service have come to us and this is an opportunity for the Government to show that they care about the high level of unemployment in the West of Scotland.
  1.24 a.m.
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): This has been an interesting debate in which the arguments which the hon. Lady has just put and those of the first four sneakers illustrated the dilemma facing the Government in this decision.
  I shall make one of those awful replies which say "On the one hand this and on the other that". It is the case for one-armed Ministers.
  I saw the staff side of my Department, including representatives of the DOS, on 21st October. They made a very strong case to me. I said then that this matter would be further considered by my colleagues and myself. That consideration is continuing. It is not complete. I cannot, therefore, make a definitive reply to the House tonight.
  I would agree with all those hon. Members who paid tribute to the work of DOS. It has made a unique contribution in the developing world in the last 30 years. It exists entirely in order to serve our technical co-operation programme with developing countries. It is financed entirely from the aid programme. In the last 30 years it has carried out the mapping of over 2 million square miles of territory in the developing world as well as undertaking a considerable training programme both in

  1535
  Tolworth, where people have come from the developing world, and in the developing world, where staff from Tolworth have been seconded.
  The case against moving DOS is in many respects a special one. Some of the arguments, with respect, made by the first four speakers were arguments which could be applied to many establishments which are due for dispersal—the argument about convenience of location, cost and so on. But here there are certain special considerations.
  I should like to underline two in particular. One is that the type of work in which these men and women are engaged is so specialised that for those who feel that for family reasons they cannot or do not choose to make the move to Scotland, there would not be comparable work available in the London area.
  Meanwhile, if a substantial number do not choose to go to Scotland—and the Staff Side estimates that perhaps half might decide not to go—those who do go to Scotland will be so engaged in the work of training new recruits that the production of the unit could well be seriously affected. That is an important argument and one that I have clearly to acknowledge.
  Another special reason is that the future life of the DOS itself is limited. A review of its future was carried out recently. I am glad to say that as a result of that review the Government were able to decide that it had a clear future for many years to come, but the size of the operation will diminish. We are talking of about 320 jobs to be transferred from Tolworth to the West of Scotland in 1980 or thereabouts. But the establishment will probably be reduced to about 220 during the 1980's and the whole operation will probably be phased out by the end of the century.
  Therefore, a serious disadvantage from the Scottish point of view is that people trained in this work would not necessarily have the career prospects that they might expect in some other work. These are arguments which support the case for keeping DOS at Tolworth.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) properly drew attention to the case for dispersal. Those of us who see the difficulty of making the
  1536
  transfer have to face up to the fact that we are in the classic situation of being in favour of dispersal in general but against a particular example.
  The easiest thing for a departmental Minister to say to his colleagues is that their people should be dispersed but his should not. That is the difficult aspect of the whole thing. It was in July 1974 that the Government announced their dispersal proposals, broadly following the lines of the Hardman Report, and accepting the need to transfer some 30,000 Civil Service jobs out of London over a 10-year period to go mainly to the assisted areas. Those 30,000 jobs comprise people working in many situations where there are special arguments against making the move.
  As one hon. Member recognised, there are other parts of the Ministry affected besides DOS and considerable practical difficulties are involved in moving them. If this had been a longer debate and if it had taken place at a more civilised hour, many hon. Members from assisted areas would have set out the case which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East outlined, perhaps at greater length, and would have made the case for saying not merely that more jobs are required for the assisted areas but that those areas should have a better share of jobs with a professional or technical content, white collar as well as blue collar jobs.
  We have all said, have we not, from time to time, that the imbalance of job opportunities in the United Kingdom can be solved only by pretty drastic surgery within the Civil Service, the nationalised industries and the private sector so that fewer of these specialist jobs are available in London and more in other parts of the country? Therefore, if there is a reconsideration within Government—there is a reconsideration of this point but I can make no announcement tonight—it is against that background of the need for dispersal that any special case must be argued, and it is very difficult to argue such a special case. I repeat that the matter is being studied but that I cannot forecast the outcome.
  It is reasonable to acknowledge, as I have acknowledged I think, that there are special reasons in the case of DOS which are peculiar to it. I certainly agree with those who say that we must be very

  1537
  careful to see that this unique and valuable organisation is maintained and that nothing is done to destroy it. On the other hand, it is vital to recognise that the whole dispersal programme could be whittled down by a series of special cases and that we must balance one argument against another.
  Mrs. Bain: Can the Minister give any indication when he might reach a decision about the dispersal programme? It has been drawn to my attention in the last week that the process of trawling in terms of job dispersal is not to operate in Glasgow until 1984, which suggests that the Ministry of Defence project will be held back. Therefore, we are increasingly interested in Departments such as the Minister's in terms of what they will mean to the West of Scotland.
  Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I cannot give an indication of that. As the hon. Lady has reminded the House, there are proposals for dispersing a large part of the Ministry of Defence to the Glasgow area. That is a much bigger operation numerically than that which we are dis-
  1538
  cussing tonight. Inevitably, when the Government consider any one unit, they have to do so against the background of the total programme. I do not want to go beyond that. I must not be even more indiscreet than I usually am. Therefore, I cannot answer the question.
  Clearly, everyone is entitled to have more precise information as early as possible—certainly the staff of DOS and their families are entitled to a more definitive statement—but the Government's policy as of tonight is the dispersal policy announced in July 1974. There is no alteration of that policy which I am authorised to announce. I hope that I have indicated to those who have raised the question that I recognise the special problems, that I have been going into them carefully and that I have been impressed by the staff side argument. But I cannot go beyond that. I shall inform the House and the staff and everyone concerned when I can give more information.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  House Condition Survey
  House Condition Survey
  Public Service Pensions (Costs)
  Public Service Pensions (Costs)
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Polyurethane
  Polyurethane
  Waste Materials (Reclamation)
  Waste Materials (Reclamation)
  Windscale (Radiation Levels)
  Windscale (Radiation Levels)
  Otters
  Otters
  Water Supply (Sources)
  Water Supply (Sources)
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  GOVERNMENT PAPERS (INFORMATION LEAK)
  GOVERNMENT PAPERS (INFORMATION LEAK)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Standing Committees
  Standing Committees
  GOVERNMENT ADVISERS (RECORD KEEPING)
  GOVERNMENT ADVISERS (RECORD KEEPING)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Unpaid Fines
  Unpaid Fines
  Juveniles (Borstal Sentences)
  Juveniles (Borstal Sentences)
  Hull Prison
  Hull Prison
  Prison Rules
  Prison Rules
  Prisons (Roof Demonstrations)
  Prisons (Roof Demonstrations)
  Electoral Register (Citizens of Irish Republic)
  Electoral Register (Citizens of Irish Republic)
  Farriers
  Farriers
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Mr. Piara Singh
  Mr. Piara Singh
  Remembrance Day Observance (Political Parties)
  Remembrance Day Observance (Political Parties)
  Street Trading
  Street Trading
DEFENCE
  Amble Degaussing Dock
  Amble Degaussing Dock
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
TRANSPORT
  Railway Passengers
  Railway Passengers
  M42 (Castle Donington)
  M42 (Castle Donington)
  Speed Limits (Villages)
  Speed Limits (Villages)
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
  Roads (Acreage)
  Roads (Acreage)
WALES
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
WALES
  Mortgage and House Improvement Finance
  Mortgage and House Improvement Finance
  Roads
  Roads
  Government Factories
  Government Factories
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  High Commission Territories and Malawi
  High Commission Territories and Malawi
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Young People (Foreign Visits)
  Young People (Foreign Visits)
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  Franco-Soviet Agreement (Nuclear Warfare)
  Franco-Soviet Agreement (Nuclear Warfare)
  Nepal
  Nepal
  Angola
  Angola
  Paraguayan President
  Paraguayan President
  Greece (Murder of British Subject)
  Greece (Murder of British Subject)
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Transkei
  Transkei
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Helsinki Agreement
  Helsinki Agreement
  Broadcasting (Overseas Services)
  Broadcasting (Overseas Services)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Far East (Social Security)
  Far East (Social Security)
ENERGY
  Conservation (Advisory Council)
  Conservation (Advisory Council)
  Coal Reserves
  Coal Reserves
  Paraffin
  Paraffin
  Pipelines
  Pipelines
  Opencast Coal
  Opencast Coal
  Gas Appliances (Safety)
  Gas Appliances (Safety)
  Electricity Bills (Discounts)
  Electricity Bills (Discounts)
EMPLOYMENT
  Chemical Products (Cancer Hazards)
  Chemical Products (Cancer Hazards)
  Benefits (Advertising)
  Benefits (Advertising)
  Immigrant Teachers
  Immigrant Teachers
  National Insurance (Employers' Contributions)
  National Insurance (Employers' Contributions)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Job Creation and Work Experience
  Job Creation and Work Experience
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Training
  Training
  Certificates of Independence
  Certificates of Independence
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  European Community (Ministers' Meetings)
  European Community (Ministers' Meetings)
  Social Services Research Council
  Social Services Research Council
  Science Research Council
  Science Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  School Holidays
  School Holidays
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
INDUSTRY
  European Commissioner for Regional Development
  European Commissioner for Regional Development
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Postal Packets (Opening or Delaying)
  Postal Packets (Opening or Delaying)
  Steel Corporation (Capital Investment)
  Steel Corporation (Capital Investment)
  Scottish Aviation
  Scottish Aviation
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Government Laboratory, Cockermouth
  Government Laboratory, Cockermouth
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Heating and Ventilating
  Heating and Ventilating
  Printing Machinery
  Printing Machinery
  Fluid Power Equipment
  Fluid Power Equipment
  Electrical Engineering
  Electrical Engineering
  Automation and Instrumentation
  Automation and Instrumentation
SCOTLAND
  Cardiac Surgery (Waiting Lists)
  Cardiac Surgery (Waiting Lists)
  Scottish Agricultural Colleges (Staff)
  Scottish Agricultural Colleges (Staff)
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  A952, Peterhead-Fraserburgh
  A952, Peterhead-Fraserburgh
  Oil Industry (Cowdenbeath)
  Oil Industry (Cowdenbeath)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Trade Preferences (Circular 96/57)
  Trade Preferences (Circular 96/57)
  Community Social Centre, Londonderry
  Community Social Centre, Londonderry
  Citizens' Advice Centre (Londonderry)
  Citizens' Advice Centre (Londonderry)
  Benefit Recipients
  Benefit Recipients
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Firemen (Dispute)
  Firemen (Dispute)
  Public Expenditure Reductions
  Public Expenditure Reductions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle (Identification Marking)
  Cattle (Identification Marking)
  Cattle Imports (Republic of Ireland)
  Cattle Imports (Republic of Ireland)
  Bacon
  Bacon
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hexachlorophane
  Hexachlorophane
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Unemployment Benefit (Further Education Students)
  Unemployment Benefit (Further Education Students)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Unemployable Persons
  Unemployable Persons
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
  Divorces
  Divorces
  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Hospitals (Christmas Closing)
  Hospitals (Christmas Closing)
  Child Health Services (Court Report)
  Child Health Services (Court Report)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Goods and Services (Seasonal Demand)
  Goods and Services (Seasonal Demand)
  Profit Margins
  Profit Margins
  Bread
  Bread
TRADE
  Foreign Currency Invoices
  Foreign Currency Invoices
  Fishing Vessel Surveys
  Fishing Vessel Surveys
  Textiles (India)
  Textiles (India)
  National Film Finance Corporation
  National Film Finance Corporation
  Cotton Goods
  Cotton Goods
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Investment Bank Loans
  European Investment Bank Loans
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Cars (Perquisites)
  Cars (Perquisites)
  Economic Prospects (Forecasting)
  Economic Prospects (Forecasting)
  Intestacies
  Intestacies
  Charities (Directors)
  Charities (Directors)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  India (Remittances and Aid)
  India (Remittances and Aid)
  Wine
  Wine
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  National Coal Board Employees (Season Tickets)
  National Coal Board Employees (Season Tickets)
  Government Cars
  Government Cars

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Wool-sack.

CONCORDE: OPERATING FINANCES
2.31 p.m.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask first the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated profit or loss, allowing for depreciation and insurance, of operating the Concorde aircraft for the months of September and October 1976.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I regret that the information which the noble Lord has requested is not at present available, and it is not British Airways policy to publish the results of individual parts of their operations in advance of their annual report and accounts.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, I suppose I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his Answer. Possibly the noble Lord does not wish or is not able to answer the Question which I put, but I should be glad if he could give the House some figures of profit and loss on this machine in the last few months. Can the noble Lord also tell the House when he is likely to be able to answer the Question in more detail?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think the position is that it is too early to draw conclusions about the profitability of the operations of Concorde. Figures for the first year or two will reflect the substantial non-recurring start-up costs. The present exclusion from New York imposes a substantial penalty, so I suggest it is a little early to start asking the type of Question which the noble Viscount puts to me.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, while it may be too early, my noble friend Lord Mersey asked for a figure for the estimated profit. Are we to understand there are no estimates?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, these are two very recent months, and the result have not been computed. In any case, as I said in my first Answer, I think it is reasonable for British Airways not to publish figures about a part of their operations in advance of the annual report. That is perfectly reasonable.

CONCORDE: PRODUCTION AND COST
2.33 p.m.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Concorde aircraft are at present under construction in the United Kingdom, and what is the estimated cost of each aircraft.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, there are three Concorde aircraft at present under construction in the United Kingdom. The estimated average cost of the eight British-assembled aircraft in the authorised programme is£51 million per aircraft. It would be inappropriate to allocate this figure between individual aircraft in view of the substantial number of assumptions and estimates that would be required.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who at least has produced a figure. Can he tell the House whether any of these three aircraft has been sold? Have we any firm orders for them?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, my understanding of the situation with reference to these three aircraft is that there are no firm orders for them at present, although some very useful discussions are going on.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the President-Elect

1279
of the United States of America, Mr. Carter, was rather unpopular with regard to Concorde before his election, can the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, say whether either Her Majesty's Government and/or the French have made any progress, since Mr. Carter became President-Elect, on what the result will be of Concorde going into New York so that these last five aircraft can be sold?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords. I do not have that information. I would not be able to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, without some notice.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I hope that the questions asked by the Opposition do not imply criticism of British Airways. Might I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that many of us think that British Airways have made a superlative achievement in getting Concorde into the air? Is he further aware that we wish it every success? I think we should support it vocally in this House as well as elsewhere.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the Government say what steps are being taken to provide leasing facilities for Concorde, bearing in mind that there are a number of smaller airlines who cannot afford to purchase Concorde outright but are interested in leasing arrangements?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, some of the discussions going on with interested parties include the possibility of leasing arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has suggested.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister able to inform the House whether there is any reality in the suggested fact—or is it mere speculation?—that there is a possibility of the Chinese Government being interested in Concorde?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have that information. I do not think it arises directly from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, as I understood the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he said that eight of the air-
1280
craft would cost approximately£51 million each. Does that mean that all the development costs have been written off against the eight aircraft? One hears that£500 million has been spent on development. Does the figure of£51 million include the development cost?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords. The total development cost in Britain and France was£1,154 million. That is not included in the figures in the Answer which I gave, which covered the estimated costs of producing Concorde.

RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY BURGLARY
2.37 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and at the same time to declare an interest in the Society named, one of whose officers I am.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to protect licensees under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 from sabotage and vandalism, with particular reference to the burglary of the Research Defence Society's premises in Marylebone on the night of Saturday, 13th November, and the theft of all their files and documents.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, whose responsibility this is, that the police are investigating the burglary and pursuing certain lines of inquiry. It would be wrong for me to say anything further while those inquiries are being made. If any licensee has reason to think that he or the premises where he works are under threat of criminal attack, he should contact his local police.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, could I pursue the matter a little further? Would the noble Lord be prepared to summarise and circulate to licensees the acts of vandalism of the last three years, so that they can

1281
judge for themselves what approach they should make to the local police force for the greatest security of their premises?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am aware that there has been an upsurge of criminal acts directed against those involved in all aspects of research on living animals, but I do not think that it is appropriate for us to circulate that list. That is for the Research Defence Society to do provided that that Society regards it as an appropriate course of action.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that those of us who are deeply concerned about the operation of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 in no way support or condone these attacks on licensees and their premises? Is my noble friend aware that none of us wishes to pursue our reasonable activities for reform in this matter by giving the slightest support to any activities of this kind?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has said. He is certainly right. Nothing can excuse unlawful acts of this character.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, so far as it is known, are these acts co-ordinated and organised, or are they sporadic attacks by rather eccentric individuals?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I would prefer not to comment on that. Even now this matter is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police, who will look at all the aspects of this matter and will also, no doubt, consider some of the earlier attacks which took place on other premises.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister give an assurance that this matter will be pursued with the utmost recourse to the law?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords.
A noble Lord: Boil them in oil!

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
2.40 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [The Health Services Board and its Committees]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49. I think it would be for the convenience of the House to know whether the Government would like the Amendments grouped in this way; the other three are consequential upon No. 1. They have not been grouped by the Government. It might save time to do it this way. I am, of course, in the hands of the Government as to how we should proceed, and would like to know whether it is agreeable that we should do it in this way.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I must apologise for my voice but I woke this morning with a very sore throat and I still have the effects of it. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would pursue that line. I said much the same thing at the Committee stage, and I think we pursued that course through the Committee stage. It would, I agree, be more helpful.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am very sorry the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has such a sore throat. I am afraid the day's proceedings will hardly help.
My Lords, we are turning to a group of Amendments about the constitution of the Health Services Board. As the House will be aware, the Board established by this Bill is central to the working of the whole scheme and is certainly central

1283
to the working of this Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Wells Pestell, will argue, as indeed he did in Committee, that five members, to include one as chairman, was what was agreed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he made his agreement with the doctors, and that this is a number which cannot be departed from. But the fact of the matter is that, although the Government are bound by the agreement that Lord Goodman has made, Parliament is not bound, and I think Parliament must consider what is the right number of members for this Board. It must consider not only what is the right number of members, but of course, how they should be allocated.
Like many other Members of the House who spoke at Committee stage, I am not myself particularly enamoured of the idea of having members of the Board as representatives of different groups of people. Nevertheless, the principle that the Bill lays down, that a proportion of the members should represent the medical profession and, another, those who work in the Health Service, is one that I think we must keep. What emerged from reading the Committee proceedings, and it was a point which I think was made by Members on all sides of the House, was that a Board of five was too small, that there were other interests to be considered besides the medical profession and those described in Schedule 1 as being,
"persons employed in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals".
It seemed to us, on re-reading the debate in Committee, that in fact the five-member Board is a very narrowly constructed Board and that there existed a great deal of feeling that it should be enlarged. Therefore, we have put down this Amendment again to suggest that rather than five members there should be seven members. The other two members would include possibly a representative of the nursing profession, as one group of people who seem to have been completely ignored, or indeed of the other workers such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, or others employed in the Health Service.
As I have indicated, I am speaking not only to Amendment No. 1 but to consequential Amendments to Schedule 1 at page 6 of the Marshalled List. Amend-
1284
ments Nos. 47 and 48, increase the number "two" to "three" in each case, so that the Bill would read that there would be three medical practitioners, that three other persons would be appointed, and there would be the chairman. In order to complete the series of Amendments, Amendment No. 49 makes it perfectly clear that of those people to be appointed,
"one shall of represent the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, and one shall represent the interests of hospital patients generally".
We on this side of the House feel that this is a matter which in no way goes against the principle of the Bill. It would strengthen rather than weaken the Board. It would bring in more people who are working in the National Health Service as a whole, and it would bring in the interests of all the patients. Far from creating a worse health service for both National Health Service patients and private patients, which could very easily be a direct consequence of this Bill, we hope that we are moving a series of Amendments which would bring the two parts of the service together; by making a Board which is more fully representative of all the interests who work in the health service, whether the National Health Service or private practice, we should be helping to bring this about. I hope very much that my Amendment will have the support which a similar one had at Committee stage, because I think this is in the best interests of all the patients in hospital. I beg to move.
2.47 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I should very much like to support on behalf of these Benches. May I say how much I welcome the noble Baroness's statement that, much as we appreciate the mediation and the work done by Lord Goodman, we are not bound by that agreement. We as a House are here to revise legislation. I strongly support the idea that there should be seven members of the Board. I support every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said about this. This is one of the Amendments I find tremendously important to the Bill.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I too would like to support this Amendment. Those of us who have had

1285
dealings with Committees appointed by Ministries—I am sure all Members of this House have—know only too well that if you have a very small number on a committee or a council, and for any reason one or two of that number are unable to attend a meeting, then of course the council's work is impaired. We will come on to the question of a quorum later. For the reasons that the noble Baroness has given, it seems to me that seven is a very much better number. I know very well that if, for instance one member of a committee of five resigns, the Minister is statutorily bound to go through usual procedures to make another member of that Board, and that, to my knowledge, always takes a very great deal of time. If it is assumed that the Minister will fill a vacancy forthwith, that can be made to mean either the next day or perhaps in six months' time. It might well be that two, or even three members of a five-member Board are missing at any one time, If we take the precaution of having seven members of the Board, that will in due time be seen to be the right number. I warmly support my noble friend.
2.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should also like to support this Amendment. I have had some experience in local government of cutting down committees. This is supposed to make them much more effective and easier to run, but in point of fact the exact opposite happens. If you cut the number down to, in this case, five, and we think seven is the minimum—and in my experience the same sort of thing has happened in local government committees—then you are in a difficult position if somebody is away or ill and you have only four instead of five, or six instead of seven. You cannot at the last moment get somebody in, unless you know a little beforehand and you can have a substitute. I do not know whether or not there are going to be substitutes for this committee. It is undoubtedly much too small a number for such an important job. So much responsibility is going to be put on each of the members of the Board who will represent quite evenly, I understand—and it is very important that it should be very even—the doctors and the others who are involved in this Board. I would even think that seven is not
1286
enough, but seven is much better than five. It would be a much more satisfactory committee, with its tremendously important responsibilities, if you shared these responsibilities with more people. I particularly like the suggestion that there ought to be representatives of the nurses and professions supplementary to medicine. This is extremely important, and it is vital that we should have those people on the Board as well as the doctors and the others whom we know are going to be members of the Board. I support this Amendment most wholeheartedly.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I also should like to support this important Amendment. I agree with the various reasons which have been so adequately put forward by my colleagues. What I should like to know in addition is this: have the Government, in establishing this Board, had any discussions with all the various bodies that have been mentioned and which it would be wise to have represented on the Board, or is this purely a decision of the Government; that is, eliminating Lord Goodman at the moment?
This is important, because it is only quite recently on the Area Health Committees, for instance, that we have had put on to the Area Health Committees a nursing representative, which seemed to indicate that that really in effect is the policy of the Government today. It seems all the more peculiar, having taken that action, that space has not been found for a member of the nursing profession to be on the main Board. I should like to know who the Government spokesmen consulted on the matter, and also whether any representations have been received from the nursing profession, the physiotherapists, and from all the people who play a very great part in the National Health Service. I always like to hear both sides of a question. The Government have put this in their Bill as representing the number which they think ought to be on the Board. I always like to know whether they turned down representations, or whether it is what has been recommended by, say, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or anybody else. What representations have they received?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in case it should be thought that a policy

1287
of sex discrimination is in operation in this House I have ventured to rise. The only thing I want to say is that it appears to me that there is a tendency to try to pack these boards with professional experts. There is much to be said for having professional experts on these boards—doctors, dentists, nurses, radiologists, and so on—but at the same time there should be on these boards what we will call the ordinary man and woman, because they are the people who stand to benefit or to suffer from the administration of the Health Service. Therefore, I suggest that we should not overdo the packing of the Board with professional people, but that the ordinary bloke, or ordinary women, should have a voice in the administration of the Service as well.
When we come to make these appointments, I believe that there is in existence in some of the Whitehall Departments a list of what they call the "great and the good", and it is from this select list of people that appointments are made for Royal Commissions, boards, councils, and other public organisations of that kind. I sincerely hope that we shall get a few ordinary people on these boards to balance the expert opinion of the professionals.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, if he will forgive me—
Several noble Lords: Order! Order!
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I should like to say that I agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has said about not packing the Board entirely with professional people. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, made a similar comment. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is therefore in favour of seven rather than five.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which my noble friend Lady Young has put forward, and I should like to add some comments on the problem of deputies. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, drew our attention to Schedule 1 when we discussed this in Committee. In our view, and I am open to correction on this one, our inter-pretation of Schedule 1 is that he suggested
1288
that there was a team of deputies behind the Board. I do not think that this is the case. We have carefully read page 27 of the Bill, and in paragraph 10 we read:
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the appointment by him, after the appropriate consultation, of—

(a) a deputy chairman …"

This paragraph refers to the deputy chairman. It is not a group of deputies, each deputising for those individual members. It is possible, because of the wording of paragraph 10(2), to make it read somewhat differently; but I think on careful re-examination it cannot be said that Schedule 1 suggests a team of deputies. Therefore, I believe that, as my noble friends have said, to extend the numbers from five to seven is essential.
I should also like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said about deputies, because this is especially important. He laid emphasis on the fact that deputies at very short notice are scarcely worth while appointing, or seeking the support of, when a meeting is to be held very shortly. We know all too well from important health meetings that preparation must be made by the person attending that meeting—sometimes several hours' preparation—and should the deputy be sought for a situation of this sort they really are only there filling a space but not fulfilling a role.
2.59 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before I try to answer the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have spoken, may I comment in a general way. A number of Amendments are down today which we discussed in some considerable detail and at some length during the Committee stage. At the time I said to your Lordships that we, on the Government side, had considered those Amendments very carefully beforehand. Therefore, having discussed at some length at Committee stage many of the Amendments which are before your Lordships today, I find myself with little I can say that I have not already said. I wrote to a number of noble Lords on specific points which they raised, and I cannot go any further than that. If, therefore, I appear, as I am sure I shall, to a number of noble Lords to be rather unsympathetic to the points they may raise, it is because we have given very

1289
careful attention to the Amendments that were tabled in Committee and to those which are before your Lordships today and have not found ourselves able to do very much about them.
In Committee we spent about 23 hours debating Amendments—I am not for a moment suggesting that that was an excessive amount of time having regard to the fact that there were 143 Amendments, some of which the noble Baroness withdrew—and the subject of the Amendment with which we are now concerned occupied about 18 columns of Hansard. That does not alter the fact that noble Lords are entitled to raise the matter again today, as they have done, but I want your Lordships to see this issue against the background of the purpose of the Bill.
Your Lordships will know that some time ago there was difficulty between the Government and the consultants; that was pointed out on the last occasion. A serious, sustained and sincere attempt was made by the Government to try to work out something which would be acceptable to them in this matter of pay beds and phasing them out, and acceptable to the consultants; in other words, something acceptable to both. That resulted in what we have come to call the Goodman Proposals. I accept that the Goodman Proposals are not binding on your Lordships. Of course, they are not. If this House in its wisdom or—but perhaps I should not complete that sentence—if it decided not to accept those Proposals in some respects, then your Lordships would be entitled to that decision. What I am saying is that, in assessing the situation, will noble Lords please look at the reason behind the Goodman Proposals. That reason was to bring about a better relationship between the consultants and, if I may say so, the medical profession generally, and the Government. We believe—I think this would be accepted by those who know—that the Goodman Proposals succeeded in doing that, but they succeeded in doing it only because they were acceptable to both sides, and one of the things that was acceptable was that the Health Services Board should consist of five people; a chairman, two drawn from the medical profession and two from what has been described as the other side.
1290
Would having seven people really alter the situation? If we had seven we would still, with the greatest respect, be faced with the fact that one of them would have to be acceptable to the medical profession; because that was the formula, and one would have to be acceptable to what is referred to as the other side. I am not saying that there is anything magic about five but, with respect, nor is there anything magic about seven. I cannot see what seven could achieve in relation to five. Noble Lords have said that it would widen the interest because it would bring in more people. But let us face the fact that to bring in every facet within the National Health Service would require a committee of 27 or 37 rather than seven because, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, there are laboratory technicians, physiotherapists, occupational physiotherapists, domestics, patients, biochemists and a whole variety of people.
One must remember that if one is thinking in terms of nurses and others who, if you like, are ancillary to medicine, there is the General Whitley Council, which includes representatives of all major NHS unions and of the Royal College of Nursing and Midwives. These are the people with whom we are having discussions to select the two non-medical people. Your Lordships may not take it from me, but certainly the two representatives on the non-medical side will be very representative—I was about to say of every facet in the medical services outside the doctors—because we have organisations which cater not for one section but for a whole variety, and I have instanced the Whitley Council.
As I say, I do not think that seven could achieve what five could not achieve. Noble Lords may ask: If it does not matter that much, why resist it! I am resisting it because I think it is unnecessary, and there is no point in accepting something that is not necessary. I am resisting it because it was something on which we got agreement with the medical profession, and we do not want to go back on that for whatever reason. My noble friend Lord Leatherland referred to the list of the great and the good, something which this Government abolished when they came to office in March 1974. We are very suspicious of the great and the good and I know that what the

1291
noble Baroness and I are concerned with are the committed and the concerned. They are much more important. When we are looking round for people to fill a post we are not concerned with whether they are great and good but with whether they are committed and concerned people. We want this to work every bit as much as all other noble Lords do. I do not think I can usefully add to what I have said today or on the last occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to the appointment of deputies. My understanding of the situation is that a deputy will be appointed not only for the chairman but for each member of the Board. Obviously this must be done quickly, but I should point out that it is not envisaged that if a member of the Board cannot attend, say, next Wednesday's meeting, the deputy will be asked to take his place. The whole idea of the deputy is that if, for any one of the reasons set down, a member of the Board was disqualified from remaining a member, the deputy would take his place. If, for illness, sickness or some other reason, a member cannot attend a meeting, it is not intended that the deputy should immediately step in and take his place; that is, if the member will be away on only one or two occasions.
We should assume—I know that is a dangerous word to use in your Lordships' House—and I think it would be made quite clear, that the chairman of the Board would, if a decision of some importance had to be made, postpone that decision for a few days until that other member could attend so that there would be a full attendance of the chairman and the four members of the Board. We do not see any difficulty about this, save that deputies must be appointed in case a member is away for a long period or may be disqualified. I ask the noble Baroness more than anybody in this House because I know she has studied this matter and speaks with a great deal of experience and expertise—I have known her for many years and I appreciate that she does not raise matters lightly—and I ask noble Lords opposite, whether on this occasion it is necessary for them to press this Amendment to a Division. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it is not necessary.
3.9 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords. may I ask my noble friend to clear up a point arising out of his remarks? Apart from the chairman there are to be four Board members. Two, it is specified, shall be doctors. My noble friend went on rather to suggest that one of the others would be representative of nurses and another of the ancillary medical professions. Where does that leave the general public?
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord for clarification of Part IV, where, in paragraph 10, we speak of the deputies? It seems to me that we are going to have two medical practitioners and two members of the public; therefore, one deputy is not going to be sufficient to carry the burden of each of the two medical people and the two others. Paragraph 10(a) provides:
"a deputy chairman or deputy member of the Board, to act in place of the chairman or a member of the Board"
That seems to me—
Lord DENHAM: Order!
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I am not speaking, I am asking for clarification. Is the noble Lord telling the House that there will be only one member and that that one member will be able to stand in for the medical profession or either of the other two?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think some of your Lordships were rather puzzled by the call of "Order!''. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, is probably reminding us that at Report stage we can speak only once, although I think it is competent for Members of your Lordships' House to ask a question; but it must be a question. I cannot reply without your Lordships' leave, and I seek that leave. I hope this process can be avoided, otherwise the Report stage will go on inter minably. If noble Lords will look at Schedule 1 on page 25, paragraph 1(1)(c) reads:
"two other persons appointed after consultation with the bodies mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph."
Paragraph 2(b) reads:
"such bodies not falling within paragraph (a) above"—

1293
and that represents the medical or dental practitioners—
"as the Secretary of State may recognise as being representative of persons employed in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients…"
The emphasis there is on "employed". I think I dealt with that. I did not on this occasion deal with the phrase "concerned with the interests of patients" and one could argue that perhaps the patients' association will deal with that. They are one of the bodies with whom we are having discussions.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, paragraph 10 provides for deputies who can substitute for the chairman or any member respectively. I use the word "deputies". I think this is clearly set out, and a deputy is deemed to be a member while acting as a member of the Board. He is a deputy until such time as he sits on the Board, and he is then a member of the Board.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, by leave of the House, the noble Lord—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Baroness does not need leave; because she moved the Amendment she is entitled to reply.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that we have taken a long time on Committee and that we have argued this point before, but, after all, this is a Bill of 24 clauses and five Schedules and we have been asked to deal with the whole of the Bill in a very tight time-scale since 22nd October when it reached us following on its passage through another place. To suggest that one can look at a Bill of this length and deal with it seriously on Committee and on Report in two or three hours is asking a great deal of the Committee and of the House.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that this Bill took 26 hours on the Floor of the House of Commons, 74 hours in Committee on the Floor of the House of Commons and 23 hours at the Committee stage on the Floor of this House? Is that not a reasonable time?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot be responsible for what happens in another
1294
place. That is for them to decide. We are concerned with what goes on in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, would agree with me that when you have a Bill concerned with the health of people it is well worth devoting a little time and thought to it to make sure one is getting it right. Of course, that is what we are doing over our Amendments. I have been most grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and my noble friends Lady Macleod and Lady Ward.
It seems to me that the Government have put themselves into a box in this Bill. As I understand the history of this matter, members of some trade unions felt that they could not work in hospitals where there were private patients. As a consequence, after considerable thought the consultants decided to work to rule, and the Hospital Service was in real danger of breaking down. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, intervened, the Goodman Agreement was reached and the Government said that they would legislate on the Goodman Agreement. They have produced this Bill in which, of course, they cannot alter anything at all. The Goodman Agreement is treated like the Bible and one may not alter anything because it is almost Holy Writ. From the point of view of other Members of this House it seems to me that there are matters that could be questioned because in the time allowed, great as is my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and indeed for all the others who took part in the agreement, it could be that a few months later somebody else might have thought of something which improves the situation.
The Board was so drawn up that it should have equal numbers of representatives of the doctors and of the other groups of people described in Schedule 1. As the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has quite rightly pointed out, there is nobody representing anybody who is not in the medical professional except that one of the representatives may be, though he does not have to be, a member representing National Health Service patients. Nobody at all is going to represent any other patients, perhaps because in some people's minds they do not matter. At any rate it is certainly not written into the Bill. All that we are

1295
proposing by this Amendment is that there should be three doctors and three others to include those people which the Government wish to have represented, but to widen the number to include nurses, physiotherapists and patients. That does not seem to me to be in any way an unreasonable request. With seven members it is going to be almost impossible to get a proper representation of the Hospital Service. To do it with five members, one of whom will be the chairman of the Board, seems to me to create a situation of very great difficulty indeed.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said—and he is on record as saying it in Committee—he does not feel this is an Amendment which will make a great deal of difference, and he answered his question by saying that if it does not make a great deal of difference to him he might as well accept it. My guess is that the reason why he does not accept it is not that he thinks the Amendment is wrong but that the Government cannot go outside the Goodman Agreement. That is the sticking point; that is why they have not put down any Amendments in this House, because they feel that nothing is to be altered from the Goodman Agreement. With all respect to the arrangements which were made last December, I do not think that we on this side of the House can accept that. It would strengthen the Board; we believe that if the Board comprised seven members it would work far better than if there were only five members.
On the question of deputies, this is a matter to which we shall be coming back later because we have Amendments down to Schedule 1. I should like the House to recognise that we are pressing this Amendment because we believe that it will improve the structure of the Board and make the scheme proposed under this Bill far more likely to work to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. It is certainly much more likely to show to everybody, both in the Hospital Service and outside, that justice is being done and is being seen to be done.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say something? I hate to repeat myself and
1296
have a great respect for the noble Baroness, as I have said. I believe that it is perfectly valid to employ the kind of argument that she started with, but I feel that it is fallacious to keep repeating that the Government have things written on tablets of stone. I do not know whether the noble Baroness was a member of the Government under the last Conservative Administration, but I cannot recall any Bill in which the Conservatives accepted Amendments when we were sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. It is quite right and proper that the Opposition should oppose, but I do wish they would not continue to repeat this nonsense that this is the first Government that have never accepted an Amendment. It is not true.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that I made the point that this was the first Government that would not accept Amendments to a Bill. What I said was that, so far as I know, this is the first occasion on which the Government have not put down any Amendments to a Bill. That is a very different matter. I recall accepting Opposition Amendments when I was a Minister on the Control of Pollution Bill. They may not have been very big ones, but I certainly recall it. What I say is that it makes it very difficult for us if the Government feel that they have brought forward a perfect Bill because nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, agreed can be altered.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I cannot understand the reason for the Amendment. The reason why I cannot understand it is that I do not understand why the Opposition have kept rigidly to seven, in view of the low number of five as presented by the Government within the Bill. The view expressed by the noble Baroness on this is that, out of the extra two members needed to bring the number up to seven, she wants to include another member from the medical profession. Why has she cited the medical profession? If she has any knowledge about the medical services in this country, either in local government administration or ever since the Health Service was set up, she will know that it is a very big field of operation. As my noble friend said from this side of the House not so long ago, it covers many fields. Take, for example, the inmates of what were at one time called the asylums,

1297
those whom we now call mental patients in a mental hospital. In my area—
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. I really think that he is out of order in making a speech at this moment. We are now on Report stage and it is usual on these occasions that when the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment exercises his right of reply the question is immediately put from the Woolsack. Unless we observe these rules, the Debate will become very untidy.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, all I was seeking to do was to challenge the noble Baroness—
Several noble Lords: Order! Order!
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend to observe the Rules of the House and the rules of general debate. Once the mover of a Motion has replied, the vote is taken and there are no further speakers.
3.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Amherst, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Exeter, M.

Moyne, L.

Amulree, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Norfolk, D.

Balerno, L.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, B.

Banks, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Barrington, V.

Goschen, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grey, E.

Porritt, L.

Blakenham, V.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Robbins, L.

Burton, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Byers, L.

Hankey, L.

Rochester, L.

Caccia, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvington, L.

Sackville, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cathcart, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Just, L.

Chesham, L.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Seebohm, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Clwyd, L.

Ironside, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cobham, V.

Kemsley, V.

Spens, L.

Coleridge, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strang, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinloww, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Templemore, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Terrington, L.

Deramore, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas, L.

Derwent, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Thurso, V.

Devonshire, D.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McNair, L.

Vickers, B.

Dudley, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Vician, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Wade, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Winstanley, L.

Elles, B.

Molson, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hamnett, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Hayter, L.

Popplewell. L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Hunt, L.

Russell, E.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kagan, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

White, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Williamson, L.

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

Maelor, L.

Willis, L.

Energlyn, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Purpose of ss. 3 to 5]:
3.33 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Board shall exercise its functions under Parts II and III of this Act with the object of securing, so far as practicable, the freedomߞ

(a) of resident and non-resident hospital patients to engage the services of medical and dental practitioners of their choice for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of their illnesses, whether or not they are able to pay for accommodation or services at hospitals; and

(b) of medical and dental practitioners employed less than whole-time in one or other of the national health services to choose the places (whether at NHS hospitals or elsewhere) where they will engage in private practice outside such employment, without thereby causing any interference to the giving of full and proper attention to persons seeking or afforded access, otherwise than as private patients, to any accommodation or services provided under the National Health Service Acts.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a repetition of Amendment No. 6 which we tabled on Committee and later withdrew. Your Lordships will be aware that on Committee we put forward two alternative Amendments; that is, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. On examination we discovered that there were
1300
objections to Amendment No. 5; however, we felt that, in view of the fact that this opportunity was again afforded on Report to move Amendment No. 6, it would be in the interests of further discussion of the Amendment if we repeated it on this occasion. Clause 2, as it stands in the Bill, therefore remains unamended. What we propose to do on this Amendment is to set out a different form of words. I believe there was a particularly important discussion on Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to the Long Title of the Bill, which he did at col. 1487 of the Official Report in connection with this clause. He said:
"Can he say"—
that is, can the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, say—
"why the same things are not contained in the Long Title of the Bill?…why was that not incorporated in the wording of the Long Title of the Bill, which makes no reference to either of them?"
The important point here is that if we read the Long Title of the Bill, which after all should give a general understanding of what the Bill is about, there is no reference to the very important matters set out in Clause 2, which makes specific reference to the separation. When we reach our discussions on the Long Title, we shall have a number of remarks to make on this subject.
When the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replied to that inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, he said:
"Presumably it was because the Government

1301
considered that a better place for it was in the Bill itself and not on the cover".
I think the problem goes rather deeper than it may appear to do, because at a later stage in his remarks (at col. 1492) the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, again took up the issue of the essential position of the Bill when he said:
"In this Bill we are seeking to do a very simple thing, even if noble Lords do not like it. It is to separate private practice from the National Health Service, not to stop private practice".
Our problem is this. We have a Long Title which is non-descriptive of those particular issues. It begins with the words,
"An Act to make further provision…".
Of course, it does very far from that. I was worried about the word "provision". I looked it up in the dictionary, thinking that of course it referred to furnishing of supplies, goods or something of the kind. I discovered that the word has a very ancient parentage in Parliamentary procedures going back as far as the year 1258 when we had the provisions of Oxford. There, provisions meant ordinances for checking the King's misrule and the reformation of Government.
I believe—and I say this without further prejudice to my remarks on the Long Title—that the opening words of the Bill are non-descriptive of what is to follow. And further, it would be much better, when we come to the Long Title, to consider our own wording which, of course, was set out on Committee stage in Amendment No. 143. I believe a real point is at stake here. The Government have chosen to run it the other way; to, have a non-descriptive Long Title, to place the emphasis on Clause 2 as a declaratory clause. We believe a much better wording lies in our Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, an identical Amendment was debated at Committee stage. It had a good deal of discussion. The discussion of the particular Amendment, which is before your Lordships today, is found at cols. 1491–92 of the Official Report. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has not raised any new points, apart from those raised at the Committee stage. My reply dealt fully with the situation. The purpose of Clause 2(1) is to give a broad declaration
1302
that private beds and facilities should be separated from the National Health Service.
The proposed Amendment would give the Board quite different responsibilities and alter the basis of the declaratory clause. Clause 2(2) already sufficiently covers the maintenance of the right to provide private practice by entitling doctors and dentists to work both privately and in the National Health Service establishments. In practice there was no need to include subsection (2) in the Bill since it merely reiterates the clearly stated provisions of the Reorganisation Act of 1973. It was included solely because, as part of the Goodman compromise, the Government undertook to guarantee the continued rights of doctors and dentists in this country to practice privately outside the National Health Service by repeating the provisions of earlier Statutes. It was no part of that agreement that the Board would be charged with the functions proposed in these Amendments, and we see no reason at all why an additional responsibility of this nature should be put on the Board.
Since the Committee stage I have studied carefully not only what the noble Lord and other noble Lords said on that occasion but also what the noble Baroness said, and I remain unconvinced that the proposals in this Amendment are workable. As I said in Committee, the choice of consultant is primarily that of a patient's general practitioner. With the greatest possible respect for the views put forward today and on previous occasions, I fail to see how the Board could begin to discharge the duty it is attempted to impose upon it. The Government have given a clear undertaking that nothing in this Bill will interfere with the right of the consultant who wishes to do private practice outside the National Health Service. Consultants will be free to choose where they will operate and patients will be as free as they are now, on the advice of their family doctors, to choose who shall treat them. To charge the Board with the responsibility of ensuring that this happens—when in fact it does happen, when in fact it will continue to happen—will not strengthen the guarantee one iota.
I say with respect that the Amendments are unnecessary and serve only to confuse

1303
what is at present a straightforward issue. The professional freedom of doctors is assured; the law allows it, and the law awards it, What more the Board could do to make that assurance any more certain I cannot possibly imagine. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope that the House will not accept it.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord not only because of the strain on his vocal chords, but in terms of the argument he has used. I should prefer the objectives as stated in the Amendment, but they are not the purpose of the Bill. The phraseology in the Bill states that the purpose of the Bill, with which I am wholly out of sympathy, is to divorce private practice from National Health Service hospitals. I think that an Amendment restating the purposes in much more acceptable terms would in fact contain an untruth, because it is not the purpose of the Bill to secure the things that are set out in the Amendment. The purpose of the Bill is simple. It is starkly stated in the clause as it is, and in my view that is how it should remain.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that Clause 2, as it stands, is not necessary to the Bill at all? It is quite simply a declaratory clause; it does not oblige anybody to do anything at all. In fact, the noble Lord could take out Clause 2, and the Bill could go on to the Statute Book without it, and everything could happen as he would like it to happen. What I think the noble Lord does not like about our Amendment is that it obliges the Board to do something, to give expression to a freedom of choice for patients, whether they are National Health Service patients or private patients; and this is really the objection to this. We on this side of the House think that Clause 2 is unnecessary in a Statute. It is simply a declaratory statement setting out the new apartheid in medicine.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
1304
"(3) Nothing shall be done under or by virtue of this Act, and nothing in this Act shall be construed, so as to operate to the detriment of any person (whether or not a consultant), who was on 12th April 1976 employed whole-time or part-time in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals, whether or not such detriment occurs under, by reason or in consequence of the terms of his employment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we had a very long debate on the question of detriment at the Committee stage, and we put down this Amendment again because we had hoped that the Government would bring forward an Amendment of their own. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, expressed sympathy with the Amendment and with the intention of it, and at the end of the Committee stage he agreed that he would look at the matter. I should like to begin by thanking him for the very long letter he has written to me about the whole position. Detriment is of course a very serious matter, whether one is a doctor or whether one is employed in any other capacity in the Health Service.
It might be helpful if I began by talking about not the doctors but all the others employed, because so far as I can see from the letter that the noble Lord has written to me, and indeed from what he said in Committee, the Government do not believe that anybody is going to suffer from the withdrawal of the 1,000 beds. I think that this is a very optimistic statement, but let us take it at its face value: that is, nobody is going to suffer at all, nobody will be not employed as a consequence of this, and there will be nothing to worry about.
Can the same be said as the Board proceeds to the other 3,400 beds when they are phased out; or can the Government confidently say that over 4,000 pay beds can be phased out of the hospitals, without a guarantee that the same beds will be used by National Health Service patients, and at the same time say that no member of staff will suffer any detriment at all? That is really the point at issue. I think that it is impossible for the Government to give that undertaking. I can quite appreciate that, if two beds are being phased out from one hospital, the staff will be absorbed into looking after the others and no doubt the others will benefit from that little extra time that those members of the staff are able to give. But I simply do not believe that it can

1305
possibly be true that over 4,000 beds could be phased out without anyone suffering any detriment at all.
It seems to us on this side of the House quite improper to introduce a piece of legislation which will have effects on the staff without making any provisions at all for any finacial loss that they may suffer. This Amendment is drafted in the way that it is because I believe that it is standard practice with trade unions when negotiating to see that no detriment is suffered by any of their members during a reorganisation. That, after all, is what this Amendment is asking for.
My colleagues and I believe that this is a very serious matter indeed to hundreds of people employed in the National Health Service and it is one to which I think the Government should address themselves. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said at the Committee stage, as reported at column 1513 of the Official Report of 4th November, referring not to the doctors, but to the others:
"…a few beds will be affected in some hospitals, and some hospitals will not be affected at all—that they will be absorbed, or could be absorbed"—
the "they" being the staff—
"(not necessarily will; it depends on them, but they could) into the National Health Service."
So that in Committee even in his mind there was some doubt as to whether everybody can be re-employed during this reorganisation process.
Therefore, if for no other reason, I think that the Amendment ought to be considered for the sake of the staff. I think we should also consider it for the sake of the consultants. I say again that I was grateful for the letter which the noble Lord wrote to me, and I should like to quote to the House the relevant paragraph. The noble Lord says:
"David Ennals has already made it clear that any maximum part-time consultant is entitled to exercise his option to convert to a whole-time contract if he wishes to do so. As you know, maximum part-timers undertake to devote substantially the whole of their time to the care of their NHS patients. As it is therefore very much a matter of personal preference whether they choose a maximum part-time or whole-time contract with the National Health Service, so long as they retain the right to convert from one to the other they are protected and no question of detriment can arise".
I read that paragraph to mean that consultants have an absolute right to go from the maximum part-time contract to the
1306
whole-time contract, and therefore there can be no question of detriment.
I turn, therefore, to the debate in another place. Dr. David Owen, during a somewhat similar debate in another place, made the following statement at col. 1577:
"A consultant who wishes to increase his commitment to the National Health Service may, subject always to the needs of the Service, transfer from a maximum part-time to a whole-time contract".
With all respect, that is not the same thing. As far as I can see from what Dr. David Owen is saying, there is no absolute right because, of course, there can be no guarantee that a maximum part-time consultant will be offered a full-time job. What if the hospital cannot afford it? After all, the maximum part-time consultant is not paid a full-time salary; and if there is not a job for him it is no use saying that it is his right to do it, because in fact he has not got that right as there is not a job.
This is the very important point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who no doubt made it much more clearly than I am making it this afternoon; but I find it deeply disturbing that we should be getting two versions of this situation, which could well affect a great many consultants who will inevitably suffer detriment, if their private practice is removed, if they would like to become whole-time consultants and if there is not a job for them. I think it should be recalled at the start of today's proceedings on this Bill that many part-time consultants became part-time consultants in the National Health Service under the procedures which were agreed when the National Health Service was set up and which have applied for nearly 30 years, and they can hardly have expected that in 1976 the rules would be changed and they might find themselves suffering, not only something which they may not like in principle but a fall in their income. I am sure that the whole House would feel that it is very unfair that it should have happened. This is a most important Amendment, and if justice is going to be seen to be done, not only to the health employees but also to the consultants, the Government ought to consider this matter most seriously. I beg to move.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I should like briefly to underline the point

1307
which I made in Committee, to which the noble Baroness has referred, with regard to the possibility of detriment in relation to the consultants. It is true that in her speech the noble Baroness dealt largely with detriment in relation to other workers, and I acknowledge that perhaps that is more important; but it is nevertheless a fact, from my experience and within my knowledge, that there are now consultants who are not full-time, who would like to be full-time but who cannot obtain full-time contracts with their hospital boards. There are those people now in existence.
If it were possible for the Government to say that any consultant who is on a part-time contract will without doubt have an option to go full-time if he so wishes, I think many of my fears would disappear; but it is a fact that at the moment there are those who even now would like to be full-time but who cannot be because their hospital boards are not in a position to offer them full-time contracts. While that possibility remains—and I honestly believe that in our present situation, with the present shortage of resources and the present kind of difficulties with which the Health Service is faced, and which will persist for some time—then I think the Government really have a duty to provide for this. I think this Amendment would provide for it, and I should like to hear that the Government will, in that spirit at least, accept it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Amendment because I believe that my noble friend, Lady Young, has an important point here. This Amendment has a very close bearing upon the next Amendment, which we shall come to before very long, and it is a matter which very much concerns all of us on this side of the House. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for sending me a copy of the letter which he sent to my noble friend. In that letter he criticised the Amendment as being in very broad terms. That may well be a valid criticism, but the issue which my noble friend has raised is, after all, one which it is for the Government to put right. It is an issue to which the Government should address their mind; and if detriment does not particularly concern the Government, then I think it should.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as to what I said on a previous occasion—that I had some sympathy—what I said then is what I would say now, and that is that I always have sympathy with a person who wants to try to guard against any sort of injustice arising in any way in anything. But when we talk about detriment, what do we mean? We all have a concept of what detriment means. But what do we mean by detriment in so far as this particular matter is concerned? When you take the National Health Service and what we are seeking to do under this Bill, I do not think it is possible to set out in clear and precise terms what would constitute detriment. A person could very easily feel that he had suffered detriment in some form or other as a result of any changes that may take place, and is therefore affected by it; but as far as I can see it would not be possible to provide, in terms that anybody could understand, that detriment in every sphere was covered. One has to face the fact that the acceptance of this Amendment would be tantamount to putting the Secretary of State at grave risk that, in attempting to implement the Act, he could be challenged in the courts by any individual National Health Service employee who claimed to perceive—not necessarily suffer, not necessarily experience, but perceive—some degree of detriment.
At the Committee stage I forgot to deal with a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised about maximum part-timers. I should be interested to have the name of any maximum part-timer who had applied for a whole-time post and had been refused. I should be interested to have one name.
Lord WINSTANLEY: There are several.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Then I hope the noble Lord will send them to me. If the noble Lord is talking about part-timers as distinct from maximum part-timers who want a full-time consultancy in the National Health Service, then I agree that there is some difficulty there; but he mentioned maximum part-timers. My Lords, if I may say so with the greatest possible respect, we know what is happening in the National Health Service. We probably know its weaknesses better than most other people.

1309
I think we know it strengths. I think we can make a valid assessment as to what is going to happen when this Bill becomes an Act and has to be put into operation.
I said at Committee stage that two-thirds of the hospitals have five or less pay beds; so if you remove them, you are really not going to throw anybody out of work, you are not really going to inconvenience anybody financially. The emphasis seems to be on the needs of the medical profession. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said he was much more concerned about the others, and so am I; but where two-thirds of the hospitals have five or less pay beds in them, if you remove them it is really going to make no impact at all upon the staff. If it is going to make any impact on the maximum part-timers, it is up to them if they think it worth their while financially, to become whole-timers in the NHS—and we shall be glad to have them. I fancy that many of them will find no difficulty in getting extra private work. For that reason and others we are not able to accept the Amendment.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I followed the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell with as much attention on this occasion as on previous ones, and it seemed to me that he was using contradictory arguments. His first argument was that "detriment" is a word which it is impossible to define, is a word that has no legal meaning; yet I am sure that the noble Lord has an idea of what we mean by the word "detriment" and I am sure that when he is talking about threats to jobs he has an idea of the concept we are aiming at. If it is a problem of definition, then the argument against the actual word "detriment" is not a genuine argument but a smokescreen.
I think that his second argument, that if this Amendment is accepted the Secretary of State will be constantly in the courts, was a bit of a smokescreen, too. I do not think that we heard that on the previous occasion. The noble Lord nods his head and so it seems to me that this is something that has been thought up for this occasion to try to put this Amendment in an unattractive light. The third argument is this. He says that nobody is really going to be thrown out of work. I do not want to quote him out of context but it was the general tenor of his remarks that people are not going to suffer. That was the argument to which I attached most
1310
weight. He seemed to be saying that people were not going to suffer and therefore there was no need for this Amendment.
If the noble Lord is convinced of that if he believes that people will not suffer, surely there is very little harm in reassuring everybody that they will not suffer, in case the Government happen to be mistaken, by inserting this Amendment as a safety net. If the noble Lord is really convinced that nobody will suffer, that is an argument for accepting the Amendment and not for rejecting it. I think that the noble Lord was seeking to cloud the issue with his first two arguments and that his third argument was an argument for accepting the Amendment. This I hope the Government will do.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, the noble Lord made another statement that does not quite come into any of those three. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said in effect that because a hospital had only five beds for private patients it was not a serious thing if they were dropped out. But if they had only five beds, obviously it is in a district where there is very little private practice. Nevertheless, there are physicians and surgeons in that district who would like to be able to take a private patient, probably at the patient's request, into a private bed. Does the noble Lord really think, if there were only five beds in that small district and they were phased out, that some new hospital containing five beds is going to take their place? If not, where are thoe beds to be found?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he came to answer this question because I am sure that he himself recognises the force of this argument. He has based his argument about the employees on the phasing out of the first 1,000 beds. I am not going to argue with his statement that two-thirds of the hospitals will have five beds or less and that it may well be it will have no impact on the staff. But one does not have to think very long or to look at Schedule 2 to see a hospital where, say, 44 beds are going to be phased out or—and my eye alights on Bradford—where 91 beds are to be phased out. And one can imagine this could have an effect

1311
on the staff. Of course, it is not going to happen within the first six months; it may be a gradual running down of staff; but we are considering the Bill as it stands. I find it extraordinary that the Government cannot see that there could be some detriment to some employees when over 4,000 beds are phased out without an absolute guarantee that they are going to be occupied by somebody else. If that guarantee has not been given the logical conclusion is that there will be fewer beds and therefore someone could find themselves out of a job or with less money.
As my noble friend Lord O'Hagan rightly said, the noble Lord has produced a new argument and has said that this might involve a lot of people going to court. This may be because my Amendment is not correctly drafted. I would quite understand if this were the case—although I have had professional advice on this one—because it so frequently happens. Therefore, we on this side of the House would be quite happy to accept an Amendment drafted by the Government which took care of some of these technical points if that is the stumbling block. But I suspect that the real stumbling block is that there is no intention to do anything about this problem because the Government have decided that it is a problem which does not exist.
I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the consultants and to what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said. I do not believe that he answered the point that his letter is not saying the same things as his right honourable friend said in another place where he admitted that there could be consultants who will not find private practice when the beds are phased out and who will not be able to become full-time consultants. Even if only one consultant suffers, I should have thought that this must be a matter of concern. It ought to concern Parliament when it is legislating for reorganisation that those who are going to be affected by it—and who in many cases will not have been consulted about the terms of the Bill—are not given the opportunity to have their own financial affairs looked after. I feel that I cannot let this Amendment go, that I must press it to a Division in simple justice to everyone who works in the National Health Service.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Airedale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gray, L.

Alport, L.

Cobham, V.

Greenway, L.

Amherst, E.

Coleraine, L.

Grey, E.

Amherst, of Hackney, L.

Coleridge, L.

Gridley, L.

Amory, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Craigton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hampton, L.

Balerno, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hankey, L.

Banks, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harvington, L.

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Hastings, L.

Barrington, V.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Deramore, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hertford, M.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hewlett, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dundee, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Blake, L.

Eccles, V.

Hives, L.

Blakenham, V.

Effingham, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bourne, L.

Elles, B.

Hunt, L.

Brock, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Burton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Byers, L.

Exeter, M.

Inglewood, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kemsley, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmany, L.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gisborough, L.

Kimberley, E.

Chesham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kinnaird, L.

Northchurch, B.

Stamp, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Long, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Loudoun, C.

O'Hagan, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Platt, L.

Sudeley, L.

McNair, L.

Porritt, L.

Suffield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Templemore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Redesdale, L.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Robbins, L.

Thomas, L.

Merrivale, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mersey, V.

Rochester, L.

Thurso, V.

Molson, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Monck, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Vickers, B.

Sandford, L.

Vivian, L.

Moyne, L.

Sandys, L.

Wade, L.

Munster, E.

Seebohm, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Selkirk, E.

Winstanley, L.

Newall, L.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Norfolk, D.

Skelmersdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hamnett, L.

Popplewell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hayter, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Brown, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kagan, L.

Spens, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wall, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McCluskey, L.

White, B.

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

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

Fletcher, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Wise, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Gregson, L.

Phillips, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.18 p.m.
Clause 3 [Immediate duty of Secretary of State as regards withdrawal of NHS beds from resident private patients]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("proposal") and insert ("proposals by revoking the authorisations for those beds, and to make those beds available for use by resident patients who are not private patients").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is straightforward and should be readily understood
1314
by anybody who is at all concerned to get the best for the National Health Service patients as a result of this Bill becoming law. My understanding of the background to the Bill, if we can move ourselves away from the details of the Goodman negotiations, is the concern that was expressed by some trade unionists that there was queue jumping, and that people could buy a bed in hospital whereas others were unable to do so, and that the way to deal with the matter was to phase out the private beds of the hospitals so that those who wanted private treatment could have it separately from those who were having treatment under the National Health Service. Hence the Bill we have before us which will divide the Health Service into two.
It would seemߞand certainly it was my impression, I admit, before I read the Bill, and when I started to think about it and read the background material—that all the beds phased out will be used by National Health Service patients. This is the logic of the situation and no other course is acceptable. In preparation for the speech I made at Second Reading, I was very surprised to discover that some beds had been phased out now and the rooms converted into offices. I felt that was a lapse that would not occur again and that one must not generalise from one particular case. That is always dangerous.
We put down an Amendment in similar terms in Committee. I was surprised at the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about this matter. He suggests in the first place that 1,000 beds are not needed anyway, as they are empty, so that that would be one way of disposing of them. How it will help the National Health Service queue if the beds are kept empty I am not clear. In the second place, the beds might be used for outpatients, though so far as I know the debate has never centred around whether outpatients are seen in proper order by consultants. So we are left to draw the conclusion that unless this Amendment is made, we are going through an enormous exercise at the end of which there will be fewer hospital beds, requiring, presumably, fewer members of staff—although this is not admitted—and one cannot see how any body in the National Health Service queue or any other queue is going to benefit.
I do not know whether I am alone in finding the whole situation extraordinary. This is an Amendment which would improve the Bill; which would not by any stretch of the imagination be said to be against the Goodman Proposals and which would be welcomed by anybody waiting to go into hospital, and which is perfectly in order. I beg to move.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, may I support most warmly the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. The case for this is unusually strong, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will find it possible to escape from the straitjacket in which he has so obviously been placed, and turn a sym-
1316
pathetic ear to this proposal. There are two defects, I would suggest, to Clause 3. Within 12 months the Board are required to bring forward proposals. They are not really proposals, because the Minister is bound to accept them, but let us call them proposals. Within 12 months there must be proposals, and those proposals must involve the withdrawal of some private beds. That is perfectly clear from the phraseology of this section. The proposals are compulsory after 12 months and they must contain provision for removing pay beds.
That is the first defect, which this Amendment cannot solve. But the second defect is that even when, because of the proposal that the Minister has to accept, private beds have been abolished, there is no guarantee that they do not become offices for administrators, additional laboratories, and the rest. There is no requirement that those beds should continue to be used for patients. That seems to me to be appalling. In involves a potential reduction in the number of beds for patients since there is to be a proposal reducing the number of beds—and, incidentally, even though alternative private provision is not, and cannot be made, sufficient within 12 months, it still has to be done—and when it is done one does not require those beds to be turned over to general patients. That seems to me to expose the whole business behind the Bill. This Bill is not devised—and this is why I have expressed my views on an earlier Amendment—to improve the quality of medical service to the public. It is devised to serve a narrow and undesirable political purpose; and this is an illustration of how serving that purpose will probably lead to a reduction in the provision for sick people rather than even maintaining it at its present level, as would be secured by the acceptance of this Amendment.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, listening to our discussion on this Bill the other day when my noble friend Lady Young pressed this point of the use that was going to be made of these beds, I was rather shaken by the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, left on my mind that he was blurring his answer a little. He referred to the beds for resident patients and then referred to beds for medical uses for other patients. That was fine but, from my recollection, he implied that

1317
possibly the vacated space could be used for what I think he called, "organisational purposes". That horrified me, because I would have thought the ordinary person feels that the besetting sin of the Health Service is the extension of administration as against medical attention. I hope the noble Lord will be rather more specific today than he was the other day; that is, from my memory of what he said, because I cannot quote his words precisely. I hope he will make it clear that the accommodation which will be thrown up by the exclusion of private beds will not be used for organisational or administrative purposes.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should also like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It seems to me of enormous importance that the beds released from the private sector should be made available at all times to the National Health Service. Also, in many cases, there may not be enough beds for private demand, so those patients may well require treatment on the National Health, and that will therefore make the demand on National Health Service beds that much greater. One of the objects of the Bill is said to be to ensure that there shall be no queue-jumping, but the corollary must be that there should then be a shorter queue for National Health patients. Without this Amendment, I think the beds will be lost and we shall see the horror of creating more and more offices to be filled by more and more people for administrative purposes, who will be taking money from the sharp end, so to speak, of the Health Service to the administrative side, which can do nothing but harm. With 1,000 fewer beds, there will be no question of a shorter queue; there will be a longer queue for National Health patients. In addition, those patients, who remain private and will no longer be treated in National Health Hospitals where there is no room for them, will be going off to private hospitals. That will increase the likelihood of consultants spending more time travelling and less time in hospitals, and thus their value will be that much less. I am afraid that it is another case of everybody having to suffer so that a few may not gain.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should also like to support this Amendment. I agree with every word
1318
that has been spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and others. I should like to add one further point that has not been made quite clear. Clause 3 explains that these beds are to be done away with. It does not say, as has been stressed, that the accommodation should then be used for other patients. But who is going to do away with them? It says that the Secretary of State is going to be advised by the Board. In the Bill, if I remember rightly, there is in Schedule 2 a list of areas and places where the beds are to be withdrawn; that is the first 1,000. Are the local health boards, the local people and local hospitals going to be consulted, or is this a purely arbitrary decision that is to be made by the Secretary of State?—because the provision is that these beds have to be given up in the first year when the Bill has become law. I object to that because in all this legislation I see continually authority being imposed either from the Secretary of State or from above, as it were, rather than consulting people on the spot.
I suppose that I am an ingrained local government person, and I find it very annoying when all this legislation is for ever a form of authority from above, with, so far as one can make out, very little consultation with the authorities who are responsible in given areas for providing hospital accommodation, treatment and so on for people living in those localities. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether I am unnecessarily worried about this, but I think it is something which should not be encouraged, because the responsibility for this kind of decision should lie in the localities where people know the demand for hospital accommodation.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment very warmly. There is no question that there is a very strong tendency to convert these beds, which will fall vacant, into uses which do not include the treatment of patients. This has been done, as we all know, and it will continue to be done. We ought to take definite steps to stop beds being used for purposes other than the care of patients. It is utterly repugnant to me that a number of beds should be taken from any hospital—and this includes large wings of private hospitals—and used for something which an administrator, or some other person, can think of to satisfy

1319
a simple, although quite ineffective, code and not, in fact, used for the treatment of patients, and that is the essential which ought to be protected.
Lord PORRITT: My Lords, I should also like to support this Amendment very strongly indeed. When I spoke on Second Reading, I said that this was a purposeless Bill—and I called it several other things, too—but for the first time this Amendment gives it some purpose. If we are going to discuss detail in a Bill which is probably unnecessary anyway, let us try to make something practical out of it. For the first time I see a ray of light in this Amendment, and I support it most strongly.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, over many years now a most emotive campaign has been waged, and it has been said that the existence of private beds in National Health Service hospitals deprived the ordinary National Health Service patients of amenities which they could have had earlier. The whole campaign, with hundreds of questions and debates in another place and possibly here, too, has been to the effect that these beds, being solely for private patients, were depriving National Health Service patients. The whole case that these people will gain by not having to wait so long and that they may get a serious operation done earlier than they could hitherto, when a less seriously ill patient could go into a private wing, falls to the ground as a complete sham on the public unless it is guaranteed that those beds will be used for the purpose for which the campaign was waged.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment to a certain extent. I am one of those people who spoke on Second Reading in favour of turning the private beds that are to be phased out into amenity beds, which I believe is the right thing to do. But this Amendment refers specifically to "beds", and that is one thing that worries me. I know of a number of hospitals which cannot fill their National Health Service beds, because their operating theatre space is out of date or out of use, and what they need is better operating theatres. While I agree that we should not use these beds for admin-
1320
istrative purposes, I think that we are tying the hands of the administrators. If the Amendment means for use for the better treatment of patients in a hospital, that I would agree with. But what worries me is the word "beds", because in many cases we could create better investigating facilities, better operating theatres and all those things which are part of providing a better service. Although I believe that we need a great many more amenity beds in hospitals, we must be very careful that we do not tie the hands of the authorities and make them retain a bed as a bed even if that is not a sensible thing to do.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should also like to support this Amendment. I certainly agree with the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, but I must, with very great respect, remind her that this is the Government's Bill. Our Amendment is an attempt to remedy its worse excesses. We are, of course, speaking about "beds", meaning bedsteads and bed furniture, but what are by implication included are the administrative back-up services. Several noble Lords have referred to back-up services—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, referred to them by implication—and these are a very important factor. When we say "beds", we mean different things in different hospitals. In some hospitals, we mean individual wards which are permanently known as private wings or private wards; in other hospitals, it is a quite different situation. It is for the hospital registrars to nominate two or three beds as private beds, and these may vary from season to season. They do not vary a great deal from the remainder in appearance, nor are they necessarily in the same part of a hospital, and that alone is a very strong argument for saying "beds", as as we do in this Amendment.
I should like to refer to what the Secretary of State said only a very short time ago in this regard, because he raised the very important issue of the avoidance of waste. Of course, both in the first 1,000 beds, and in the remaining 3,444 which are to be phased out, we have a very important national resource. If we can take as they stand the Secretary of State's remarks, when he was addressing doctors in his constituency in Norwich, I think we may hope that the Government

1321
will take up this Amendment, because he said—and I quote from the publication Pulse for Saturday, 13th November—
"It is clear that for the next two or three years the Health Service will have to be run on a tight financial rein. I am determined that standards of patient care must continue to rise. This can only be achieved if at every level we check waste, improve efficiency and operate on a basis of carefully worked out priorities."
I wholeheartedly agree with those remarks of the Secretary of State, if they are meant to mean in relation to this Amendment what we think they mean, which is that this national resource, these very valuable beds—at present, private beds—can be used for the National Health Service as a whole. I feel sure that your Lordships will most wholeheartedly approve of this Amendment.
4.39 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should first like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she will read the Report of what I said on previous occasions. She started off by implying that what I said was that, as the 1,000 beds were not necessary in the private sector as pay beds, they would not be necessary in the National Health Service. That just is not so, as she will see if she reads Hansard. If I am to be quoted, then I should like to be quoted accurately. At no time have I said that, and at no time have I implied it.
One of the difficulties with this Amendment—and there are several—is that it says:
"and to make those beds available for use by resident patients who are not private patients"—
not most of them, not 99 per cent. of them, but all of them. So you cannot use the bed space of one or two beds for any other purpose. When one considers the changes to be made in a hospital from day to day, and week by week, of necessity there has to be a constant looking at how best to use space, and for what purpose. For one purpose only: to offer the patients in the hospital the most effective, the most efficient and the best possible service. Surely, this is the purpose of every hospital.
We discussed a similar Amendment at some length during the Committee stage; it was then Amendment No. 16. We are now asked in this Amendment to place obligation. But just let us think
1322
what it means to put an obligation on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make the beds so withdrawn available to National Health Service patients. No single speaker, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington—who speaks with far more experience from the lay person's point of view than anyone else in your Lordships' House about running a regional hospital area—has made this point about an obligation. My right honourable friend has got to give an undertaking to make every bed available for in-patients. In my submission, this requirement is quite unreasonably restrictive. There is no real difference between the Government and the Opposition. I hesitated to say that because immediately noble Lords opposite leap to their feet and say, "Well, why not accept it?". But there is no real difference between the Government and the Opposition on the desirability of putting accommodation and facilities released by the phasing out of pay beds, to the best possible use for patients in the National Health Service.
However, if we are to be limited to the use of pay beds solely for in-patients, because the Amendment says "resident patients", we could be frustrating our own objective as far as the improvement of treatment of people is concerned. Some pay beds could be more effectively and more economically used for treatment—I went all through this when we debated it at some length on Committee—where we could get out-patient departments to do more surgery than they are doing at present. The skill and the competence is there. But very often a person has to be held in hospital for half a day or a day; it means putting him in a bed and then letting him go in the late afternoon or evening. Are we to say we cannot use a released pay bed for that purpose? There are all sorts of reasons for having day patients, not only for surgical purposes but for examination purposes, and for all sorts of purposes. Are we going to say that this is a wrong use of the beds which will be released? But noble Lords will go through the Lobby in favour of this just in order to defeat the Government.
What I am asking noble Lords to do, and I say this with the greatest possible respect, is to use some common sense on this. If this Amendment were carried,

1323
the Secretary of State will have no option. He could not use discretion, nor could the hospitals use their discretion, nor could the surgeons and other people serving the hospitals use their discretion. They might say, "I should like this person in for half a day", or, "I should like this person in for a day. I want to do this examination", and this is what we ought to be doing. We must deploy our resources in the best possible way. Two or three nurses might fall ill. Are we to say that those nurses could not use those beds?
As our skills improve, as our knowledge improves, as science improves—and today it is improving at a rate which which we cannot keep pace—we shall want more equipment and more machinery. If that extra machinery and better equipment is going to help patients, is it not perhaps wise to provide extra space for it? I have seen a good many pieces of new equipment such as scanners which take up the space of a sizeable room. There is not one doctor in your Lordships' House who would not sacrifice—and if he would, I hope he will get up and say so—the space taken up by two or three beds for a brain scanner, or something like that. One brain scanner will deal more effectively, more efficiently and more quickly with a whole number of patients than the methods used at one time. Of course we must make every possible bed available for patients in the National Health Service.
We recognise that something similar has to be provided in the private sector, hence these assurances, and the fact that the private sector can build hospitals of 100 beds (without authorisation, I was going to say) and 75 beds outside London. We see the need for this. We recognise the need for the National Health Service to make available every bed. But because it is unrealistic, because it is really unfair, and because it is illogical, do not tie the Secretary of State to saying that every bed so released has got to be used for a resident patient. A Member of your Lordships' House, one not so very far from me, had a minor accident and had to go to hospital and stay in for just a few hours. We must offer these facilities. I want to ask the noble Baroness to consider further—I am sure she has already thought about it, and I hope she will not press this—whether she thinks she
1324
can honestly go through the Lobby against the Government on this Amendment.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, sits down, will he try to explain to us in what way the use of a bed for an out-patient is something contrary to the care of a patient? We want to ensure that the beds are used for the care of patients. This is a very laudable method of treatment. But I cannot help feeling that the argument of the noble Lord, put forward so strongly, is based on a false premise.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the permission of the House, if I may speak a second time, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, for intervening. The whole point here is that the patient has to be resident. I think noble Lords who are members of the medical profession will know better than I, that "residence" means occupying a bed at 12 midnight; that is when the count is taken. We are saying that we cannot be tied to this, that some beds must be available for people, if only for a few hours, when they need a bed for some minor purpose.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I would go along with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, in feeling that the motive behind the Amendment is a good and right one, whereas the wording is too restrictive. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has given us a very long lecture on that very subject. The one point he has omitted to make is that the Government agree that these beds should be used for the kind of purpose the noble Lord has just been detailing to us and, therefore, the Government will put down their own Amendment in those terms.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be pleased to hear that in some respects I find myself in agreement with him, because, of course, I and my colleagues would like to see the most flexible use of hospital facilities. That is clearly a sensible thing to do; nobody is going to quarrel with that. No one could have put the case more clearly than the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. She based her argument on the premise that the trouble with the waiting

1325
list is not always the fact that there are not beds available or that there are beds occupied by private patients; even if there were unlimited beds available the queue is for the use of consultants and surgeons and the operating theatre. That is why in a number of cases there is a queue; it is nothing to do with availability of beds.
I wish we could be debating a situation that was actuated by reason and common sense, because that would obviously be a world in which we should all find it much easier to debate and discuss. But this is not a world of our choosing; this is not a Bill of our choosing. I think the reason why the Government do not like this is the reason so admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that if the Amendment were carried it would expose the Bill for what it is. It is in fact not designed to help people in the National Health Service queue. It is exclusively designed to separate private and National Health Services. This has got nothing to do with the good of the patients, whether they are National Health patients or private patients. The one thing we can do is at least to insist that the beds phased out are used for patients.
I am not a lawyer, but I have just looked up the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which is referred to continually in the Bill before us. As I understand it, it is Section 2(1) which defines the out-patient. Subsection (1) starts:
"If the Minister is satisfied, in the case of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services, that it is reasonable so to do he may authorise accommodation and services at the hospital to be made available…".
If he can authorise accommodation, then presumably he can authorise somebody to come in for a day. If we have to depend on the definition of an in-patient as somebody there at 12 o'clock, I think this defies common sense. I cannot see that my Amendment would exclude somebody coming in, perhaps having had a car accident, in the middle of the night and leaving at lunch time, and therefore not being regarded as somebody "in residence". I do not quite know what he is doing if he is not in residence; he is certainly not an out-patient and he is certainly not sitting in the out-patient queue.
It seems to me that we are now on a thoroughly bureaucratic point of definition. If we are interested in doing some-
1326
thing about the patient, it would be perfectly possible for the hospital administrators and the Government to find a way round this difficulty. All that we are anxious to secure in this Amendment is that the beds phased out will be used for National Health Service patients. I have described them as "in-patients", because I was under the impression that if you were in bed you were an in-patient and if you were not in bed you were an out-patient. That may be over-simple, but it seems to me a perfectly understandable definition.
I therefore cannot help thinking that the fear that somebody coming in after having had an accident, and requiring to stay in hospital for 24 hours could not have one of those beds, is groundless. It seems to me that anybody occupying a hospital bed for 24 hours would in fact be an in-patient. It seems to me that the definition given of an out-patient includes accommodation, which must include somebody staying some time in bed. Indeed, one of the examples the noble Lord gave, of nurses falling ill, I would think would be exactly a case in point of a person for whom a bed ought to be available. If they fall ill at work, why should they not have one of the beds; why should it not be available to them, even if they are ill for only one day? The argument which the noble Lord is using, the need for flexibility—which is a very good argument indeed and one which I accept—is actually precluded by his own Bill. All we are doing is trying to make his Bill work more effectively for the National Health Service patient.
I have been very grateful for the support I have had from all sides of the House. In view of the noble Lord's reply, I do feel I must press this Amendment. I shall be very interested to see whether his colleagues in another place decide to take it out. I would like responsibility for taking it out to rest firmly with them, because at the end of the day, if the queue does not get shorter, if the private bed accommodation is used for offices, we shall know whose is the real responsibility. It will certainly not rest on us.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Alport, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Norfolk, D.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Goschen, V.

Northchurch, B.

Amory, V.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Arran, E.

Greenway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Barnby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hankey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hastings, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blake, L.

Hertford, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Blakenham, V.

Hewlett, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bourne, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brock, L.

Hives, L.

St. Just, L.

Burton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt, L.

Sandys, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Chesham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Spens, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strang, L.

Coleridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Templemore, L.

Deramore, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Dulverton, L.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Elles, B.

Molson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Vivian, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Wise, L.

Ferrers, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Grey, E.

Pear, L. (L. Privy Seal.]

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Amulree, L.

Hamnett, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brown, L.

Janner, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kagan, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stamp, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McCarthy, L.

Vaizey, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Wade, L.

Fulton, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Melchett, L.

Willis, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Meston, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

5.4 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("available") and insert ("accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and, if it would be for the convenience of the House, to speak to Amendment No. 6 with it. We are still dealing with Clause 3, and in subsection (3) there is a list of various matters to which the Board must have due regard when making its original initial proposal, for want of a better word, about the initial withdrawal of 1,000 beds. There are, under subsection (3), paragraphs, (a), (b) and (c), and my two Amendments deal with paragraph (b). I seek to alter the wording. It might be for the convenience of the House if I simply read out what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to make the words in paragraph (b) run as follows:
"the extent to which, in the case of each NHS hospital in Great Britain, alternative accommodation and facilities at a satisfactory standard for the private practice of medicine and dentistry are reasonably accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice (whether privately or at NHS hospitals) and available at reasonable cost in the area served by that hospital".
That is what I am trying to make the Bill do.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made some observations. He very much hoped that when the word "reasonable" was used in this Bill as regards the accessibility of hospitals, provision of alternative accommodation, and the like, it would be used in the meaning "reasonable in every sense". He wanted it to be a wide interpretation rather than a narrow interpretation. I think that my Amendment has, if not the actual support of the noble Lord either by his physical presence or by his words on the 21st October, the spirit of Lord Goodman in that it seeks to make the word "reasonable" wider rather than narrower.
At the Committee stage we passed Amendment No. 68 to Clause 4(8), and passed another Amendment to Clause 8(2)(b), both of which dealt with freedom of choice. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, supported us on that occasion at least in the second part of what I am seeking to do. The words I am seeking to insert enforce the
1330
Board to take a wider view of their responsibilities when they are looking at proposals for removing the initial 1,000 beds. They call upon the Board to look at accessibility for patients and also to ensure that the choice of practitioners for patients is conserved. At the same time they ensure that the question of cost is something which the Board can consider when it is looking at the alternative accommodation.
I do not think that any noble Lord could say that my Amendments are seeking to impose a major alteration of either the objective or the substance of the Bill. They are merely tidying up and making it fairer to the interests of those who will be affected by it. I believe that they are fully in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wanted both when he was acting as Government broker between the warring parties and when he was speaking on the Bill at Second Reading. I beg to move.
5.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in answering Amendment No. 5, I were to speak at the same time to No. 6. This matter was discussed in Committee. These Amendments seek to import into Clause 3 additional criteria of accessibility and cost of alternative facilities which were added to Clause 4 at the Committee stage. We believe they are wholly inappropriate to Clause 3, particularly as the pay beds to be phased out under these provisions were those which were least used by paying patients.
The criteria in Clause 4 relate to an on-going situation, but the intention behind Clause 3, and the proposals upon which it was based, was that there are a considerable number of pay beds which could be phased out quickly because there is little demand for them. Where pay bed usage by paying patients is very low, clearly this is either because there is insufficient demand from either consultants or patients for facilities for private practice or because that demand is already being adequately met by the private sector. We feel that the additional criteria which the Amendment seeks to include are consequently an unnecessary elaboration.
I must however return to the noble Lord's concern to ensure that the cost of

1331
private facilities should be reasonable. What he is afraid of, if I may presume to say so, is that the private sector will price itself out of the market unless it is subjected either to some kind of price control or to competition from the Health Service. Is it really that he is afraid that without the help of the National Health facilities private medicine will not be able to survive? There is no evidence of that. I cannot think that he lacks confidence in the ability of private enterprise to provide alternative facilities at reasonable cost. The Nuffield Nursing Home Trust certainly does not share his fears, if I am right in saying that they are his fears, and as one noble Lord said in Committee, the Trust is currently building five new nursing homes. But if the Board, since it is the Board whom your Lordships have decided will phase out the first 1,000 beds, is to decide what is a reasonable cost, what are the criteria by which it must be guided: pay bed charges, what the provident associations customarily pay, or what? Are we not in danger of asking the Board to shoulder what the Government think is another impossible task? Is it not enough that in phasing out the first 1,000 beds, the Board—as your Lordships have decided, or the Secretary of State as the Government proposed originally—should have regard to the two criteria laid down in the Goodman Proposals, clear unequivocal criteria: under-utilisation of existing facilities and availability of reasonable alternatives? The Government think it is and we feel that in the circumstances the Amendment is not necessary.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord O'Hagan in the Amendment, which follows naturally from the Amendments which we proposed and carried in Committee. One of the considerations in ensuring that the facilities for private patients are reasonably available is not only that they should be accessible and that they should be able to have a doctor of their choice, but that they should be available at reasonable cost. This of course must include the cost of the facilities which might on occasion be used in NHS hospitals, which is all part of the agreement. It would be extremely easy for a Secretary of State to put the charges for these facilities at such a price that they were not offering similar facilities.
1332
Thus, my noble friend in moving the Amendment is not asking for anything other than to spell out some of the facilities and requirements in order that the Goodman Proposals may be met adequately.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, we will be returning to the question of charges in detail later and I do not want to open that debate now. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, began with calm moderation and then stirred things up a little by implying that my intention in moving the Amendment was to ask for price support or Government support or a subsidiary for the private sector, when of course I was not asking for anything of the sort. Perhaps I might remind him that the subsidy works the other way round: that every pateint who not only pays his taxes and NHS contributions but who then in addition pays for private treatment is releasing services and accommodation for the NHS rather than depriving it of them. However, we shall be returning to the question of costs later. The noble Lord described the Amendment as an unnecessary elaboration. I will study the Official Report of his remarks and, if necessary, table an Amendment at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.18 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("area") and insert ("district")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if at the same time I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, both of which are also designed to leave out the words "area or areas". In Committee my noble friend Lady Young and I tried to establish what "area" or "district" meant. Following that discussion we felt that we should look into the matter further and I retreated to the Library to see if I could discover from the Oxford Dictionary what definitions were given for the words, but I did not come away too happy. When I looked up the word "district", I found

1333
that relatively straightforward. It was described as:
"A territory made for special administrative purposes, or a division or parish with its own church or chapel and clergyman…".
which I thought was quite homely. However, when I went on to look up the meaning of the word, "area", I did not get far because it was described as "vacant ground", which did not appear particularly helpful; I found out that it could be interpreted as "a region, tract or range". Obviously "area" is a difficult area of the language to define.
In Committee I said that some of us had experienced extreme difficulties in the country districts since the break-up of certain areas. I mentioned the Bath Orthopaedic Hospital and, I believe, the Taunton Orthopaedic Hospital. They were made into one, and parents had to travel some 65 miles on a Sunday or weekend to visit their children or their relatives. I noticed the hardship which resulted from this. I thought the best thing to do was to see whether the doctors and consultants could work any better. When preparing my Committee stage speech, I found the counties of Cumberland and Yorkshire were vast areas, and that if there was to be a National Health Hospital at one end and a private hospital at the other, I could not imagine how the doctors or consultants were going to work between the two. Journeys would amount to many hours, and if there were towns in the way and no by-passes they would find it difficult in an emergency to get from one hospital to another. I am not referring so much to cities like London or Birmingham but to the counties where we have extreme problems and where, if there was snow or ice, the doctor would find travel increasingly difficult.
If rather than "area"—I think "area" goes for a region or a range or a tract—we were to have the word "district", we should have a smaller, more compact unit, and certainly, in my view, a more economical unit. There would not be the same expense for a consultant to move, with the cost of petrol at nearly£1 a gallon; wear and tear of the car and tyres and the possibility of a breakdown. In my view, that would all have to be added to the National Health Service cost. That is an important point. If we could have a small district, I am sure it would not be a finan-
1334
cial burden on the State or on the patients who are going to suffer if the doctor does not get to them speedily. I am convinced that the smaller the area the more efficient it will be. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, if evidence were needed of the useless prolonging of a debate, the moving of this Amendment serves an excellent occasion. Any legal person asked to differentiate between the "area served by a hospital" and "district served by a hospital"—"served" being the operative word—would be quite unable to distinguish. Either the noble Viscount cannot read English accurately or he is attempting to hold up the debate.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Brown, intervenes in such terms, he might address himself to Clause 11. The point about this Amendment is that "area" is not defined in the Bill. We have defined "district" and put it into the interpretation clause so that it actually means something. The difficulty about the Bill is to find out what the Government mean by "area". They have not defined it. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brown, knows what the area means. Perhaps it refers to an Area Health Authority, which is an area which is coterminous with county council and is certainly an area which I understand. The object of these Amendments is not to take up the time of the House but to find out what is the Government's intention.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, if anybody could possibly interpret the phrase "in the area served by the hospital" as an "area health board", then they are in great confusion. The point is that "the area served by a hospital" is as clear as you can get in a Bill. If you want to define the Bill down to the last iota you will not succeed.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for trying to help out. I suggest that if the Opposition could find another word which would mean the same as "the catchment area served by the hospital", we would look at it, but the Amendments are in effect the same as the ones we had at the Committee stage. There was a full discussion at the Committee stage on identical Amendments.

1335
Clause 4(8)(a) reflects paragraph 3(d) of the Goodman Proposals of 15th December that:
"for the retention of beds or facilities for private practice in National Health Service hospitals there should be reasonable demand for private medicine in the area of the country served by those particular hospitals".
Subsection 8(b) also reflects that part of the Goodman Proposals which said:
"For the abolition of beds or facilities for private practice in National Health Service hospitals there should be available sufficient accommodation or facilities for the reasonable operation of private medicine to the area of the country served by those particular hospitals".
Acceptance of these Amendments would involve departure from these criteria as explained at Committee stage. A hospital is not limited to an assigned geographical sphere of operation; a regional or national unit may serve a region as a much wider catchment area. The area may change from time to time depending on changes in organisation and scope of services. The "area or areas served by the hospital" comprise those parts of the country from which patients are customarily received.
As I said in Committee, we do not accept that demand should be related to the district served by hospitals as the Amendment suggests. To do so would be too restrictive and might make it impossible for the Board to have regard to the fact that a particular regional unit serves an area wider than either the management district or management area by which it is administered. Therefore I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for once again explaining it to me. As to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, we could well have enjoyed his advice at the Committee stage. As the Government had put down their Amendments we needed to understand the Bill, and no doubt as we go on with our Amendments we shall eventually come to understand it more. However, I will accept the arguments of the noble Baroness. I wanted the Bill to define "district" and "areas". We have had this in many Bills before. Certainly I have not set myself out to hold up the House but rather, on behalf of my noble friends, to find out how the word is interpreted. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 9. This is a matter which we debated at the Committee stage but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will appreciate that I have read every word he said at the Committee proceedings, and on Second Reading. It is because my colleagues and I feel that it is so important that when the Board makes a decision it should give its reasons for its decision that we put this Amendment down again. I hope that I am not going either to misunderstand or to misquote the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in what he said at column 335 and 336 of the Official Report during the Committee proceedings. He said that the reasons why he could not accept the Amendment that the Board should give its reasons, were two; one is that the Board had to have regard to a set of four principals—that I fully understand—and, secondly, as far as I can understand, and I quote from column 336:
"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."—[Official Report, 10/11/76; col. 336.]
When the Board makes a decision it will do so believing in the reasons that it, at any rate, has for the decision that it has taken. But suppose that there was a disagreement with the reasons. That might not be because the chairman has or the Board have failed in their duty. On the contrary, they might have acted wisely and well. Nevertheless, someone might not agree with their findings. It would surely be only sensible that the Board, in giving its decisions, should give the reasons why it has reached those decisions. To turn to the noble Lord's rhetorical question in col. 336 where he asked why we were asking the Board to give its reasons, I ask why the Board should not give its reasons? So far as I can ascertain, every board of importance has to state the reasons for its decisions. A court must do so, so must a tribunal, so must

1337
the Ombudsman and the local Ombudsman. It cannot possibly be thought that the Board is not as important as any of those organisations.
At a time when, regrettably, nobody's statements are taken at their face value, and when the public endlessly question any decision and when the demand is for more open Government instead of statements without reasons, I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment that the Board should be required to give the reasons for its decisions. I realise that the Board will be required to publish an annual report and that a great many annual reports are published by different parts of the Department of Health and Social Services, and I welcome them. However, if I may say so, that is not the same thing as giving the specific reasons for a specific decision. I believe that it is up to the Government to explain why they will not agree that the Board should be required to give its reasons rather than that we should have to say why it should not. It seems to me that not to require the Board to give its reasons will be a most retrograde step at a time when all the public pressure is on Government Departments, local authorities, the courts and any organisations of repute and importance in society to be more open in what they do. I believe that it would be a most retrograde step if this were the one exception. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment. We had this debate at the Committee stage and I asked the noble Lord one or two questions which were not answered. Suppose no reasons are given for a decision by the Board. As my noble friend Lady Young said, everyone who is in the position of adjudicating, whether in the courts or as an Ombudsman, has to give reasons for a decision, or should do so. The Board is not to give a reason. Suppose that a controversial decision has been made by the Board and that it cannot be questioned. It seems to me that that would be going against all the traditions of our judicial behaviour. People in this country can always challenge something that they do not agree with.
It may be that a lot of decisions taken by the Board will be passed over as
1338
perfectly simple and normal and that nobody will want to question them; but suppose they do want to do so, how can they do it? Do they have to go to the courts or can they write to the chairman of the Board and ask for the reason? If they can, is the reply to be confidential or can it be made public? It seems to me to be quite extraordinary to set up what will be an extremely important group of people dealing with a very important section of our public life—namely, health and the organisation of hospitals—and then to say that the Board is not required to give any reasons for a decision that it may make. The Board's decisions would probably not be challenged in 90 per cent. of cases, but suppose they were challenged on 10 per cent. I cannot see how the Government, who would normally be fighting for this provision if they were sitting where we are, can justify taking this action of pulling down a shutter against the public for, apparently, no reason. At least, the only reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was that the members of the Board will be so distinguished, so important, so carefuly chosen and so well organised they they cannot go wrong.
I have never known any committee or body that was infallible, and, in any case, I believe that in a democratic society anybody should be able to be challenged to justify a major decision—and, clearly, that is the only kind of decision that would be challenged. I hope that the noble Lord will look on this as being something that definitely fits into the idea of democratic Government and of the rights of people against the bureaucracy.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like warmly to support the Amendment and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, in what she suggested. She said that perhaps 10 per cent. of decisions might be challenged. It might be more—perhaps 90 per cent. of the decisions that the Board reaches will be challenged—but let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that 10 per cent. of decisions are challenged. Let us suppose that, in a particular case, a decision is reached about a hospital in Birmingham. I note with interest that at the present moment there are 129 pay beds there and that 28 are to be withdrawn in the first stage. Let us suppose that in an important hospital

1339
which is probably known to the noble Lord—the Queen Elizabeth Hospital—the number of beds is scheduled for further reduction and that the Board reaches this decision and publishes it. So far as the consultants, the members of the public and the patients are concerned, that is the end of it, but it may well be that the beds concerned affect one particular specialty and relate to some important research project. We shall come to research later in the Bill. I suggest that it is a matter of great importance for the Department and the Minister himself that the Board should be able to defend its own actions by stating in public in a very open way the reasons for reaching its decisions.
Let us consider what will happen if the Board does not publish its reasons. An issue is raised in perhaps 10 per cent. of cases, as suggested by my noble friend. There will be an enormous number of questions raised in another place or in your Lordships' House. These will be raised quite properly because the Board will not have fulfilled what my noble friends take to be its democratic duty—that is, to state its reasons. What a waste of Parliamentary time!What a waste of research and so on when, had the Board stated in the first instance what its intentions were, the difficulties could have been overcome automatically. What we are trying to overcome is misunderstanding, and misunderstanding grows where information is not supplied.
5.39 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I have tried to follow this question throughout the passage of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will remember that when we discussed it at the Committee stage I raised the relationship between Clause 4 and Clause 10. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I have this wrong, but, as I understand the purpose of the Bill, it is to impose certain limits on what the Secretary of State can do about authorisations for the revocation of pay beds. It imposes limits on what he is at present entitled to do under the 1968 Act. Under this Bill the freedom of the Secretary of State to control pay beds, which was perpetuated by the 1968 Act, is limited. What we are discussing, in considering the proposals made by the
1340
Board, is something that up until now has been the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament. Without this Bill, if the Secretary of State had decided to make increased authorisations, or to revoke them, he would have been responsible to Parliament for his decision, could have been asked questions on the subject and Members of your Lordships' House and in another place could have held him to account for what he was doing and asked him why he had done it. As I understand the Bill, the proposals will now become the responsibility of the Board.
We are discussing proposals to be formulated after the initial period when the 1,000 beds are withdrawn and proposals coming at intervals thereafter, about which no consultations have taken place, so that we have no clear idea about which areas will be affected. Then, if I have understood the situation correctly, at that point under Clause 10 the Secretary of State, and I quote from Clause 10(1):
"shall cause every set of proposals submitted to him under section 4 or 5 above, and every report submitted to him under section 4(2)(b) above, to be published as soon as practicable after its submission, and shall lay a copy of every such set of proposals or report before each House of Parliament".
So at that point, if I have understood the Bill correctly—and I hope that the noble Lord will tell me if I have it wrong—the Secretary of State becomes accountable to Parliament for what the Board has done. But it is not his decision; it is the decision of the Board. And he can be called upon, through questions or in debate, to give an account to your Lordships' House or another place, of what the Board has done.
Presumably, at that stage it will want to give its reasons. So we have some element of Parliamentary accountability retained, which is excellent, but the Secretary of State will be justifying proposals that he himself has not made, but which have been put forward by the Board. When we ask questions about the Post Office in your Lordships' House, your Lordships will remember we always get told that this is an independent Corporation and that we are not to interfere in the day-to-day running of something which is not a Government Department. Schedule 1 of the Bill specifically says that,

1341
"The Board shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status immunity or privilege of the Crown".
I imagine that when one asks a Minister or spokesman in this House questions about decisions or proposals by the Board, we might get the same kind of answers as one gets about the Post Office, which is that the Government are not responsible for the Board. Therefore, would it not be better if the Board, when it makes proposals, gave its reasons for doing so? The Minister is not responsible for the Board's decisions, although he is, to a certain extent, accountable to Parliament.
I wish to make two final points. We understand that the chairman of the Board is to be a judge, or a person of high legal standing. I hope it will be a judge. Judges are used to giving reasons for their decisions. It is something for which judges are eminently well qualified, and I do not think it would impose an enormous burden on the Board if their chairman were to help his colleagues to prepare reasons that could then be published. Finally, when we examine this clause we find, in the lines after those with which my noble friend's Amendments are concerned, these words:
"In deciding what advice to give to the Board in connection with the formulation of any such proposals, the Scottish Committee and the Welsh Committee…".
This is a question of devolution and it may be a matter for the next Session. But can the Government honestly imagine to themselves that the Scots and the Welsh will be satisfied with decisions taken by a Board sitting in London, if that Board does not give reasons for what it is doing? Can the Government really imagine that the Scottish National Party and the Plaid Cymru will forgo this opportunity of saying, "We have an English Board here that sits in London taking decisions. All right. They consult our Scottish and Welsh Committees, but never give their reasons"? Surely, my Lords, it would make the Board work better if it was called upon to give its reasons. If the noble Lord wishes his Government's Board to succeed, he will be well advised to accept my noble friend's Amendment. I hope that he will.
5.48 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we studied this matter following our
1342
discussion on Committee stage. We had taken advice on it. I am sure that what I will say will not find favour with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, or his friends on the other side of the Chamber. We believe that the Amendments are inappropriate, mainly because the duty and the responsibility of the Board is laid down very clearly in the Bill. I speak from memory, but under subsection (7) its function, and what it is required to take into account, are laid down very carefully. There are four criteria upon which the Board has to base its judgment. This is rather different from any other kind of body, tribunal or board where in a sense guidelines do not exist. If one has tribunals, and talk about judges and people of that kind, they give their reasons because they are dealing with something which may have no relationship or bearing on anything that has gone before.
In this case there is a set of principles, or four criteria. The Board has got to work to them; it cannot depart from them. When it reaches a decision, it is based on criteria which have been pre-arranged, to which it must keep. Because of that, we feel that there is no need for it to give its reasons. We want the Board to be completely independent. The noble Lord himself has pointed out that it must submit a report to the Secretary of State, who in turn is responsible to the House of Commons. I do not think one can have any greater safeguard than that. I should have thought that that is all one needs.
Its reasons for making recommendations will always be that it is satisfied that it has met the requirements of the Act in respect of its function. The Board is, in effect, answerable to Parliament by virtue of its annual report, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. I should have thought that this in itself is highly desirable. While I cannot give any assurance about the form in which the Board would set out its proposals, I should be prepared to say that something such as the following would happen. The Board would say that it had considered the level of demand for pay beds at a given hospital over the past year, that it had taken account of the fact that in the past six months a new private home of 40 beds had been opened at some other point, and that consultants from the hospital are making extensive use of these facilities. It might then say

1343
that in the light of this it is satisfied that the fears expressed by the area medical committee are not supported by the facts, and then the Board would make a recommendation. That is the form which we expect its decision to take, and I should have thought that that would almost amount, if not exactly amount, to the Board giving its reasons.
If it had been acceptable for pay beds to be phased out by administrative decision, that would be one thing. I do not think we can have it both ways. If it is to be an independent Board, I do not think that it is reasonable to expect it to be responsible to a Minister, and I do not think that the Minister can answer for the Board. As I said earlier, the House will receive an annual report. The Board will not have to have a Minister answering for it, because in the long run the supremacy will rest with Parliament itself, and for that reason we do not see the necessity for these Amendments. I recognise that the first Amendment is a paving Amendment and that the second one is probably more important.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply if the annual report comes up in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House? The noble Lord said that a Minister will not be responsible, so who will be responsible for the reply?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords; what I said was that the Board will be responsible for its decision—not the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be responsible to Parliament. The Board's action will be laid before Parliament, and there will be an annual report. So I should have thought that there would be sufficient supervision, if this is what we are worried about.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, allowing time for the annual report to be agreed to and published, it will be a year out of date before it is received by anybody.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has given much thought to this question and has tried very hard to consider the point that we are raising on
1344
these two Amendments. Once again we get the situation where he says that he thinks our Amendment will be met by the form in which the Board will report its findings, but he is not prepared to say that the Board ought to give its reasons for the decisions that it makes. I hope that I am correctly interpreting what the noble Lord has said. I appreciate that he has taken further advice and that he regards it as inappropriate for the Board to have to give its reasons, first because the duties and the responsibilities of the Board are laid down in the Bill, and that in other instances, such as courts, the guidelines do not exist in the same way.
Of course this argument sounds all very logical and clear, but the fact is that the law and legal questions, and indeed political questions, are based on cases where someone believes that the organisation or the person has not acted reasonably or has not acted fairly. I am in no way impugning the propriety of whoever may be chosen to be chairman of the Board; nor the propriety of any of its members. But the fact remains that some of the Board's decisions will be regarded at intervals by some people as controversial. They may in the end be the right decisions; I am not saying that they will not prove to be the right decisions. But it will be very difficult to discuss the decisions anywhere if we do not know the reasons why the Board has reached them.
The noble Lord explained to us the type of case which he thought might arise. He said that the Board would have considered the level of demand for private practice, would have considered the numbers of pay beds, would have considered the alternative facilities, and would have concluded that, say, 10 beds should be phased out. Of course, the Board will have gone through all the motions. It will have genuinely believed that it has reached the right decision and that in its opinion it has acted properly. The point of issue is that somebody may think that the Board, having reached a certain decision, has reached it on the wrong evidence. That is the kind of point that my noble friend Lord Sandys raised. What will that person do? He will never know the position because the Board has not given its reasons, and so the matter cannot be discussed properly. I thought that my noble friend Lord O'Hagan made a very real point when he said that when

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seat)

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Arwyn, L.

Hamnett, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes. L.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Brown, L.

Kagan, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Chorley, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wall, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

White, B.

Fulton, L.

Maelor, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett. L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L. [Teller]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("; and (c) give its reasons;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 10, 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: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together, which I also spoke to at Committee stage, when they were Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. These Amendments are set out in terms identical to the terms of the two Amendments I moved at Committee stage; and by way of preface I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, if she is to reply, that the intention behind our putting these two Amendments down again is that they are by way of probing Amendments in both cases. We were pleased to have a detailed reply in both cases at Committee stage, but that reply was not entirely to the satisfaction of noble
1348
Lords on this side of the House because there were a certain number of points which arose out of it. The noble Baroness opened her statement, at col. 397 of the Official Report of the 10th November, by saying this—and I quote her words:
"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".
There is a recognition by the Government of the problem, and an assertion that from this side of the House we have sought to exaggerate what we, too, have recognised to be an important factor.
I adduced the arguments at Committee stage, and I will not repeat them; but there are two matters on this particular Amendment, Amendment No. 12, on which I think we would be glad to have further information. In the first place, I should like to draw the Government's attention to what my noble friend Lord O'Hagan said, because he suggested that there could possibly be matters that affect our treaty obligations with the EEC; and once again the noble Baroness made a very firm statement. She said at col. 400:
"The National Health Service is provided for the people of Great Britain, but nothing in this Bill affects our EEC obligations".
What could be fairer than that, my Lords? But there is a lingering doubt in our minds. I do not know whether the Government have addressed themselves to this problem, but we believe that

1349
because of the reciprocal arrangements within the EEC there may well be situations which could arise which disbenefit the training of doctors and could disbenefit the training of personnel within the National Health Service. We do not doubt what the noble Baroness said, because this is a very complicated issue. She took advice on it, and that was the best advice available; but there is a lingering uncertainty in our minds. The weight of the Government's argument on both these Amendments was concerned with cheque book queue-jumping; and it is our view, in examining the situation here, that by far the most important factor is the training of doctors. It is a matter of consideration and I do not know whether we shall get very much further on this Amendment. Perhaps I should at this stage move Amendment No. 12, and see what the Government have to say. I beg to move.
6.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, although I think the noble Lord is right and Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 could be considered together perhaps each needs its own reply. The effect of the Amendment would be that one of the principles to which the Board would have to have regard in formulating proposals for the revocation of authorisations would be that authorisations should not be revoked so long as the authorised facilities contribute to the training of doctors or dentists or other NHS staff or of persons concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals.
Noble Lords opposite made reference in Committee to the Royal Commission on Medical Education which reported in 1968, and while recommending that the number of part-time university teachers should be allowed to fall, pointed to the valuable contribution which part-time consultants made to the education of medical students, particularly in London. The Opposition draw no distinction between highly specialised and routine treatments for which there are waiting lists. Noble Lords opposite saw no reason to prevent a whole-time consultant admitting private patients for routine operations if this would contribute, however marginally, to medical education.
As was said by the Government in Committee, we recognise that withdrawal
1350
of private practice facilities from NHS hospitals may result in some consultants being less readily available; but 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. It is so easy to exaggerate that. This will not be a new development; many consultants already make use of private nursing homes and hospitals some distances away from their NHS hospitals. By no means all NHS hospitals have facilities for private patients and those members of their consultant staff who practise privately have to travel.
The volume of clinical experience that private patients contribute towards the education of staff is of marginal value save perhaps in the case of some of our more specialised units. But Clause 8 provides for the occasional admissions of private patients who need highly specialised treatments. The same provision will also ensure that the contribution of training resulting from the admission of overseas patients 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.
My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 13, which in some respects needs to have more said about it, noble Lords opposite want to perpetuate the present arrangements under which a consultant is free to admit to a 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 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 Government are not prepared to allow consultants to sell routine NHS

1355
the matter up at a later stage, he had better take precautions. Do I understand that in order to finance research—a very desirable objective—what is proposed is that foreign patients requiring treatment, and therefore the services of a consultant, should receive preference as against the National Health patients? If he is not proposing that, what is he proposing?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we went into this matter in great detail in Committee. It would be wearying the House if I repeated the arguments. I am perfectly willing to do so if the noble Lord wishes it. The noble Lord is over-simplifying the situation. This Amendment will benefit research as a whole, not only for foreign visitors to this country. Also, the National Health Service as a whole will benefit by the research projects financed through these means.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I had intended to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, but I was not quick enough. I have not answered the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and although the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, did not ask a question, he referred to Hammersmith Hospital. I hope I am not doing the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, an injustice, but he quoted from the letter which was written to his honourable friend, Patrick Jenkin, and he stopped short. I am sure it was not deliberate, but he should have read out another paragraph, which says this in relation to the loss of revenue for research:
"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."
In other words, it is a matter which the Secretary of State says must be dealt with through our current methods of funding research, which are flexible. It looks as though the Secretary of State has taken that on board.
A good deal of play has been made about the loss of revenue. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, that the Hammersmith Hospital claim that 98 per cent. of their overseas patients would qualify under Section 8 of the Act's provisions. If that is so, I cannot see that the hospital will be starved very much over a matter of£83,000. That is our understanding of the situation so far as Hammersmith is concerned.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I hope the House will acquit me of any suggestion of trying to mislead by failing to read out a final paragraph of a letter. In fact, that final paragraph adds remarkably little to the rest of the letter, according to my reading of it. I always think it is a little tedious to read at length, but I shall note what the noble Lord has said and read at greater length on a future occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.42 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("planning") and insert ("local").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a small drafting Amendment which I hope the Government will accept. It represents an attempt to clarify a little further an Amendment which was moved in Committee to widen the scope here and to include the local authority. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, while the Government do not accept the principle behind this Amendment and reserve the right to oppose it at a later stage, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships by dividing the House on this Amendment, which is consequential on Amendment No. 50 which was carried in Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restrictions on Secretary of State's powers under sections1 and 2of 1968 Act]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 43, leave out ("(b)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 16. Both are drafting Amendments. It will be apparent on reading Clause 5(3) that to refer to subsection (2)(b) is in fact to refer to something which does not exist: hence, the suggestion to leave out (b). Turning to Amendment No. 16, the purpose of taking out lines 44 and 45 is that they are precisely the same as lines 39 and 40 in the preceding subsection and therefore are repetitive. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness is attempting to put right an earlier drafting error to which I drew attention on Committee stage. If my assumption is right, I am afraid I must tell the noble Baroness that my understanding is that she has not achieved her object. I am sorry, but that is what I am informed. As I read these Amendments, they would modify Clause 5(3) so as to read:
"After the end of the initial period no authorisation under Section 1(1) of the 1968 Act shall be granted or to any extent revoked otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (2) above."
That would be all right if subsection (2) dealt with authorisations under section 1(1) of the 1968 Act—for example, facilities for private in-patients. In fact, it deals with authorisations under Section 2(1) of the 1968 Act, which refers to facilities for private out-patients.
Inasmuch as the noble Baroness's Amendments are consequential upon those raised by your Lordships in Committee. I should not have resisted them; but I am reluctant to advise your Lordships to carry Amendments which, consequential or not, do not make sense. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would feel disposed to look at the matter again and consider whether her intention would not be better carried out by amending Clause 5(3) so as to read:
"After the end of the initial period no authorisation under section 1(1) of the 1968 Act shall be granted otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (4) below or as a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below, or to any extent revoked otherwise than in accordance with proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by the Board under section 4 above."
I am sorry that this is being sprung on the noble Baroness, but there was nothing I could do about it beforehand. I can well understand that she may want to look at Hansard tomorrow and study what I have said.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, these are not Amendments which I had intended to press in any event. They are drafting Amendments, and I am hardly surprised to hear that I have made a mistake in the drafting yet again. This is the kind of fate which befalls Oppositions. I shall certainly take advantage of the opportunity to look at Hansard—I hope I shall have time to do that under what is rather a tight timetable before Third Reading—
1358
to see whether it is possible to put this drafting Amendment right. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 18:
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 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: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, may I say that at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was very kind towards an Amendment of mine. He thought that it would be better for me to withdraw the Amendment and to look at it afresh later. Having studied what the noble Lord said, I fully agreed with part of it. What we were asking for was the sale of any property that was no longer to be used: or for it to be offered to other Departments and, if that was not successful, to put the property on to the private market. I had, however, overlooked one point at that time, which concerned the difficulty that would arise over buildings which were already built on to the sides of hospitals. Such buildings cannot be separated, and therefore I would agree with the noble Lord that nothing can be done with such buildings or wings of buildings.
However, I would ask the Government not to leave such wings or buildings empty so that they deteriorate. Certainly I would hope that the numbers of pay beds which are to be withdrawn will not just be put into these wings and used as storage units. I think we should look at the other side of the coin, which is concerned with hospital buildings that will not be used and may probably be left either to deteriorate or perhaps be broken into and windows smashed and so on. I mentioned these points at Committee

1363
flexibility. He may charge different rates or different scales for lists of things contained in paragraphs (a) to (d). Paragraph (c) is the one that I am moving to leave out. Paragraph (c) reads thus:
"in relation to patients who are…not ordinarily resident in Great Britain".
At first sight this may seem to be a small matter. As I have said already, I do not want to retread the ground which we have already gallumphed over, when the noble Lord answering for the Government thought that I was trying to put forward a case that patients who are not resident in this country should not be charged. Let us be quite clear that that is not what I am suggesting. I am putting forward this Amendment to find what in fact the Government intend. I must begin by repeating one or two of the questions which I put at 2.20 in the morning the other day, because they were not answered.
The first question I want to put to the Government is simply this: How many patients do the Government think come within the category in paragraph (c) which I am moving to leave out? How many of them are there? Is there a large number? Now that we have had an interval of some days since the 10th November, could the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, provide the House with that information, which he was unable to provide at that time?
In order to look at what the Government are doing, we must have some figures to assess the size of the problem. At that point on Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said:
"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."—[Official Report, 10/11/76; col. 560.]
Has the noble Lord been able to excavate some figures in the meanwhile? If so, it would be helpful to have them because it would bring this discussion down to earth in the sense that we would know how many people we were talking about.
My Lords, another question that I pursued the other day was how far it was the intention of the Government that this provision for those who are not "ordinarily resident" in the United Kingdom
1364
would catch British subjects. Because the wording that the Government have chosen is "not ordinarily resident", British subjects working abroad for the Government, or who are in the Armed Services, or otherwise, might well find themselves in a less favoured position in comparison with people who are foreigners and who are "ordinarily resident". May I repeat the question I put the other day: At what point does this provision catch those British subjects who probably will be out of the country for a short period in the course of their duties? Can the noble Lord give us some indication of the sort of time limit that the Government have in mind?
My two final questions are as follows. In answer to the debate the other day, the noble Lord said that the Government had in mind particularly wealthy foreigners or individual wealthy foreigners whom they felt should pay no doubt an individual particularly high price. How do the Government imagine this will work? The noble Lord, Lord Stone, and I had an interchange in which the noble Lord, Lord Stone, told me that those who were coming here would in every case know how much they were going to pay, because their visit was normally arranged by a British medical practitioner.
The point I was trying to draw from the Government was that if there is now to be a differential rate for particularly wealthy foreigners, how will that particularly wealthy foreigner be sure whether he comes into that category or not, if the Secretary of State has the opportunity of altering the charges when he feels like doing so?
Lord STONE: My Lords, all I can say is that if this happened to me I could arrange this without any Parliamentary discussion or authority whatsoever. It comes naturally. According to the place from whence these people come, and according to their means, I could easily suggest to the authorities that a certain fee should be claimed.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stone, speaks with some certainty and authority. I am not fully acquainted with all the facts—
Lord STONE: My Lords, I am not saying I am the authority, but it would give me pleasure.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am accepting the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Stone. I am not questioning that for a moment. I want to know whether the Government share the certainty of the noble Lord. How do they see it working? It may be that the noble Lord is speaking for the Government in this respect, in which case I must congratulate him; but I should like to know. I should like to know how the Government see this working. I should like to know what mechanism the Government plan to set in motion to make sure that everybody is as certain as is the noble Lord, Lord Stone.
Lord STONE: My Lords, if it comes to that sort of thing, I suggest, too, that by the time the matter had gone through all the channels that the noble Lord suggests, the fee would be almost doubled, and that would raise an entirely different consideration.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I must ask the leave of your Lordships and perhaps of myself before I bob up and down like this. Perhaps I could turn to my final point. It is an extremely serious one; we discussed it on two occasions during the Committee stage, and it has also been touched on by my noble friend Lord Sandys tonight. It concerns the question of our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. I will not repeat what I said the other night about Article 48 of the Treaty; it is on the record. What I should like to know is this. Has the Department that is responsible for this Bill been in touch with the legal officers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Has the Department consulted those legal advisers, or has it not? Has the Department made up its own mind how to interpret the Treaty of Rome, or has it taken advantage of the specialist advisers the Government have working full-time on these matters? Unless we get a clear answer on this point, it may well be that the Government, quite unwittingly, are running the risk of making fools of themselves by introducing legislation which is contrary to our Community obligations and will find themselves answerable to the court in Luxembourg if any disgruntled
1366
French or Italian visitor to our shores should find himself charged fees which he thought would not be charged to a national and that therefore he was being discriminated against. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to break for about 45 minutes in order to take other business. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL/ WALES BILL [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (162) as first printed for the commons]
[Nos. 1 and 2.]
Clause 1, page 2, after "(5)" insert "Subject to subsection (5A) below,".
Clause 1, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
"(5A) Except so far as it is authorised under section 3(1)(h) of this Act, the Board shall not engage in farming any land held by it or in forestry or afforestation on such land."
The LORD CHANCELLOR: 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 and 2 en bloc. It may be convenient to consider with this Motion Amendments Nos. 8, 11, 26 and 28, which are co-related.
Amendment No. 1 is consequential to Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 which insert new subsections (5A) in Clause 1 and subsection (2) in Clause 3, requiring the Board not to use any land it holds for the purposes of farming or for forestry or afforestation except when such use is likely to facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or is incidental or conducive to their discharge under
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for having made these further comments. I should add that under the definition of farming in Amendment No. 28 there is in fact no mention of fishing or fisheries, though there is practically every other form of farming that one can think of. Possibly the drafters were not so keen on water as are other noble Lords and noble Baronesses. What concerned us, and I shall accept the noble and learned Lord's undertaking, was the definition in Clause 3(1)(h) concerning the Board's powers to facilitate the discharge of its functions, and of course it does depend on how one defines "functions" as to whether that would include the acquisition of land or not. Since the noble and learned Lord assures the House that it is only incidental to their functions that the management of land would occur, we shall accept this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 1, page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (7).
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
Directions of Secretary of State to the Board and Consultative Council
. The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions as to the exercise and performance of their functions, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions.
7.16 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 3 and 4 en bloc. The effect of these Amendments is to transpose the Secretary of State's power to give directions to the Board from Clause 1(7) to a new clause after Clause 1. The other Amendments are consequential; namely, Amendments Nos. 20, 31, 32, and 33, to which I might conveniently refer at the same time.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord at this stage in order to draw his attention to the fact that the words, "and Consultative Council" in the margin should surely be removed, and also in Amendment No. 20. Would he confirm that this is right, since the Consultative Council, so far as I understand it, is no longer contained in the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. That is correct, and we will see that that is done. In the meantime, if it would be convenient may we consider Amendments Nos. 20, 31, 32, and 33, which arc consequential to the Amendments that are proposed. At the Report stage the Government restored to the Secretary of State in the new clause the power to give specific directions which had been removed by the Opposition Amendments in Committee deleting Clause 1(7) and inserting the new clause with a power of general direction only. This secures the full accountability of the Board to the Secretary of State, and of course from the Secretary of State to Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor).
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord tell me what the effect would be if there is a Welsh Assembly? Would the Secretary of State still be responsible for giving the Board directions, or would the Board in fact receive directions from a new Welsh Assembly? I appreciate that there is no provision in the Bill now for this, but would this clause in fact eventually have to be amended?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have not yet seen the Devolution Bill—I was going to say the colour of the Devolution Bill—and we shall therefore have to wait until then before I can give a positive answer, but I apprehend that the direction could well come from the Assembly. I had better take guidance on that; that is likely to happen, but I say that without giving it as an absolute assurance.
On Questions, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.]
Clause 2, page 4, line 3, after "(8)" insert "Copies of".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This is a drafting Amendment which makes it clear that it is only copies of the Board's annual report that are to be laid before each House of Parliament by the Secretary of

1373
State and not the actual report made to him. It is surprising that it should be deemed necessary, but apparently it is.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6.]
Clause 3, page 4, line 6, leave out from beginning to "have" in line 8 and insert—
"For the purpose of enabling it to discharge its general function under this Act, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,"
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This is a drafting Amendment which clarifies the meaning of subsection (1) of Clause 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7.]
Clause 3, page 4, line 29, after "on" insert "or acquire and carry on"
7.23 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. It might be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time Amendment No. 10. The Amendment extends the power in Clause 3(1)(g) to carry on any undertaking or business by providing that the Board may also acquire an undertaking or business. Amendment No. 10 is consequential to No. 7.
These Amendments clarify the position regarding the Board's power to acquire a business. A doubt exists as to whether the power to acquire land or other property in Clause 3(1)(a) extends to the acquisition of the non-tangible assets of a business including its good will. Extending the Board's power under Clause 3(1)(g) to acquire as well as to carry on a business makes it quite clear that the Board does have this power.
In Committee and on Report in another place the Government resisted Opposition attempts to remove or reduce the power
1374
of the Board to carry on a business or alternatively to restrict it to new town areas only, on the grounds that it is necessary for the Board to have power to set up and carry on any business where, in the terms of its general functions, it is in the interest of the economic or social development of the area. It would make nonsense of that power if there was doubt on the power of the Board to acquire non-tangible assets. I should emphasise that the Board will exercise this power only where it is unable to interest private businessmen in an enterprise the Board considers is in the interests of the area. A further safeguard against the misuse of the power to acquire and carry on a business is contained in Clause 3(5)(c), which specifically provides that the approval of the Secretary of State is required in each case that the Board wishes to exercise the power.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, like Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, we do not find this Amendment particularly satisfactory for the reason I gave when speaking to the earlier ones. The Consultation Document which was circulated to the people of Wales and to all interested parties did not include the power of the Board to acquire businesses. It is a particularly relevant power, because in the area we are considering there are are a great many small businesses, many of which are not succeeding. The people struggling to run these small businesses with the very difficult fiscal and economic handicaps which are being put on them by the Government will suffer even more if a Board with considerable wealth and power can acquire a small business and run it.
It was significant that the noble and learned Lord should refer to a business which perhaps could not interest a private businessman. This will almost undoubtedly mean that they are prepared to take over a business which has no possibility of being run viably and will merely be a way of spending more of the Board's money instead of using the money available to the Board for the benefit of the people themselves. We do not think this Amendment is in the interests of the people of Mid-Wales, and in our view it is very much to the reverse. This

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9.)
Clause 3, page 4, line 42, at end insert—
"(4A) The conditions which may be attached to the provision of finance under this section include conditions for repayment of the whole or any part of a grant in any circumstances."
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9, with which it is convenient to deal with Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 9 gives a power to the Board when giving financial assistance under the general powers in Clause 3 to impose conditions, including conditions that may provide for the repayment in certain specified circumstances of all or part of any grants made. Amendment No. 23 gives a similar power to the Secretary of State to impose conditions when giving financial assistance to social bodies under Clause 25. Amendment No. 23 also amplifies the powers in Clause 25 by empowering the Secretary of State to give assistance to social bodies by way of guarantees as well as by grant or loan, and by providing that any grants repaid to the Secretary of State under the new provision shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I think this matter was fully debated at the Committee stage in another place and I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 10 and 11.]
Clause 3, page 5, line 1, after "on "insert" or acquire and carry on"
Clause 3, page 5, line 5, at end insert—
"(6A) In exercising any of the powers conferred by subsection (1) above, the Board shall have regard to the need to conserve agricultural land and to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management."
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, formally I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. These were discussed with the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 12 and 13.]
Clause 4, page 5, line 17, leave out "and"
Clause 4, page 5, line 18, at end insert" and
(f) the provision of sewerage services,"
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. It may be convenient for me at this stage to deal with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 en bloc, and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 25, 86 and 95.
This group of Amendments places the Board on the same footing as new town development corporations elsewhere with regard to the provision of sewerage and related services for new towns. The substantive Amendment of the group is Amendment No. 86. It adds to Schedule 3 a new Part VII entitled Sewerage Services which is an adaptation of Sections 34 and 40 of the New Towns Act 1965. Its effect is to empower the Secretary of State to authorise the Board to provide sewers and sewage disposal works for new town purposes and to provide for the transfer of completed sewers and sewage disposal works to the water authority, which seems to me to be an admirable and necessary purpose. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, for once we can congratulate the House of Commons for acting as a very efficient revising Chamber and having inserted some Amendments which probably should have been contained in the Bill from the beginning. It is obviously a very important service and one which undoubtedly finds its place in this Bill. There are one or two points which were touched on in another place but not fully debated, and therefore at this stage, I shall not press the noble and learned Lord for an answer. I should like some notice to be taken of the fact that there seems to be no provision for the disposal of sewage. It seems to me that one of the most important functions of the Board, particularly in a tourist area and a famous coastline which is perhaps one of the few areas of sea round the island of the United Kingdom where bathing is still possible, is the disposal of sewage, or at least that the Board should

1379
see that whoever is responsible takes this function on and ensures that it is dealt with.
As we have been told, and as we who know that part of the world know well, agriculture and tourism are the main industries of Mid-Wales. If the Board or any subsidiary authority acting under the authority of the Board were not to take this into account it might well have a very serious effect on the tourist development of that area. We are only too well aware—particularly those who have any dealing with the European Community—that pollution of the sea is a major element in the development of European policy, so I very much hope that this aspect of these provisions will be studied and taken into account.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I remind the noble Baroness that there is a vastly greater coastline around Scotland where bathing is still possible and she must not exaggerate the extent of Wales.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has not bathed in Scotland. I have, and Wales is considerably warmer than Scotland.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, if I may say so the noble Baroness was referring to sewage and she has completely introverted my remarks. I am a Scot and I have bathed around the Scottish coast very satisfactorily.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether I should enter this controversy. I know that bathing in the Channel is cool and dangerous enough an exercise. It is a pity that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is not here to give us his useful and, if he will not mind my saying so, his elderly memories of immersion in the Artie waters around the coast. Sewage disposal works are included in relation to new town areas and I believe that in Part VIIA, Sewerage Services, there is a reference expressly to sewage disposal. I quite agree that it would be an appalling omission to collect it without disposing of it and I am confident that that will be done. Certainly the point is noted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 14.]
Clause 4, page 5, line 19, at end insert "(to the exclusion of any corresponding provision of that Act which is capable of applying within the area for which the Board is responsible)."
7.40 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, which ensures that in cases where the provision of the New Towns Code which is set out in Schedule 3 is paralleled by a similar provision in the New Towns Act 1965 which is capable of application in relation to a new town within the Board's area the provision of the New Towns Code shall apply and that in the New Towns Act 1965 shall not have effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 15.]
Clause 5, page 6, leave out line 26 and insert "in the code"
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15, which is a minor drafting Amendment whose purpose is to make the wording of Clause 5(4)(b)(i) more precise. There is no change of substance.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 16 to 18.]
Clause 14, page 11, line 26, at end insert "or estimate its value"
Clause 14, page 11, line 37, at end insert "or is authorised to acquire it"
Clause 14, page 11, line 40, after "it" insert "or estimate its value"
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 provide that persons may be authorised by the Secretary of State, the Board or a local highway authority

1381
to enter upon land for the purpose of estimating its value as well as for the purpose of survey. Amendment No. 17 extends the provision in Clause 14(1)(c) providing that persons authorised by the Secretary of State or the Board may enter upon land to survey it (or estimate its value if Amendment No. 16 is made) where the Board is considering the purchase of the land in cases where the Board has been authorised to acquire land. These provisions would seem to be necessary and sensible.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while it may be necessary to insert these provisions for the satisfactory working of the Board, they give a further power to the Board when entering somebody else's property so that the Board will be able not only to survey it but also to estimate its value. That sounds quite satisfactory in legal jargon but, thinking of a small tenant farmer or the owner of a small piece of land, I believe that, if somebody comes in and says, "I am just going to see how much this land is worth because we are thinking of buying it," that could have a very harmful effect. It would not promote the kind of trust that one would hope to see between individuals and the Board.
When this was raised in another place, the Minister's reply was not very convincing when he was asked whether the Secretary of State could at least, in giving his authority in writing, include the reason for which the person was allowed to enter the property. We accept that the Board may have to enter, but we should be very much more satisfied if the noble and learned Lord could give some kind of undertaking that the Secretary of State, in his written authority, would state the reason for which entry was required by the Board, whether for surveying or in order to estimate the value of the land. This should he in writing.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should certainly be willing to look at that point. These Amendments bring the provisions of Clause 14 more into line with the New Towns Act 1965. There is therefore nothing novel or sinister
1382
in them, but I shall certainly look at that suggestion, which does not seem to me to be unreasonable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19.]
Clause 14, page 12, line 19, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert" appropriate Minister" For galley 73
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. On this Amendment it may be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 35, 37, 39, 41 to 52, 54 to 85 and 89. The point is a short one and I hope that that news will give some relief to noble Lords.
The purpose of this large group of Amendments is to make clear which Ministers are responsible for provisions concerning the compulsory acquisition of land belonging to statutory undertakers. They are all of a technical nature and there is no change of substance to the Bill. What they do is to substitute the more specific terms "appropriate Minister", "Secretary of State and appropriate Minister" or "relevant Minister" for the term "Secretary of State" as appropriate throughout the Bill, provide a definition of the terms "appropriate Minister "and relevant Minister" and make some necessary consequential Amendments.
I am told that it is thought that this was necessary in order to associate the affected and concerned departmental Minister with the relevant duty and operation. I confess that I found it a little surprising, as I had previously been addicted to the doctrine that in law there is only one office though the office may jointly he held by a number of departmental Ministers. But this is a piece of wisdom and desire which it is thought will clarify the position. Certainly, there is nothing sinister in it, but it involves a great deal of elaboration at this stage. Nevertheless, it is deemed to be necessary.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can

1383
clarify this matter. He said it was a small point although there were many Amendments, but it involves five Ministries—the Departments of Trade, Energy, Industry, the Environment and that of the Secretary of State for Wales, apart from the many Boards and authorities that have been set up to look after this part of Wales. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can say whether this new drafting implies that there is an end of collective responsibility. I seem to remember in my earlier days that the fact that the term "Secretary of State" was used implied the authority of Government regardless of who actually wielded it and of which Ministry happened to wield that authority. Can the noble and learned Lord, who, with all his wisdom, is a particularly suitable person to ask in his capacity as Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, tell us whether it remains the policy and principle of the present Government that there is collective responsibility and that this is merely a drafting for convenience?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. I hope that I was not flippant, and perhaps I did not put sufficiently seriously the point that is made, that it is thought necessary to distinguish the responsibility of particular Ministers towards statutory undertakers. They are listed in the Bill. It was the need to identify the particular Ministerial responsibility to the particular statutory undertaker which, it was thought, made necessary the categorisation of the Ministers in the way that I have indicated. It is true that there will be concern at the Departments of Industry, Trade and Energy and the Department of the Environment in this, and I hope that their concern will be to make a success of the work of the Board. That is how the matter stands.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. If any flippancy were required, I feel that it would be as regards this terrible word "undertaker". It is an appalling word. If only a better word could have been thought of. One can only feel for the poor people of Wales who are going to be smothered with all these boards and with the total bureaucracy that is to fall upon them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I share the dislike of the noble Baroness for the word "undertaker", but it has long been part of jargon and it is a little late to change it now. However, as I have said, the Amendments do not change the principle of collective responsibility. I have explained why the Amendments have been introduced.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 20.]
Clause 20, page 15, line 15, leave out '1(7)' and insert (Directions of Secretary of State to the Board and Consultative Council)'
7.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 21 and 22.]
Clause 25, page 16, line 38, after "person" insert "(other than the Board)"
Clause 25, page 16, line 40, after first "of" insert "Wales or"
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. These are merely drafting Amendments to Clause 25 which clarify the meaning of the text.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 23.]
Clause 25, page 17, line 4, leave out from grant 'to end of line 5 and insert', loan or the giving of guarantees or by any combination of those means.
(4) The conditions which may be attached to the giving of financial assistance under this section include conditions for repayment of the whole or any part of a grant in any circumstances.
(5) Any sums repaid to the Secretary of State in pursuance of this section shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 23 earlier, on Amendment No. 9. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 24.]
After Clause 29 insert the following new clause:
Exemption from development land tax.
. In section 11 of the Development Land Tax Act 1976 (which exempts certain bodies from that tax) there shall be added at the end of subsection (2) the following paragraph preceded by the word "and"—
"(i) the Development Board for Rural Wales";
and the word "and" at the end of paragraph (g) shall be omitted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in thir Amendment No. 24. With it goes Amendment No. 30. The effect of these Amendments is to exempt the Development Board for Rural Wales from development tax.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, this is quite common: a good many boards are exempt from development land tax. But I wish to register a protest on behalf of the small businesses of mid-Wales who will have to compete in business possibly, or with their farming activities, against a statutory body which is not paying all the taxes that they themselves have to pay. The Board will be setting itself up in competition advantageously and derive benefits from not paying the tax that small businesses and other people who are struggling to survive in mid-Wales will have to meet. It seems to me that this has a counter-productive effect, especially in view of the wide powers the Board has acquired and the possibility for it to enter into commerce rather than to be obliged to enable the people themselves to take on commercial undertakings. I
1386
appreciate, however, that this is a common form and that many boards do have this exemption.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 25 to 28.]
Clause 30, page 18, line 19, at end insert 'or an order under paragraph 50B of Schedule 3 to this Act '
Clause 32, page 18, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Clause 32, page 18, line 41, at end insert—
"appropriate Minister" has the meaning given by paragraph 54 of Schedule 3 to this Act;'
Clause 32, page 19, line 2, at end insert—
' "farming" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur or the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and agricultural "and" agricultural operations "shall be construed accordingly;'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 en bloc. I spoke to these Amendments earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 29.]
Clause 32, page 19, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
" 'operational land', in relation to statutory undertakers, means—

(a) land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking, and

(b) land in which an interest is held for that purpose,

not being land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings;
'statutory undertakers' means—

(a) persons authorised by virtue of any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking, or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water, and

1387

(b) the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Coal Board, the Post Office, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;

and 'statutory undertaking' shall be construed accordingly;"
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. The effect of this Amendment is to extend the definition of statutory undertakers—the unloved word again appears—by including within the definition the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Coal Board, the Post Office and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. It also specifically defines the term "operational land" in relation to statutory undertakers. This is done in other legislation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 30 to 33.]
Schedule 1, page 20, line 11, after '30' insert 'and section (Exemption from development land tax)'
Schedule 1, page 22, line 42, leave out paragraph 17.
Schedule 1, page 23, line 3, leave out '1(7)' and insert '(Directions of Secretary of State to the Board and Consultative Council')
Schedule 1, page 23, line 12, leave out '1(7)' and insert '(Directions of Secretary of State to the Board and Consultative Council)'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 en bloc. I spoke earlier to these Amendments and formally move them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 34.]
Schedule 3, page 34, line 10, leave out "made".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34, with which go
1388
consequentially Amendments Nos. 36 to 40. These are merely drafting Amendments whose purpose is to improve the text of paragraph 16 of Schedule 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 35 to 37.]
Schedule 3, page 34, line 15, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Schedule 3, page 34, line 18, leave out 'made'
Schedule 3, page 34, line 22, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 en bloc, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 38.]
Schedule 3, page 34, line 33, leave out from 'made' to first 'is' in line 34 and insert 'in accordance with paragraphs 17 to 21 or 22 to 24 below)'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. This is a minor drafting Amendment to clarify the meaning of paragraph 16(3) of Schedule 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 39 to 52.]
Schedule 3, page 34, line 37, leave out from 'undertakers' to 'in' in line 38 and insert 'make to the appropriate Minister'
Page 35, line 1, leave out 'made'
Page 35, line 15, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 35, line 20, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 35, line 27, leave out 'may, if he thinks fit' and insert 'and the appropriate Minister may if they think fit'
Page 35, line 34, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 35, line 38, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 35, line 39, leave out 'he thinks fit' and insert 'they think fit'
Page 35, line 47, after 'State' insert and the 'appropriate Minister'
Page 36, line 7, at end insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 36, line 9, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'
Page 36, line 11, leave out 'proposes' and insert 'and the appropriate Minister propose'
Page 36, line 12, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'
Page 36,line 14, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 52 en bloc. I dealt earlier with these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.3.]
Schedule 3, page 45, line 31, leave out 'document' and insert 'direction'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. This again is a minor drafting Amendment, making no change of substance.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 54 to 86.]
Schedule 3, page 48, line 48, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 49, line 2, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 49, line 6, after 'he' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 49, line 19, leave out 'proposes' and insert 'and the appropriate Minister propose'
Page 49, line 20, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'
Page 49,line 22, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Ministers proposing to make the Order'.
Page 49, line 32, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 49, line 34, leave out 'he thinks' and insert they think'
Page 50, line 4, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 50, line 25, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 50, line 30, leave out 'may, if he thinks fit' and insert 'and the appropriate Minister may, if they think fit'
Page 50, line 32, leave out 'him' and insert 'them'
Page 51, line 5, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister '
Page 51, line 14, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 51, line 18, after 'State' insert 'and the appropriate Minister'
Page 51, line 25, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'
Page 51, line 28, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'
Page 51,line 40, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'
Page 51, line 42, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert appropriate Minister'
Page 52, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'
Page 52, line 38, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 52, line 40, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister '
Page 53, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 12, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 15, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 19, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 26, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'relevant Minister'
Page 53, line 36, at end insert—
'(7) In this Part of the new towns code "the relevant Minister" means—

(a) in relation to an order under paragraph 38, the Secretary of State;

(b) in relation to an order under paragraph 46, the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister;

(c) in relation to an order under paragraph 48, the appropriate Minister.'

Page 53, line 36, at end insert—

'PART VIIA
SEWERAGE SERVICES
50A.—(1) The Secretary of State, on an application made to him by the Board, may by order authorise the Board to exercise for the purpose of the sewerage of the area of any new town situated within the area for which the Board is responsible, any powers exercisable by a water authority under section 15 of the Public Health Act 1936 (provision of sewers and sewage disposal works); and, without prejudice to the provisions of this Act with respect to the acquisition of land by the Board, any such order may provide for transferring to the Board any sewers or sewage disposal works

1391
vested in any water authority whose area comprises the area of the new town or any part of that area.
(2) Before making an order under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult the council of every county and of every district and the water authority for every water authority area in which the whole or any part of the area of that new town is situated.
(3) An order under this paragraph may include a direction that such of the provisions of the Public Health Acts 1936 and 1937 or of the Public Health Act 1961 relating to sewerage and sewage disposal or to sewers, drains, cesspools and sanitary conveniences (including the provisions of the said Acts of 1936 and 1961 relating to the payment of compensation, the breaking up of streets and the power to enter on land) as may be specified in the order shall apply in relation to the area of the new town, subject to such modifications as may be so specified, as if the Board were a water authority (or, where the provision confers or imposes a function on or provides for a thing to be done by or to a local authority, as if the Board were a local authority) and as if the sewers vested in the Board were public sewers.
(4) Where in pursuance of an order under this paragraph, sewers or sewage disposal works are constructed by or vested in the Board for the purposes of the sewerage of any part of the area of water authority, that authority shall make towards the expenses of the Board in the construction or maintenance of the sewers or sewage disposal works contributions of such amount, and subject to such conditions, as may be agreed upon between that authority and the Board or as may, in default of such agreement, be determined by the Secretary of State; and the payment of any such contributions shall be a purpose for which the water authority may borrow money.
(5) Any order under this paragraph which provides for transferring to the Board sewers or sewage disposal works vested in a water authority may provide for the payment by the Board to that authority, in consideration of the transfer, of such sum as may be agreed upon between the Board and that authority or as may, in default of such agreement, be determined by the Secretary of State.
50B.—(1) Where the Board has, in pursuance of an order under paragraph 50A above, been carrying on a sewerage or sewage disposal undertaking the Board may by agreement with a water authority and with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, transfer the whole or any part of the undertaking to that authority.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the transfer to a water authority of the whole or any part of a sewerage or sewage disposal undertaking which has, in pursuance of an order under paragraph 50A above, been carried on by the Board, and any such order may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.
(3) The terms on which the whole or any part of an undertaking is transferred by an order under this paragraph shall be such as
1392
the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may specify in the order, and those terms may provide for the payment by the water authority of such sums, to be satisfied in such manner, as may be so specified:
Provided that the total of the sums so paid shall not exceed the total capital cost of the undertaking less depreciation written off.
(4) Before making an order under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall consult the water authority and any other authority appearing to him to be concerned.
(5) The Secretary of State shall give notice of any order which he proposes to make under this paragraph to the water authority and the Board and, if within 28 days after he has given notice to them either the authority or the Board give notice to him that it objects to the proposal and the objection is not withdrawn, the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 86. I have previously dealt with these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 87]
Schedule 3, page 53, line 45, leave out "public".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. This is a minor drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 88.]
Schedule 3, page 54, line 51, leave out from "applies" to end of line 52 and insert "by virtue of section 5(4)(b) of this Act to an acquisition of land under the new towns code".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 88. Again, this is a minor drafting Amendment relating to the service of notices.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 89.]
Schedule 3, page 56, line 15, at end insert 'and the appropriate Minister.
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule "the appropriate Minister" is, in relation to any statutory undertakers specified in column (1) of the following Table, the Minister specified in relation to those undertakers in column (2) of that Table.

(1)

(2)

Statutory undertakers

Appropriate Minister

1. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, dock, harbour or pier undertaking.

The Secretary of State for Transport.

2. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any water transport, canal or inland navigation undertaking.

The Secretary of State for the Environment.

3. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on any lighthouse undertaking.

The Secretary of State for Trade.

4. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on an undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas or hydraulic power.

The Secretary of State for Energy.

5. Statutory undertakers authorised to carry on an undertaking for the supply of water.

The Secretary of State for Wales.

6. The Post Office

The Secretary of State for Industry.

7. The Civil Aviation Authority or the British Airports Authority

The Secretary of State for Trade.

8. The National Coal Board

The Secretary of State for Energy.

9. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

The Secretary of State for Energy.

(4) References in this Schedule to the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister shall have effect—

(a) as references to the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister, if the appropriate Minister is not the one concerned as the Secretary of State; and

(b) as references to the once concerned as the Secretary of State alone, if he is also the appropriate Minister.

(5) If, in relation to anything required or authorised to be done under the new towns code, any question arises as to which Minister is or was the appropriate Minister in relation to any statutory undertakers, that question shall be determined by the Treasury.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. This Amendment was dealt with earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 90 to 94.]
Schedule 6, page 64, leave out lines 43 to 45.
Page 65, line 1, leave out from "person" to end of line 2 and insert "to whom this Schedule applies who transfers from the employment of the Council to the employment of the Agency, that—"
Page 65, line 27, leave out from has "to end of line 28 and insert" transferred to that employment from his employment with the Council; or"
Page 65, line 35, leave out from "has" to "and" in line 37 and insert "transferred to that employment from his employment with the Council"
Page 66, line 18, leave out from "person" to end of line 19 and insert "to whom this Schedule applies who transfers from the employment of the Council to the employment of the Agency."
8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90, and it may be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 91 to 94. The effect of Amendment No. 90 is to remove from the Welsh Development Agency the duty to employ those staff of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas employed by the Council on work wholly or mainly in Wales, who request the Agency who employ them when COSIRA withdraws from Wales concurrently with the Board's vesting day. The other Amendments, Nos. 91 to 94, are consequential and relate the provisions of the Schedule to any person who transfers from the employment of the Council to that of the Agency. I ought to give the assurance however that although these Amendments remove the statutory duty on the Agency to employ COSIRA staff whose work relates wholly or mainly to the Council's activities in Wales, the Agency have indicated that they:

1395
"welcome the fact that on Vesting Day the COSIRA staff employed wholly or mainly in Wales will transfer, together with their work, to the Agency."
This has been explained to the staff concerned and they are quite happy about it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend ments.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 95.]
Page 70, line 15, at end insert—
'Water Act 1973
10A.—(1) This paragraph has effect for the amendment of section 15 of the Water Act 1973 (arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions) where the circumstances specified in subparagraph (2) below exist.
(2) The said circumstances are that an order is in force under paragraph 50A of Schedule 3 to this Act authorising the Development Board for Rural Wales to exercise the powers of a water authority under section 15 of the Public Health Act 1936 for the purpose of the sewerage of the area of a new town situated within the area for which the Board is responsible under this Act and within a water authority area.
(3) Where this paragraph has effect section 15 shall have effect as if subsection (1) thereof also required the water authority for that area and (at the choice of that water authority) either the Board or any district council within whose area the new town is wholly or partly situated to endeavour to make arrangements for the Board or the district council to discharge as respects the new town the functions of the water authority under Part II of the Public Health Act 1936 (other than those excepted by subsection (3)) and as if the references in subsections (2), (4), (5) and (6) to a or the relevant authority included references to the Board.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95. This Amendment has already been spoken to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 96.]
Page 71, line 31, at end insert—
'New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976
16. After section 15 of the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Application to new towns of the Development Board for Rural Wales.
15A.—(1) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to the Development Board for Rural Wales ('the Board') and any new town within the area for which the Board is responsible under the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 as they apply to a new town corporation for any new town and that town subject, however, to the modifications specified in this section.
(2) A dwelling is a 'dwelling of a new town' if it is a dwelling (whether or not in the area of the new town concerned) erected, adapted, or acquired by the Board for occupation as a dwelling and so erected, adapted or acquired for the purpose of developing any area of a new town or new town situated within the area for which the Board is responsible under that Act.
(3) A transfer scheme shall, in addition to specifying under section 3(6)(b) above the number or proportion of dwellings in respect of which the right to nominate tenants is conferred by the scheme, specify the period for which the right is to be exercisable but the Board's right shall only be exercisable during the period of five years beginning with the date on which the Board's interests in the transferred dwellings vest in the district council or such lesser period as may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, be agreed between the Board and the council.
(4) The powers, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Board which are excepted by subsection (8) of section 7 above from those which a district council are to have in relation to land managed under a transfer scheme include any powers, rights, liabilities and obligations which are certified by the Board as being appropriate for the Board to retain in order to enable them to complete their function of laying out and developing the new town, and subsection (9) of that section shall apply as if the certificate had been given under subsection (8)(c").".'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96. Your Lordships will be delighted to hear that Amendment No. 96 is the last of this series of Amendments, and I am grateful to the House for listening so patiently to such a stream of general technicality. The effect of this Amendment is to apply the provisions of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill to the Development Board for Rural Wales, by inserting a new Clause 15A in that Bill. The main purpose of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill is to provide for the transfer to the appropriate district councils of the ownership of rented dwellings and related assets held by new town development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
8.3 p.m.
Further consideration on Report.
Debate on Amendment No. 20 continued.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the effect of this 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, and patients who are not, ordinarily resident in Great Britain. We discussed this Amendment at some length in the Committee stage last week. There is very little I can add to what I said during the Committee debate on this Amendment, but I should like to explain why it was that I was not able to tell your Lordships how many overseas patients are admitted to National Health Service hospitals and how much income is derived by the NHS from these patients. The reason is quite simply that these statistics have never been kept. Statistics are collected only on admissions, deaths and discharges and out-patient attendances for all patients, whether ordinarily resident in Great Britain or otherwise.
During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that this sub section was an example of the Government's drift towards a "siege economy". I think that was the phrase he used. I am sure that the noble Lord, having had an opportunity to reflect on what he said, might now admit that that was extravagant wording. This provision, as I explained during Committee stage, is similar to a power which has been held by the Secretary of State since 1949 and was contained in Section 17 of the 1949 National Health Service Act. I also explained that the Secretary of State has never used the power in the 1949 Act to determine different rates of charges for patients from overseas to those applied to people resident in Great Britain. What I am saying is that, if the Secretary of State felt it desirable to fix different
1398
charges, he would do so. Perhaps some of us are rather surprised that he has not exercised that power to date. We feel, and I think most noble Lords will agree, whatever they may feel about the National Health Service as such, that the skill, the competence and the expertise found in this country in the medical profession is such that perhaps we ought to cash in so far as overseas patients are concerned, if they want to come to this country for medical treatment. The short answer is that this has not been done, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has powers to do so. However, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that he has no plans at the present moment for using those powers.
The provision would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the power in future if, in his view, circumstances caused him to do so. I think that an example of the kind of circumstances in which he might use this power is the one that I mentioned during the Committee stage, where a wealthy foreign patient comes to this country for highly specialised treatment requiring expensive equipment or skills which would cost less here than in other countries of the world.
I said last week in reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that there is nothing in the Bill which can effect existing reciprocal agreements or EEC regulations. I have pursued this matter in the light of what the noble Lord said this evening, and my understanding is that advice has been taken outside the Department from those competent to give advice on this matter, and as a result of that I can repeat what I said last week; that there is nothing in the Bill affecting those agreements or regulations. But I want to assure the noble Lord that the advice was taken outside the Department.
I am sure that it is not necessary for me to say to the noble Lord that any person who belongs to this country is entitled to use the National Health Service. If he qualifies for admission under Clause 8 he would be charged the United Kingdom rate. This raises all kinds of problems, such as how long a person who lives outside the country remains a resident of this country. I believe that it is not just a question of domicile; I think that very often it is a question of what is

1399
happening at the tax level. I cannot be more precise than that.
I turn now to the question of how a foreigner would know that he would have to pay more. This would depend on which channel he uses to get the treatment in this country. He may go to one of our Embassies, in which case we would expect them to know, and I should imagine that we would do something about informing them if the Secretary of State at some time decided to use his powers to increase the charges for foreign visitors. But this does not apply at the moment. I think there is some responsibility on the patient to find these things out. My Lords, I think the noble Lord asked me four questions. However inadequately I may have answered them, I think that I have in fact dealt with the four.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I press him further on this question of a differential charge? I entirely take the point that it is right to make a charge to someone from overseas who is not a British subject and who comes here for a specialised operation which may require very expensive equipment and which may otherwise cost the British taxpayer a great deal of money. What I do not understand is how the Secretary of State can identify who is the rich foreigner. Does he mean that anybody from Saudi Arabia, for example, or from the Middle East, will be charged a lot more, or if he is thought to be an oil sheikh, whereas if he comes from one of the African countries, perhaps, he will be assumed to be poor and will be charged less? Or are the Government actually suggesting a means test? I simply do not know how the Secretary of State will know how to make the charge; and if he does not know how to make the charge, what is the point of putting the power in?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there cannot be an accurate yardstick for this, but let us be frank about it. It is not difficult to tell when someone wants to come to this country for a particular operation. We would know full well that he was coming into a National Health Service bed and wished to he dealt with privately. I should have thought that this information was easily obtainable from the consultant. I also think that
1400
there are certain parts of the world which would leave one in no doubt as to whether the person had a reasonable income—or, rather, more than a reasonable income. I do not think that in practice it would be as difficult to ascertain these facts as it would appear to be in theory, and, of course, one could discuss it theoretically for a long time.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He has said "he", but I am sure he means both sexes. When, for instance, it comes to people coming from other countries for abortions, which are very often not done under the NHS, although some are, how are these people to be treated? Because one would surmise that some could well afford quite a large fee, whereas others one knows could afford practically nothing. Has the Secretary of State any authority to guide both the people who are administering the medication and conducting the operation that these people need and the patients themselves; and in what category do they come?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as in normal life the male embraces the female, so when I use "he" I also mean "she". With regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness, if they have come over here to be treated by a consultant within the National Health Service as a private patient, then we would assume, and I think we would have a right to assume, that that consultant would not introduce as a private patient somebody whom he knows will be able to pay only him and not the charges for the private bed in the National Health Service. We work on that assumption. We are not always right. A large number of private patients, I regret to say, bilk the National Health Service to the tune of many tens of thousands of pounds a year; but that is another story. However, I think we would have a right to assume that a consultant who was going to bring in a private patient to a National Health Service bed would take jolly good care that that patient could meet, not only his fees but also the expenses of the bed.
Lord STONE: My Lords, may I add to that in answer to the noble Baroness? There is a ready situation for people of that sort, in that there are set up what

1401
are called pregnancy advice bureaux, as the noble Baroness probably knows; and they are directed there if they want treatment outside the National Health Service at a very reasonable fee and, frankly, in a very easy and convenient manner.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I think we have had a useful discussion on this Amendment and that this time round, at a slightly earlier time of the evening, there has been a greater meeting of minds between the two sides of the House. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he has said, although it has not gone very far, particularly on the matter of how, if the Secretary of State decided to use these powers, he will in fact be able to ascertain the means of any particular foreign patient. But I think we have now cleared up a large number of the questions, at least to some extent, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.16 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("appear to the Secretary of State") and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 21 I think I can speak to Amendment No. 22. I can move this Amendment very briefly. These two Amendments are designed to make the clause that we are now discussing clearer, because at the moment there is some ambiguity in that what appears in the Bill as at present drafted is "appear to the Secretary of State" and then later on, in line 12, "appearing to him to be". My Lords, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but these charges are either fair or unfair, and it is not really for the Secretary of State to claim to be the sole arbiter of these matters. I think it would be fairer and easier to apply in practice if the words that I seek to omit are omitted and the sole word "are" is introduced instead. If the noble Lord feels that there is some special point in retaining the words that I seek to omit, I should be very glad to hear what it is, but unless he can produce a very good reason why they should be retained I should have thought that it would be more explicit to omit them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think it would be helpful if we took Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together, in which case I will do so. The effect of these Amendments would be to require that the charges determined under Section 31 of the 1968 Act to be paid by persons afforded access to accommodation or services at NHS hospitals under that section of Clause 8 should include such amounts as are proper and reasonable in respect of costs appearing to be properly attributable to capital account, rather than such amounts as appear to the Secretary of State to be so.
The Bill as drafted leaves the judgment of what amounts are proper and reasonable, and what costs are attributable to capital account, to the Secretary of State. That is the Bill as drafted. This is a more practical basis for the fixing of charges than would he the basis produced by this Amendment. The Secretary of State would be unwise to commit himself to having to establish incontrovertibly that his judgments of these matters were correct in order to deal with challenges about the level at which he fixes the charges. A degree of estimation is not only inevitable but also appropriate, and there must also be averaging between hospitals. The Government's intention was expressed in the proposals of 15th December, I think it would be helpful to read it. In paragraph 3(e) it says:
"Charges will be made to these patients (or in the case of patients sponsored by overseas Government, to their Governments) and there would be no subsidy by the NHS."
There is a similar provision in the 1968 Act in Section 1(3) which reads:
"in determining such charges …the Minister shall have regard, so far as reasonably practicable, to the total costs (exclusive of costs appearing to him to be properly attributable to capital account) which, by reference to facts known to him at the time of the determination it is estimated will be incurred…in the provision for resident patients…at hospitals falling within that class".
That is for the average patient. In addition it goes on to say:
"and may include in any such charges, in such cases as appear to him fit, such amounts as appear to him proper and reasonable to be included by way of contribution to expenditure appearing to him to be properly attributable to capital account."
I do not think it would be possible really to calculate these on any other basis, and I think it must be left to the Secretary of State, on the advice given him, to

1403
determine these matters. I do not think in the circumstances that the Amendments would help in any way.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that it ought to be left simply to the Secretary of State to charge what he thinks reasonable? Some people are really concerned that, suddenly last year, charges for private rooms in hospitals were put up by three times. No doubt the then-Secretary of State thought that this was proper and reason able. The health authorities, I believe, did not think that that was altogether the case as they had recently reviewed the charges for private beds.
I think that there is concern among people that once again we are giving a power to the Secretary of State simply to impose charges that he or she thinks are proper and reasonable, without any safeguard from anybody else as to whether they are so. That is our concern. I should have thought that in all this there ought to be some effective accounting method so that the costs are covered. If it is thought right that a profit should be made, then a profit should be made; but what was being done should be explicable to anybody who looked at the accounts. I did not draw that conclusion from what the noble Lord said.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, this is not an easy matter. Changes must reflect capital costs, which must be averaged out. There are many other costs which have to be taken into account. There is the nature of the services, the nature of the skill and very often the nature of the operation. Estimates can be made for costs of operations for complaints which are not in themselves serious, but when you move into the more acute area you must think in terms of cost of particular skills and apparatus and so on. This is not done by sticking a pin in a few numbers with your eyes closed. A sincere attempt is made to find out what the costs are. There are finance departments in every hospital and financial experts in the Department, and attempts are made to calculate costs and capital expenditure and then to assess what the charge for a private bed should be taking into account all those other
1404
costs. I do not see any other way to do it. If people do not like it, it is for them to suggest a much better method and not just to critise for the sake of criticism.
Baroness SEEARS: My Lords, I find this an extraordinary explanation of how this is done. We are asked to believe that it is so complicated that it can be done only with great difficulty. It does not sound any more complicated than the kind of costing operation which is done frequently in commercial concerns. If a contractor is putting in a price he must do a complicated costing exercise. This is a costing exercise like any other. What I understand noble Lords on the Opposition Benches are asking for is that the principle on which this costing is done should be made clear. That is the first point.
Secondly, it strikes me as odd that we are expected to accept the costing without any list of principles or outline of basis on which it is done—and done by the people who are going to benefit from the price. Without any challenge, these are the people who arc going to get the benefit of this price. In no other field of life would one think that they alone, unchallenged and without explanation, ought to be the people who determine how much was to be paid, without any attempt to say how the costing is done or to be open to challenge by the people who pay. My sympathy on the pay bed issue is often with noble Lords on the Benches opposite; but as an explanation of how the price is to be fixed I think this is quite extraordinary.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, it may be that we should not pursue this matter for too long tonight but I think it will have to be pursued later on, for this reason. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, quoted the 1968 Act. That is an excellent precedent; and what is the law, as laid down in that Act, is in most instances a very reliable guide to what should continue to be the law. But since the 1968 Act, this Government have chosen to introduce this Bill, and since the 1968 Act there has arisen what Lord Goodman referred to as a "corroded atmosphere" in the National Health Service. Since the 1968 Act, the general feeling of trust and goodwill has, to put it mildly, diminished. So what then might

1405
have appeared to everybody in an atmosphere of trust and cordiality as a reasonable system, is no longer necessarily a reasonable system simply because it has obtained up till now.
I do not intend to press this Amendment. It was designed to give the Government the opportunity of reassuring us that they would be fair. I wanted to give the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the chance to explain, now that the atmosphere of distrust is being dispelled, how the Secretary of State would be looking at these matters so that what happened last year, when the charges were put up repeatedly, will not be thought to be likely to happen again without those who are affected having the chance to voice their views. We have not had an explanation from the noble Lord as to how this will be done in future. I think it probably is too late to pursue it now. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to intervene again, I should like it to go on record that pay bed charges were not increased threefold last year. My understanding of the situation is that they were increased by 30 per cent. in April of this year, and by 50 per cent. in April of last year.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, if I have made a mistake, I would beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Use by general practitioners etc. of NHS accommodation and facilities for private practice]:
8.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("Provided that any such charges shall he 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 Lord said: My Lords, we now move into Clause 9 which we dealt with early in the morning, at about 3.30 a.m., in Committee. Perhaps it will be for the benefit of the House if I go into further detail and contrast this clause with
1406
Clause 8. Clause 9 applies to nonresident private patients and the use by general practitioners of National Health Service accommodation and facilities for private practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in her reply on precisely the same Amendment (which was Amendment No. 85) said this at column 581 in Hansard of 10th November:
"In relation to charges to family practitioners in health centres (Clause 9) the provision of Clause 8 would be equally unsuitable."
She went on to describe how the provision of Clause 9(4) had been written into the Bill, which is the portion of the Bill immediately before our Amendment. The reason why we have brought this Amendment forward again is once more a lingering anxiety. I must say that the anxiety has been to a great extent strengthened this evening by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because he advanced shortly before our adjournment what I call the doctrine of disclaimed responsibility. He said—and I think I quote his remarks correctly—
"It is not for the Secretary of State to protect private patients from the financial consequences of their choice."
That would be a perfectly reasonable statement to make were it not for the fact that the Government in another part of their policy encouraged the innovation of a Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Affairs.
I believe that it would be to the great benefit of your Lordship's discussion if we could have a little more information about this situation. We believe that there is a problem here, because Clause 9 sets out a very stringent set of rules. It tells general practitioners and their patients how they should set about an application to the Secretary of State for the use of private accommodation or services. It tells them what will happen to the application, whether it will be considered and whether it will prejudice National Health Service patients in any way. It tells them about the grant of permission; it gives the course of events. But there is nothing whatever to restrict the Secretary of State in any way in making a somewhat arbitrary choice of his selection of fees.
It would be very helpful if the Government could give us a little more information on this point. We have been very pleased to re-examine the comments of

1407
the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, so far as the licence and the component parts of the charges were concerned. We should like to hear a little more.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, as did the noble Baroness when she moved the Amendment in Committee, made it clear that their intention is to prevent the making of the arbitrary charges. The charges now made are not determined on an arbitrary basis: they are covered by the terms of the model licence. This has recently been renegotiated and agreed with the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association. The professions' representatives were clearly mindful of the Government's policy relating to the future of private practice during the course of these negotiations. Furthermore, the Government moved Amendments to Clause 9 in another place at the professions' request.
We are seeking with the profession to preserve the status quo, including leaving charges to be incorporated in the model licence. The Amendment would disturb the status quo and I cannot see that there is any desire on the part of the profession or any real need to do so.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we were pleased to listen to the noble Baroness when she made her first reply; her second scarcely varied the words. There is a lingering anxiety about this and that is bound to be so because the noble Baroness cannot say more at this stage. I do not think that it would be for the benefit of the House if I were to press this Amendment, but it is just possible that we may wish to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 14, line 5, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on others that were agreed at the Committee stage. It is to extend the initial period from six months to one year. When we debated the extensions at the Committee stage it
1408
was recognised just what the Board had to do; after all, the Board cannot be appointed until the Bill receives Royal Assent. It then has to phase out the first 1,000 beds, it has to establish the common waiting lists; and there are a great many other things which will have to be looked at. To expect to do this by May or June, if the Bill receives Royal Assent next Tuesday, seems to be asking it to do its very, responsible job extremely quickly. It is not in the best interests of the whole exercise. This is a consequential Amendment; I do not wish to speak any further on it. I hope that the Government will consider it favourably and I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this Amendment is consequential on an Amendment made during Committee stage and therefore we will not oppose it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Control of construction and extension of controlled premises]:
8.38 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 14, line 43, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("two hundred and fifty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25 and if I may I will speak to Amendment No. 26. We now embark on Part III of the Bill, and before I discuss these two Amendments in detail, l should like to introduce our discussions on this Part of the Bill by reminding your Lordships of one or two points which affect not only this Amendment but other Amendments in Part III. This Part of the Bill is an attempt to control the hospital building outside the National Service. It lays down various provisions that the Government want to introduce in order to make sure that this control is carried out properly. It is important that we should remember that this control is something which was not contained as a promise in either of the two Manifestos in 1974, nor was it part of the discussions presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and therefore it did not form part of what has come to be known as the Goodman Proposals. It is an addition by the Government to those

1409
proposals; it is something that they felt necessary to add to the rest of the Bill because they feel that without it the Bill would not carry out all the purposes that they seek to achieve.
The two Amendments I am moving are an attempt to alter the size of the hospital to which these controls will apply. At the beginning of Part III we are told that hospitals above and below a certain size will be affected by the Bill. My two Amendments seek to raise the size of those hospitals so that the limits make it possible for hospitals of a larger size to be outside the provisions of Part III. We had quite a lengthy and, indeed, thorough answer from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at 4 o'clock in the morning of 10th/llth November. Certainly I, listening at that time, could not absorb the considerable detail the noble Lord gave us. I have tried to do so since, and it is interesting to note that he began by saying this at column 588 on 10th November:
"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"—
and so on. The noble Lord then went on to justify the particular figures we are now considering. The burden of his remarks was almost entirely connected with staffing ratios and the numbers of staff. He devoted several columns of Hansard to explaining what the Government thought, on the advice received, the likely staff requirements of the new hospitals built by the private sector might be.
Therefore, in moving these Amendments again, I should like to ask the noble Lord: if the main factor that weighs with the Government in setting these limits is the number of staff the new hospitals may employ, why have they not used the yardstick of staff? Why have they used the number of beds? If they feel that the number of staff is the crucial thing, are they quite confident that the particular sizes they have chosen are the right ones?—because, if it is staff they are worried about, surely it should be staff they should be specifying as being the limiting factor for the new hospitals. If the noble Lord could answer those questions and give some fairer reasons as to why the Government felt their judgment—the judgment
1410
the noble Lord said they have made on the basis of evidence given to them—came down in favour of these particular figures, I am sure it would be most useful. It seems to me it might well be a waste of time for the Board to concern itself with hospitals which could function perfectly well without in any way interfering with the National Health Service if the sizes of the hospitals that were permitted to be built without control were increased. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, because I think he has a real point here. These Amendments were subject to a tied vote in Standing Committee in another place, and that is another reason why we believe they are matters with which your Lordships should be concerned. I have re-read the statement made at 4 o'clock in the morning which was referred to by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, and there are two points which strike one very forcefully. At the top of col. 588, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said this:
"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 requirement of private hospitals."
That is a very interesting factor: staffing ratios. The noble Lord adduced a considerable volume of examples to your Lordships. It is very interesting, as I say, because the practicalities of staffing differ so widely from what appears in the book. I read with amazement the third example which was given by the noble Lord, again at col. 588, when he said this:
"A third acute hospital of 40 beds is to have 10 sisters, 40 staff nurses and ten medical ancillary staff."
I would very much doubt whether many hospitals of that size are up to establishment. Nevertheless, that is the staffing ratio that was given for the circumstances which we know from experience.
However, I believe that the situation we are trying to remedy by means of this Amendment is somewhat different. I think there is a requirement for higher thresholds for quantity licensing of new hospitals in the private sector, for the reason given by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan—that is, that the smaller hospitals we are concerned with here could

1411
not possibly interfere with the National Health Service and so why should the Board concern itself with an unnecessary task? I believe it is really a counsel of perfection which is being sought and that, knowing the staffing situation today and also the situation which is likely to obtain in the future, we should not expect the Board to carry out something for which there is really no need.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, while I support the Amendment of my noble friend, it is not to discuss its merits or to add to what has already been said that I rise. I rise in fact to seek information with regard to words which this Amendment directly affects. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, says I am bowling a fast one to him and that he must look at the matter later, I shall quite understand. My point is over the use of the word "premises" in this particular clause, inasmuch as the Amendment of my noble friend has a bearing on its use. It is not my recent acquaintance with another Bill that makes me shy at this word: it is a genuine concern that there is a possibility that this word, in this Bill, in this clause, in subsection (2), might be construed on occasion in a plural sense—as a multiplicity of premises, as opposed to single premises. It would be particularly unfortunate were it possible to place that interpretation upon the word in relation to the substance of the Amendment and the matter under discussion.
The word "premises" occurs about 10 times in the subsection, and it appears to me that there is possibly a case for doubt here. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may be able to tell me at once that there is a precedent in similar legislation or that an interpretation occurs somewhere that would take care of the matter. I have not managed to find it. I do not wish to labour the point; but I am sure that the noble Lord, if there is an element of doubt, would offer to come back before the Bill passes from us and put the matter to rights if there are any justifiable fears in this respect. I am sure that he would agree with me that it is contrary to the Government's intention if such an interpretation could be placed upon the word on any occasion it is used, and I am sure that he would wish to put this right.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, when the noble Lord comes to reply, I should be grateful if he would address his mind to the basic point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. I have not re-read the proceedings of the all-night Committee stage. I was here virtually all the time, and I could not endure the thought of reading the account of those prolonged proceedings. But this Amendment seeks to reduce the power of control by raising the figures.
Would the noble Lord address his mind to this point, in dealing with this effort to reduce the area or extension of control? Why a control at all? This is a genuine request for information. It would seem to me that if the private hospital provision has to be developed outside, it will develop only to the extent that there is a public demand for such services. If there is over-provision, then that provision will have to he revised in the light of experience. One does not want to make the National Health Service incomparable by reducing the prospect of anything competing with it. And if it should happen that this private hospital service, the development of which I deplore, attracts skill of the highest order and it comes to provide an exceptionally high service, that will be a situation which is a direct result of this legislation.
But is it an undesirable situation? I do not want to see it. I want private practice to continue to be conducted for the most part within National Health Service hospitals. But if it be accepted that it is to go outside, why control the outside activity? Will it not adjust itself to the public demand? Is it sensible to impose such artificial controls as 100 beds, 200 beds or 250 beds? It may be said, "There will be less competition for staff", but is that such a bad thing? I confess that I regard this Part of the Bill as having a sinister purpose. I can understand the original argument for separating the two. I do not like it; I think it is unwise; I think it will produce the rash of nursing homes that Aneurin Bevan feared. But if that is to be done, what justification is there for controlling the quantity of private provision which unwisely this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will encourage to develop?
If the purpose is the public interest, I do not understand why this additional

1413
pressure is to be brought to bear. The noble Lord has said with great eloquence, from time to time, "We have nothing against private practice. We want to see it flourish for those who need it. But we do not want it inside National Health Service hospitals". If that be true, why not leave it alone? What is the purpose of bureaucratic, administrative, Parliamentary or Ministerial control of this external service of which, necessarily, the Government have stimulated the creation, which will adapt itself to the public demand and the public need without the help of bureaucratic, administrative, Parliamentary or Ministerial control?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may first try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Gray, the word "premises" is not defined in the Bill, as he will know after having read it. "Controlled premises" is defined, and the interpretation of that is "premises". The word "premises" is used in the Bill to define one or more buildings.
If I may attempt to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, I want to be perfectly frank and say that I think there is a responsibility on the Secretary of State, and on any Government which may be in power, to see that there is no development which is likely to be detrimental to the National Health Service, and this could well be. As the noble Lord knows, there is a limited number of medical personnel—and I am thinking of all those professions which aid the medical profession—and I think that there is a responsibility on the Secretary of State to see that the development in the private sector is not in any one place, let alone in several, which is detrimental to the National Health Service.
The noble Lord was right when he said that the private sector will not develop unless there is a need, and, obviously, banks will not put their money—not even American money, I imagine—into the building of private hospitals unless there is such a need. But I do not think we can leave it to the haphazard method of seeing whether banks or other sources put their money into this building. I think that there is a responsibility on the Secretary of State to say, "I must do something to see that any development is not detrimental to the National Health Service". I believe that that is fair, in the circumstances.
1414
If I may turn to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who moved these Amendments, it is quite impossible to do anything to satisfy noble Lords opposite. The noble Lords, Lord Sandys, talked about amazement at something I said at, I think, 4 o'clock in the morning. I, at least, was fully awake, although I am not implying that he was not, and was conscious of what I was saying. But the amazing thing to me is that there is no satisfying noble Lords opposite. They ask: Why 100 and not 250? Why 75 and not 150? The short answer is that these are the figures which the independent hospital group, before the Bill was introduced in another place last April, pressed the Government to adopt, and noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite are representing in this House the independent hospital group.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, may I say straight away that we are not representing the independent hospital group. Every noble Lord speaks for himself in this House.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord is following on something that was said in your Lordships' House last week in another connection. The fact is that if noble Lords are not representing the independent hospital group, they are certainly putting forward—and, may I say, very adequately—the views of the independent hospital group. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, I went very fully into this matter last week. I am not going into it fully tonight, because I do not think noble Lords want me to do so. I pay them the compliment of saying that I know they have read Hansard very carefully. That is one thing that I can rely upon. What I am saying is that we are doing what we were asked to do by the independent hospital group, and I should have thought the very fact that we had done that would have been sufficient for noble Lords opposite.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I am extremely interested in the noble Lord's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, because for the first time it is admitted that the whole Bill is undesirable, and will lead to very undesirable consequences and the rash of new nursing homes, and so on, which the noble Lord, Lord Hill, quite rightly deplores. But

1415
if we are to have them forced upon us, whose fault is it?
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a very short question? He says that all this is done with the approval of the independent hospitals. Did they, in fact, approve the figures of 100 and 75?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that these are the figures which the independent hospital group asked the Government to accept, and we have done so. It surprises me that this Amendment should be put down a second time, and I hope that the noble Lord will not say that he is going to take it away and think about it and may put it down again. In a sense, if we have any responsibility to the independent hospital group—and I do not think we have—we have certainly discharged it by adopting the figures which they pressed us to accept.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am not going to be provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, into saying I will not put this down again and again. I suspect that the independent hospitals group may have been consulted by the Government as to the figures if the principle of control were to be introduced. Whether they asked the Government to introduce control is, I should have thought, a distinctly different matter.
However, we have all had enough of this Amendment. I think the question from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, elicited an answer which worried him, because the Government seemed to think that the word "premises" could apply to one or more hospitals, and therefore you could have an application covering two or three buildings in different places which might be considered as one premises as defined under the Bill. I am not sure whether we should go into all that again, but if that is strictly so, then this control is much more wide-ranigng than some of thought when we first began to study the Bill. I think it is time we moved on to another subject and, for that reason, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Authorisations to construct or extend controlled premises]:
9.2 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 15, line 20, after first ("Board") insert ("in like form as if the application were one for planning permission for the controlled works").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of Amendments about planning permissions and the planning aspects of Part III of this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is to reply, she will be aware that on this side of the House we dislike Part III particularly for the reasons so admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan. Part III exercises a control over private hospitals, and I find it depressing in the extreme to be told that the reason for the control is that private hospitals must not damage the National Health Service. If the National Health Service is any good at all it will stand on its own feet and it will stand up to competition. If it is as good as it has been, then it has nothing at all to be afraid of. The sad thing is, it makes us all realise that what will happen is the general deterioration of both the National Health Service and, I suspect, private medicine as well.
One of the many things which concern us about these rather over-detailed proposals is that someone wishing to establish a private hospital has to put it to the Board. Not only do they have to put it to the Board, but they have to go through the normal planning procedures which any applicant has to go through when seeking planning permission for something.
It may well be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 30 at the same time, which although not on precisely the same point is also concerned with planning. The purpose of Amendment No. 27 is that when an applicant has to apply for planning permission, he should not automaticaly have to put in another application and another set of facts and figures to the Board. One application should serve both purposes, otherwise it simply leads to duplication of effort on the part of the applicant at a time when Government expenditure is supposed to be cut down. It clearly

1417
requires a whole lot more people to look at these things, and I cannot see that it is in the interests of local government and local authority or, indeed, of the Board, that in looking at these applications they will have to look at more forms. I should have thought that what served the purpose for an application for planning permission could serve for the purpose of the Board. After all, planning applications require a great deal of detailed information.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to add the words in line 35 on page 15, that when authorisation is granted, it will be granted within three months of receiving the application. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be very familiar with the various time limits in planning applications in which an applicant has to have a reply from the planning authority. I think it not unreasonable that the Board should be asked to give a reply within three months of receiving an application. Therefore, I beg to move both Amendments, which I think will be in the interests of efficient government, and certainly in the interests of helping the applicants through what will be a series of quite complicated hoops. I beg to move.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for suggesting we take the two Amendments together. Amendment No. 27 was one of a large group of Amendments that we debated in Committee. Something like 20 Amendments on the planning aspects were withdrawn, and quite a lot have been put down again in similar, if not the same form. Quite frankly, with reference to Amendment No. 27, I really cannot see how I can help noble Lords any more than I tried to do last time, when I tried to explain that the planning documents and the form which one fills in with applications for planning consent contain nothing like the same details that have to be filled in in order to get the authorisation to do the controlled works.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, knows from her association with the Department of the Environment. planners need to know about elevation, drainage, access, the need for carparking, the effect on transport, and so on; whereas so
1418
far as applications for building of the controlled works are concerned, one needs to establish the number of beds one will have, the surgeries to be provided, the operating theatres, and so on. The two are not synonymous one with the other. Quite frankly, if the description which I tried to give—and I know it was early in the morning—as to why an application for planning permission does not contain the relevant details useful for the Health Services Board in considering applications, was not clear, I cannot think what else I can say that will satisfy noble Lords.
My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 30 is concerned, I think that it indicates that noble Lords opposite have not much faith in the people who will serve as members of the Board and committees. They cannot accept—or it seems to me they cannot accept—that those who will be appointed after the necessary consultations are going to deal with the authorisation applications as quickly as possible. They seem to expect them to be so dilatory that we have to put in a fixed period for consideration of any application for authorisation.
This Amendment really is unnecessary, not only because the Board will, I am quite confident, discharge its duties with all proper speed, but because circumstances may arise in which it simply may not be possible for the Board to reach a decision within three months. Then we have to consider all the procedures that it will have to follow. The regulations made under Clause 16 require the Board to bring any application for authorisation to the attention of the interested parties, and to give those people likely to be affected by the proposed works a reasonable opportunity to make representations. The Board will then need to meet to consider the application and any representations, and it may then need to hold a hearing. Applications in Scotland and Wales will have to be considered by a committee that will hear the representations there and give advice to the Board. So it is conceivable that at some stage there may be an unavoidable delay in the procedure, and perhaps even the sickness of the applicant might cause the postponement of a hearing.
I think your Lordships will accept that this Amendment would put a duty on the

1419
Board which in exceptional circumstances they might not be able to discharge. I and my colleagues in the Department are satisfied that the Board will be responsible people, that they will take their duties seriously, that they will not stomach any undue delay in giving the authorisation and putting the necessary machinery into operation. I would hope that the House will reject both these Amendments.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend. Of course, as the noble Baroness said, this argument really concerns Amendments Nos. 33 to 40 and indeed No. 43. The bone of contention is whether we should accept the provision of a separate application to the Board prior to a planning application. I have taken what advice I could in the short time available. I have spoken to an architect concerned with designing hospitals and also a council concerned with planning. In the case of the architect he showed me a full planning consent. I do not think it is right to say that the planning authority is limited only to car parking and to environmental impact, as the noble Baroness kindly described it to me in her letter. In order to be able to judge car parking and the facilities of the hospital within the total design, they will need to know the number the hospital will be designed for, the number of staff, the provision of accommodation and facilities; that is all part of the application.
The second point the architect made was this, and I wonder whether perhaps the noble Baroness could answer this point because I think it is very pertinent. The planning application form is not a standard form which has to be adopted by Parliament. It is a form that can be designed by any local authority which so wishes. Therefore, it is within the power of local authorities throughout the country to specifically design a planning application to meet the information that the Board wants. This is the argument which thoroughly convinces me that my noble friend is right, that a planning application could meet the information which is required by the Board at the time the application is made. It would bring about a great deal more speed. It would undoubtedly save a great deal of expense. When one looks at the costs of planning
1420
applications and planning appeals, I know the noble Baroness will agree that every Member of the House would wish to try to streamline them.
The point the planning council made to me was on the question of timing, which my noble friend's Amendment would seek to put into the Bill. It is not a question of thinking that the Board may be dilatory; it is not that at all. We do not under planning law say, "Local authorities may be dilatory and therefore we put in a time limit". It is a self-induced discipline. I think it is good guidance for the Board to know that within three months it should give a reply. It may, perhaps should, have the right to delay the reply for a further month, but at least there should be a time limit. It is most important when you are dealing with planning applications, with the present rate of inflation, to get on with the job. Indeed we are not only talking of the development, but of the provision of facilities for people.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 30 putting a time limit on the authorisation. It was at the Committee stage that I spoke on clause stand part, asking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, about the problems of local authority members who were both members of the health authority and of the local planning authority. She replied that if it was her she would certainly not serve on both. I believe that this is so, but this does not necessarily provide an answer. She has a greater belief in human nature than I have, because she has again said, "I do not believe that the Board will be dilatory". I do not believe it would be either, but I do not see any harm in having a time limit so that we are certain that it is not dilatory.
The Board may be in existence for some years, and we do not know who the members of that Board will be. It only needs one or two of them to be dilatory for the time limit to be extended. It is essential that, when people are setting out on a planning exercise, applying for permissions on a two-fold basis, first for authorisation and then for planning permission, it should not be dragged out for a period which could be a year or a

1421
year and a half, which would be much too long. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment also. I can envisage the Board having far more work than anybody perhaps realises at this time, except the Government. I envisage that it is going to have a great deal of immediate work. I can also envisage that there are going to be great numbers of people who will want to set up smallish private hospitals or nursing homes. They will set aside a certain amount of money which they will want to spend on the buildings and equipment of that hospital. With inflation as it is now, it is likely that almost 100 per cent. more money will be needed if the planning permission is not granted within six months or a year.
Other Members of your Lordships' House know a great deal more about planning than I do, but I know a certain amount about costing. If one has to delay buying any piece of equipment, or delay building a hospital, or a house, or any other building, with inflation as it is now the costs are likely to go up by at least 100 per cent. It is important that the people who are going out on this very expensive project should have a time limit set for them within the Act.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that it is important that noble Lords understand that the planning procedure is quite separate from the Part III duties of the Board. It would be for the people who wanted to make the application for an authorisation for the building to get the authorisation first. In order to grant the authorisation the Board would want to know what they propose to carry out so that it could inform itself as to the extent and character of the proposed development, and also of what private medical provision is available in the area, as an indication whether there would be sufficient alternative provision to enable it to propose further revocations of the pay beds if the authorisation is granted.
The requirements needed in order to to get the authorisation are so different from the ones needed later when you apply to the local authority for planning permission. The local planning authorities,
1422
on the first outline planning permission, do not want anything like the detail needed when you apply for the full permission. The architects may go into a lot of detail when doing the full planning permission, but they will do so when their clients are primarily certain that they are going to get their outline permission and that they have got their authorisation.
I do not think that we ought to ask the planning authorities to extend their forms —and I really do not see how it is possible for them to do so—in order to take account of the Board's requirements. We are going to run into serious difficulties. I would also ask the House to resist putting in the time limit of three months. I am sure that my right honourable friend, when the time comes, will be giving guidance to the Boards. I am sure that one of the things he will give them guidance on is that they should not be dragging their feet on any applications which they receive. It would be unwise to tie them down to three months, when in certain exceptional cases three months may not be long enough.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness's argument about the difference between seeking authorisation and obtaining planning consent, and we appreciate that there is nothing she can do to speed up the machinery of planning consents; that is not contained in the Bill, nor is it her business. What I am not clear about is her objection to Amendment No. 30 because of the figure of three months, or is it that she objects to any figure at all being set? Presumably the noble Baroness would agree with us that it would not be acceptable if people had to wait for an indefinite period for an authorisation. Sooner or later there must come a time which she would herself regard as too long. Clearly she regards three months as too restrictive and I am wondering, in view of what she said, whether she would care to suggest some other figure because I feel sure that she must feel that there must come a time when a decision must be given. If it is not three months, how long does she think it should be?
Baroness STEDMAN: I should not like to suggest a figure, my Lords. In normal circumstances three months would

1423
probably be long enough, but I think we would be foolish to tie Statute to the period of three months when there may be the odd exception with delays that are unforeseen and unaviodable. One would then have to go over to four months and the planning board would then be in trouble. I think I would be satisfied if my right honourable friend were to give the guidance that as a general rule he would expect these matters to be dealt with within the three months, and I am sure that is the sort of guidance the boards will be getting from my right honourable friend.
Viscount KEMSLEY: My Lords, might I suggest that we use the phrase which is frequently used in legislation, "within a reasonable time"?
Baroness STEDMAN: I hope it will be, my Lords.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is right and that in the circular which goes out explaining how the Bill will work the Government will put in a time limit because, dealing with Amendment No. 30 first, I was aghast when I heard her describe the kind of reasons why three months would be too short. I was aghast because my experience on planning committees has taught me that when a planning committee decides that it should take part in some public consultation exercise, unless it puts a time limit on it, the amenity society will discover that the secretary is away on holiday, that the committee cannot meet for perhaps two months and that therefore they cannot be consulted until whoever it is returns from wherever it is they have gone, and the wretched applicant is left for an indefinite period without a decision. It is not the fault of the applicant and it is not, strictly speaking, the fault of the planning committee.
There is something to be said for having a time limit because it concentrates the mind and if one writes to an amenity society saying, "We must have a result within three months. We are consulting you. Would you kindly give us your views on this matter within this given time", one knows that one is getting somewhere. Without a time limit one
1424
will have exactly the circumstances I described, and I am sure the noble Baroness is as well aware as I am of the number of times when precisely this sort of thing can occur.
In this circumstance not only has the applicant to go to the Board to get the authorisation to build the hospital, but he must then go to the planning committee for planning permission, and without a set of time limits this exercise could take years, and that is no exaggeration. By the time everybody has been consulted, everybody has put in their objections, the Board considers the matter, it meets, and the matter goes through all the hoops of planning—outline planning permission, detailed planning permission, consultation with the neighbours and so on—it is not an exaggeration to say that that could take two years. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take this point seriously and put on a time limit by which the Board must give a decision.
On the question of the special form, I am not convinced by the argument. I think that planning committees could produce a special form, particularly as they, the county council, would be among the few people aware of a structure plan and of the amount of private hospital accommodation in the area. They are much more likely to be aware of it than the applicant building the private hospital. If it is a question of a detailed plan and it is referred to the district, again. the district will know precisely the kind of detailed information they want. They may not want as much as the Board wants and perhaps the Board should design a form which is suitable for use by a planning committee. Nevertheless, I still cannot see that two forms are necessary.
We have had a good run on these Amendments and I am sure the House will agree that they have been worth discussing. They are not matters which I intend to press to a Division, but I hope, as I said in opening, that Lady Stedman will press her right honourable friend, when he writes his circular, to take account of these points. They are very real considerations. A great deal of money is tied up in these developments and it is the applicant, and eventually the private patient, who will bear the cost. We have had a lot of debate about what is a reasonable cost. It would not be a

1425
reasonable cost if planning permission and authorisation had been unreasonably withheld and therefore the time limit is important. I do not intend to press this tonight but I hope the point will be fully considered. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("to a significant extent") and insert ("substantially").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 29 and to inform the House that at 12.41 the other morning I moved Amendment No. 62 and spoke to Amendments Nos. 63, 93 and 94. I noticed that we did not move two of the Amendments into the Bill and I am now seeking to do so. We agreed that the word "substantially" should go into the Bill at page 9. This has been done. On the other page the old wording, "to a significant extent" still appears. I beg to move that these two Amendments should join in holy matrimony with the other two.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, these two Amendments were down but were not moved in Committee. The Government need to be satisfied that developments in the private sector do not significantly endanger the service the National Health Service give 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 phrase "to a significant extent"—for which these Amendments would substitute "substantially"—thus gives effect to the safeguard which was foreshadowed in the 15th December proposals.
The Amendments cover similar ground to the Amendments to Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill which were debated thoroughly during Committee stage. During the debate the statement made by the former Minister of State in another place was quoted, that the substitution of "substantially" for "to a significant extent" would allow a greater amount of interference with the Secretary of State's performance of his duties or disadvantage to
1426
National Health Service patients, but would not give an indication of how far the amount would be increased or what would be its limit. The words "to a significant extent" are intended to ensure that the Board is not bound to take account of minimal interference or disadvantage, but would be guided by whether or not there would be noticeable and effective interference or disadvantage. We think this is a fair and reasonable interpretation of what was foreshadowed in the Goodman Proposals, and I hope the House will accept that explanation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 16, line 8, after ("authorisation") insert ("(provided that no authorisation shall lapse after the controlled works have been begun)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as we slip gently into the night against the interests of our own good health I hope that our joint wisdom will not fall on deaf ears. This small Amendment is still on a point of clarification, something which I know was raised in another place and during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. The Amendment relates to the lapsing of an authorisation consent once that consent has been granted by the Board.
As I understand it, if a consent is granted, it is most likely that there will be a time limit within which the work must proceed, and if it is not completed within that time the consent will lapse. That is easily understood. At the other end of the scale, once the development has been completed the consent will be spent and will evaporate. What is not covered is what happens if a start is made and, according to the Board, the development does not continue at the speed the Board wants. Is there a possibility at that stage of the consent lapsing or being revoked? The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me to indicate that there was a significant difference between these two things. Indeed, there is, because revoking would have to be revoking on a condition laid down in the consent, and lapsing would not. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify that point which of course deals only with work that has made a start. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it was early in the morning when we came to this Amendment in Committee. I gave your Lordships quite a full explanation then of the provisions in the Bill governing the duration of authorisations, and I undertook to write to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, giving him the reply to questions. That, as he reminded the House, I have done. The important thing is to distinguish between. an authorisation lapsing, on the one hand, and an authorisation being revoked on the other. Whatever the circumstances in which the authorisation either lapsed or was revoked, the Board would only be able to refuse to reissue an authorisation for the same project if there had been some material change in circumstances which meant that the Board now thought that the project could cause detriment to the National Health Service.
The Board may, with the consent of the developer, alter the conditions of any authorisation and it would be able to extend the period for the development if the developer was not able to complete within the time laid down. I hope that these points may reassure the House.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 32:
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 Earl said: My Lords, this is perhaps a more important Amendment in principle. It concerns the right to transfer an authorisation consent. Again, this is something that has been discussed in another place and in this House. To date, the Government have given two replies. The first was that, in their view, no provision is necessary because the owner of the consent can withdraw and a new licence be applied for. Secondly, the Government saw a danger, if this provision were added to the Bill, of its leading to what they termed "unmonitored transfers" and the possibility of a black market operating. I have tried to take advice from outside to discover what
1428
was the likelihood of a black market in these cases. I have not found anyone who felt any confidence that there would be tremendous value in these authorisation consents.
However, I believe that there is a serious fault in not allowing a consent to be transferred. I am not sure whether the consent will be issued in the name of a person, a charity or a corporate body, or whether it will be related to the land. Planning consents of course go with the land and not with the person, and I feel that the Government, in drafting this provision. have seemed to regard the consent in the same light as a gaming licence; that is, they are concerned with the character of the person and his ability to provide a service. I would ask the noble Baroness to look at this provision again and to recognise that there is a worry that those who have consents should be allowed to transfer them, subject, as the Amendment suggests, to the right of the Board not to allow a transfer if it thought it had reasonable grounds not to do so. That is a slightly Irish way of describing the Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have looked carefully at the points which the noble Earl raised on the last Committee stage when he asked whether, under the Bill, it would be possible for a developer, having been granted authorisation, to sell his company and by this means transfer the authorisation with the assets of the company. I said then that I should have thought it would have been possible, and I take this opportunity of confirming what I said then.
I realise that it could be used purely as a device for transferring authorisations, but it would be a rather cumbrous procedure for a developer to try to adopt. The Board, as I said in Committee, would have no reason for refusing to transfer an authorisation in respect of the same development if none of the circumstances had changed. I would also remind noble Lords that if an authorisation, as part of the assets of a company, passed with the company to a new owner, it would remain subject to the terms on which it was originally issued, which could include the time limit after which the authorisation would expire if the controlled works in question had not been

1429
begun. I hope that that information clears the point which the noble Earl had in mind.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, that explanation certainly helps to clarify the situation and I would not want to pursue it further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.38 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No: 32A:
Page 16, line 11, at end insert—
("(5) An authorisation granted under this section shall be for a period not less than three years.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a simple Amendment and, in a way, similar to my noble friend's Amendment No. 30. It is designed to put a minimum time limit on an authorisation consent. I do not think that the noble Baroness has ever been challenged as to the kind of timing the Board is likely to be asked to put in its conditions. In these magical instructions to go round, it would be helpful to know the position. I would add that the three-year limit has been designed to be parallel to an outline planning consent, which is three years, and, as the noble Baroness would know, detailed planning consent has a time limit of five years. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government have considerable sympathy with the intention of the Amendment, but they consider that it would not be appropriate to include it within the Bill. The noble Earl, who obviously has a more considerable knowledge of planning matters than I, may be aware that the provisions of Section 41 of the Town and Country Palnning Act 1971 requires that a development which is the subject of planning permission must be begun within five years of the date of award, or within such longer or shorter period as the planning authority may stipulate. Thus planning authorities have discretion in this matter. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which the Board would issue an authorisation for a period of less than three years. But we should accept that the period of authorisation is something over which the Board, as a responsible and independent body, should have
1430
discretion. It would be inappropriate to write into the Bill conditions which would, in effect, place limits on the Board's freedom of action, however well-intentioned those conditions might be.
The Government have consistently said that they intend to provide the Board with an independent status such as was envisaged in the Goodman Proposals, and an integral part of this independence, in the Government's view, is that the Board should be free to decide what the duration of an authorisation should be. It may help to allay the noble Earl's fears if I explain that the Council on Tribunals, which will have the general supervisory role in relation to the Board, is placed under a duty by Section 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, to keep under review the constitution and working of the bodies under its supervision. This would mean that if the Board were to determine the duration of an authorisation which was considered to be either capricious or unreasonable by the applicant, the council would, on referral, be able to investigate the applicant's complaint and, if appropriate, take it up with the Board. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will not feel that he has to press this Amendment.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the reason why she cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment is, I understand, that it would be unnecessary because the Board will be independent and does not need to be tied down. But her noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on an earlier Amendment that the Board did not need to give its reasons on anything because the guidelines were laid down very precisely on the matters on which it was likely to make a decision.
I should have thought that my noble friend has identified exactly the kind of case where perhaps an authorisation were made for less than three years and for one reason or another lapsed, and the Board did not give its reasons. It could be very disturbing if people did not know why. I cannot see why, in order to be consistent, the Board should be so tightly tied down in Clause 4, except of course that it is in the Goodman document; at any rate, we see that. Why can there not be added this kind of provision which,

1431
as the noble Baroness has quite rightly said, would be somewhat in line with the provisions under the planning Acts? It could well be that the applicant could get his permission under the planning Acts, which would hold good for five years, and then upon going to the Board, find that his permission lapsed after a short period. This would be grossly unfair, yet it is not impossible because the two are not working to a consistent standard. Perhaps this is a matter which the noble Baroness would like to look at again; it is the kind of matter which the Secretary of State also might like to look at. I am sure that the noble Baroness will see, as I can see, that there could be a miscarriage of justice.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. Yes, I think that I should like to look at this matter again and have further discussions with my right honourable friend.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, and indeed to the noble Baroness for her very detailed reply. I am also heartened to learn that she feels that I have a little knowledge on planning, which of course I have not; but at least I am heartened in that I have given that impression. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I5—[Planning permission for works requiring authorization]:
9.43 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 18, line 7, at end insert—
("(4A) For the purpose of any application for planning permission for any controlled works and any appeal as aforesaid, an authorisation for those controlled works shall be conclusive as to the matters referred to in subsections (2) and (3) of section 13 above.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I submit that this is an important Amendment. The House will recall that under Clause 15, which deals with planning permissions, no application for a planning permission can be entertained by a planning authority until an authorisation consent has been granted. Under Clause 13 the reasons and the tests which
1432
will be applied by the Board in consideration of that authorisation application are set out. As we have already discussed, these tests are technical in nature. The Board has to consider one aspect in principle: whether the works in question would interfere with the duty of the Secretary of State in regard to National Health Service Acts and whether they would operate to any disadvantage to National Health Service Hospitals. A little further on in Clause 13 we see that the Board has to look at the more technical points of the service which would be provided, the staffing available, and so on
The Government advice that the noble Baroness has already given us under Clause 14, is that under planning considerations the advice and the technical evidence that the Board consider is outside the scope of the planning authorities. If we accept this, then I hope the noble Baroness will be able to accept the Amendment. The Amendment is trying to ensure that in the event of a planning application and consideration by the planning committee, or in the event of a refusal and that planning application going to appeal, then the technical questions that have been considered by the Board will be conclusive and will not be the subject of debate in any appeal procedure or in the planning committee. I hope that with that brief description the noble Baroness understands my Amendment, and that the House does, too. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that I should like to give a little more thought to what the noble Earl has said. The planning authority and the Board are two separate bodies. I should like to look at the point again, and I shall, if I may, try to come back to the noble Earl before we start the Third Reading tomorrow.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that undertaking, and on those grounds I should like to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be dealing with the next Amendments, and he is on his way to

1433
the House. This gives me an opportunity, subject to the permission of your Lordships, to make what I think amounts to a personal statement. When we were considering Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, moved, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I understand that I said that the figures of 100 in London and 75 outside London were what we were asked to accept by the independent hospital group. Let me be perfectly frank about it: I got my figures confused. What I ought to have said was that the figures in the Amendment that the noble Lord was moving—that is, 250 and 150—were what the independent hospital group wanted. So I was in error; and I wanted to tell the noble Lord and the House that and, at the same time, to apologise to all noble Lords for what was a misleading statement.
Clause 17 [Appeals]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 4IA, 41B, 41C, 42A and 42B:
Page 20, line 1, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the preceding subsection").
Page 20, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Rules of court relating to appeals under this section may provide for excluding so much of section 63(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 as requires appeals to the High Court to be heard and determined by a Divisional Court; but no appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be brought by virtue of this section except with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.").
Page 20, line 15, after ("High Court") insert ("or the Court of Appeal").
Page 20, leave out from beginning of line 25 to first ("the") in line 27 and insert ("On any appeal brought under or by virtue of this section").
Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
("(8) An Appeal shall lie, with the leave of the Court of Session or the House of Lords, from any decision of the Court of Session under this section, and such leave may be given on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court of Session or the House of Lords may determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise that I was not present when these Amendments were due to be called. In moving Amendment No. 41A, which stands in my name, I think it may be conveient if I also move Amendments Nos. 41B, 41C, 42A and 42B, since they all relate to the same point; that is to say, the right of appeal. Those of your Lordships who had the good fortune to be present at 6.16 a.m. last Thursday morning will have heard the criticism which the
1434
still highly-alert noble Baroness, Lady Young, advanced about the appeal provisions which are now contained in Clause 17. Summarising it, the noble Baroness's argument was that to make the decision of a single judge of the High Court final was to open up the possibility of conflicting decisions on points of principle as between one judge and another which ought to be but could not be reviewed by a higher court, or a difference of view which could not be finally resolved between the Court of Session in Scotland and the courts in England.
As I indicated then, the Government were not taking a dogmatic line, and there arises the question of balancing the need for finality and the avoidance of endless litigation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the need to provide a reasonable and sufficient right of appeal against a decision of the Board. My view has been that points of law are not very likely to arise in the context of the Board's decisions and that one appeal to the High Court or Court of Session was sufficient to obtain an authoritative decision on any point of law which might arise. It was said by A. P. Herbert in respect of our system which not only provides for appeals from a High Court judge to the Court of Appeal but to the House of Lords, that one level of appeal he thought adequate and two, desperate. However, that is the set-up we have and it has been well trial and, I think, well justified.
Having given the matter further thought and after discussion with the noble Baroness and with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, I think that in order to reduce the risk of conflicting judicial decisions the prudent course will be to allow a further channel of appeal from the High Court judge to whom an appeal on a point of law would go in the first place. The combined effect of the Amendments I have moved is to make provision on the pattern which is normally adopted under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 in cases where an appeal lies on a point of law from the decision of an inferior tribunal. The effect will be in England and Wales that there will be an appeal as of right to a High Court. Whether this will be to a single High Court judge or to the Divisional Court will be a matter for the Rules Committee, but the practice in recent

1435
years has been for appeals from inferior tribunals to be heard by a single judge. I would expect that to be the position here. A further appeal would lie, with leave, to the Court of Appeal and thence, with leave, to your Lordships' House. In Scotland, the appeal will lie from the Court of Session, with leave, directly to your Lordships' House.
I do not depart from my personal opinion. Indeed, I hope that these provisions for further appeals will be little used; but, as I have said, on reflection I think it right that they should be there in case they are needed and the requirement of leave at each stage of an appeal above the High Court or the Court of Session will ensure that time is not unduly wasted on frivolous or hopeless appeals. I therefore commend the Amendments to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to express on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for bringing forward these Amendments. I was particularly delighted to hear my own arguments so well expressed by the noble and learned Lord because, although we debated this matter at 6.15 in the morning, it is an important matter and one which I am sure everybody on all sides of the House will agree should have been put right. We are particularly pleased that the noble and learned Lord has been able to do so and I should like to express my thanks to the Government on this matter and for the trouble that the noble and learned Lord has taken personally over it.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 42 falls with the acceptance of Amendment No. 41A. It is not moved, or, alternatively, it falls.
Clause 22 [General provisions as to regulations]:
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 23, line 20, leave out ("he may recognise as being") and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to
1436
take Amendment No. 45 with Amendment No. 44. These two Amendments, and Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, are designed to reduce the divine right of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has an unlimited power to recognise what he feels like recognising. He can judge bodies to be representative if they appear to him to be representative. If something is representative it should not be left to the Secretary of State to decide whether or not it is. If these bodies are representative, it is not necessary for them to appear to the Secretary of State to be representative. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to explain why they have these words in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.56 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 as the noble Lord has been good enough to move them together. These Amendments would require the Secretary of State to consult, before making regulations,
"Such other bodies as are representative of medical and dental practitioners, and such bodies as are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations".
The Bill, as drafted, requires consultaton with such bodies
"as he may recognise as being representative of medical practitioners and dental practitioners"
and such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State
"to be representative of interests likely …"
The Amendments, if carried, could allow the Secretary of State to be challenged, if other people disagreed with the exercise of his discretion as to which bodies are representative of the medical or dental professions. or of persons employed in the NHS, or are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by regulations. These categories are not absolutely clear and definite. There could quite well be dispute over whether a certain body is or is not likely to be substantially affected. There could equally well be dispute over which bodies really do represent the medical and dental professions, and persons employed in the NHS, and NHS patients. The present wording of the Bill, I hope the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will agree, allows a very practical and necessary flexibility. This is important. It enables the Secretary of State to use his judgment in deciding who, in his view, properly represents bodies

1437
likely to be affected by regulations; and it enables him to consult those bodies whom he recognises as representatives: this is important. There are many different bodies and associations to which medical and dental practitioners, and other NHS staff, and NHS patients could belong. One could almost say they are legion. Some are perhaps much more (shall I say?) representative than others and are recognised as such.
We have to face the fact that—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would know this as well as anybody in your Lordships' House—that sometimes one embarks upon something knowing full well that it is impossible to consult all the bodies involved. One has to choose those which are recognised, generally speaking, by everybody as being the spokesmen, the authoritative groups. The Secretary of State must be allowed by this Bill to consult the bodies whom he is accustomed to recognise as representatives of the relevant categories. The noble Lord,
1438
Lord O'Hagan, will take it from me that in this particular field the Secretary of State is unlikely not to know the people with whom he should be consulting. For that reason, I hope that he will not press the Amendment.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I take it that he has assured the House that the Secretary of State will not use this discretionary power unreasonably to exclude those he might normally be said to be representing. He has really given an undertaking that the customary bodies would continue to be consulted, as I understand it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have indeed.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, in that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The Health Services Board and its committees]:
10.1 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 25, line 9, at end insert ("who holds or has held judicial office").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated this Amendment at Committee stage hut, on refreshing my memory, I see that it was by that time 6.37 in the morning and after 16½hours in Committee we were all finding it a little exhausting to go into full detail on all those Amendments. I put this down again, because we regard it as an important Amendment and in the intervening time we have had the opportunity to read in Hansard what was said. Again, I feel a certain diffidence in talking about the legal profession and the sort of person who is required to be chairman of this Board, but I think we are all agreed that the job is very important and I would guess it to be one that would be virtually full time. There will be a great many things to be decided and it will certainly be a full-time appointment in the beginning, considering the amount of work that will have to be done. It will require someone who will be acceptable to all the members of the Board and obviously it must be somebody of distinction in whom everyone will place considerable trust. I looked to see what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had said, and I quote his words from col. 629 on 10th November:
"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 this person who becomes the chairman is not a judge, what is the sort of person who is likely to be appointed as chairman if he is a lawyer? If he is a barrister, I understand the difficulty there is that a barrister would find it very difficult to give up the time to become chairman. The profession of barrister is, above all, a profession of the self-employed, and the difficulty would be that if a barrister ceases to practise the solicitors will promptly go off to somebody else and he would find it difficult to get
1440
his practice back again. Therefore it would be very unlikely that any barrister of eminence and standing would wish to do this job, because he would be really giving up his professional career for a three-year appointment, or whatever it might be, without any certainty that the appointment would be renewed. The question then arises: who are we likely to have if we do not have, as a lawyer of standing, a successful barrister? I hesitate to talk about somebody being a less successful barrister, but perhaps he might be called the opposite of the successful barrister. Is that the kind of person in whom everyone would have confidence? The other alternative might be a barrister who, for some reason or another, has not the temperament to become a judge and therefore might not be regarded as the ideal person to become chairman of this Board.
Contemplating these alternatives, perhaps they might not appear to be serious suggestions but I believe this is a very serious matter indeed. It is vital to get the right chairman of the Board and I hope that, if the noble and learned Lord is to reply to this, he will be able to say what he means by "a lawyer" and what sort of lawyer he expects to get. Does he, for example, expect to get a successful barrister? Can he be certain, if he does get one who gives up his practice, that the person concerned really will feel he has freedom to disagree, if necessary, with the Secretary of State or the Government of the day? Will the barrister feel, having given up his practice, that he is tied to this job because there is no other job for him to go to? In the latter case he would not have the independence that everyone would like to see. Therefore, I think we need to have a judge for this job, as our Amendment suggests, and if a judge is appointed to be chairman of the Board not only will members of the Board find that he is a better chairman, but others involved in this matter will have greater faith in any decisions that he may make. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the substance of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I would venture to doubt whether her wording is in any way apt. I cannot understand the term, "has held judicial office". I understand the

1441
term, "has held high judicial office", because I believe that that is contained in some Acts of Parliament as being a qualification for a Member of your Lordships' House sitting upon the Appellate Committee. But when I see the simple term, "has held judicial office", all kinds of queries spring to mind at once, about which I would welcome the noble Baroness's observations in due course.
A circuit judge is clearly a person who holds judicial office. Is a deputy circuit judge, who may have sat for half a day in his life in order to deal with an excess of work, to be regarded as qualified? A registrar of a county court, who is not a lawyer of vast experience or standing, is a person who holds judicial office. Is a justice of the peace to be regarded as a person who holds judicial office? A metropolitan magistrate is clearly a person who holds judicial office. Is a deputy metropolitan magistrate, who may be a comparatively junior member of the Bar who has sat for half a day or one day in order that observation may be made of his ability to do the job, to be regarded as such a person? Indeed, taking the matter to an extreme I should have thought that a person who has sat as the president of a court-martial is a person who has held judicial office. In the circumstances, I find it very difficult, although I sympathise with the point which the noble Baroness is seeking to make, to regard the wording of her Amendment as in any way apt to meet the point which she is raising.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may be convenient for me to reply at this stage. May I say at once that the Government do not think that this will be a full-time job. We think that the noble Baroness is exaggerating the amount of litigation that will flow, and we also feel that she is exaggerating the number of meetings of the Board and the amount of work that will flow to it. Our assessment is that the chairmanship can be conducted on a part-time basis.
We certainly contemplate that it should be a lawyer. I was asked: What kind of lawyer? The answer, of course, is a very good lawyer. The extraordinary thing about good lawyers, who are busy in practice, is that they are always able to
1442
find time to perform public duties and part-time work of this kind. I cannot spare any judges. My problem is to man the courts with the judicial manpower that I have. We have reasonable confidence that one of the worthy members of the Bar—and I hope it will be a "silk"—will undertake this important duty of chairman. To limit it to a judge, either a former judge or a present judge—and, speaking as Lord Chancellor, to spare an existing judge is frankly not "on"—is not in my view as satisfactory as leaving it to us (arid I shall assist in this matter, with the Department) to find a good lawyer of standing, who will command the confidence of those who will be appearing or making representations to the Board.
We are making rather heavy weather of this. This is a problem that I meet frequently as Lord Chancellor, the problem of finding counsel of standing to fulfil these duties. They hardly ever fail us when we ask them. Without going into the interesting question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as to what judicial office is, when I contemplate the choice of 21,000 lay magistrates who proudly claim to be performing judicial office, of course, many of those might be suitable for the chairmanship duties. But I do not think the noble Baroness had that in mind. Speaking seriously, we contemplate finding a lawyer of standing who will command the confidence of the parties who come before the Board. In view of that assurance, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, could I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether a member of the Scottish Bar would be eligible for consideration for the post of chairman?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would not exclude a member of the Scottish Bar. They have some of the most eminent lawyers in the country there, as I discovered recently on a happy visit to Parliament House. They would certainly not be excluded.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has said that he cannot spare any judges. In this office, I would not particularly like any judge

1443
which the noble and learned Lord may find he can spare. This is one of the troubles of this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said she was a little diffident about talking about the law and lawyers in this House. Indeed, we are all rather diffident in talking about the law, except for lawyers who, it seems to me, talk about nothing else.
I would say that I am as concerned as anyone about the identity of this person. I am sure we all want to see someone acceptable to all the various sides of the argument, someone who will devote a considerable amount of time to the job and someone who commands the respect of all the parties concerned. But whether we can guarantee that—despite definitions about people who have or have not held judicial office—merely by having a judge, I rather doubt. If we reduce this Amendment to its simple terms of who has held judicial office, who has been a judge, we would get someone who had been a judge; in other words, someone whom it was high time he stopped being a judge. Frankly, in this office I would prefer someone, as it were, in full figure rather than someone about whom people felt that it was time he moved on. Although I sympathise with the motives behind the Amendment and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, I would rather see this left open in this way. I would rather we reserved the right to object strongly if some totally unsuitable person is finally put forward.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are being put into an extremely difficult position over this. I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about this. Perhaps I have not drafted the Amendment as closely as I should. The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that we move on to Third Reading tomorrow and cannot put down manuscript Amendments, which I would have liked to do, to amend this and to correct the Amendment. I have agreed to this timetable entirely, I presume, to suit the Government, because it is quite wrong in principle to have Third Reading the day after Report stage when we shall barely have had time to read Hansard. But I suppose, as anyway we are supposed to be a rubber stamp on the Bill, it does not
1444
matter much whether or not we say anything. This is quite typical of the arrangements that have been made.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, knows quite well, the arrangements were between the usual channels. It is always difficult to arrange things at the end of a Session. I think the aspersions the noble Baroness has cast on us are really rather unworthy of the Benches opposite.
Several noble Lords: No, no!
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am not trying to cast aspersions on the usual channels. I am aware that the arrangements were made through the usual channels. I was consulted about them through the usual channels at the only time possible; that is, at the end of a 16-hour session we had in Committee. It has been rather difficult for some of us, and we are now put into a very difficult position over what I regard as an important point. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this is perhaps too widely drawn; that perhaps "judicial office" does mean what the noble Lord says. I had understood that it applied to circuit judges and to registrars of county courts; I did not realise that it applied to every magistrate or even presidents of courts-martial. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I think it is not good enough to say that a whole series of people might be put up before the Board and people can go on objecting until they get the right person. I suppose it would put off the work of the Board, and if that was what was wanted that would be a very good way of doing it.
I think this is a very important job, and I think it will take a lot of time. It is not good enough to say that there are a whole lot of lawyers who can do it in their spare time or who at the moment have nothing else to do and are waiting to be asked to do this kind of work. In view of what has been said, I find it very difficult to press the Amendment, but I must say that I find this a very unfortunate ending. I feel that I have been put in a difficult position. If I can put down a further

1445
Amendment tonight on this point I shall do so but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I honestly do not understand how this difficulty has been built up in this way. I have said that, in collaboration with the Department, I have every confidence that we shall find a lawyer of distinction to undertake this important work. How that is dismissed as something wholly unsatisfactory, I confess I cannot understand.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 25, line 10, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 25, line 13, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 25, line 14, at end insert ("of whom one shall represent the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, and one shall represent the interests of hospitals patients generally").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.18 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("regarded as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is said in the Schedule that the Board,
"shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown".
If the Government intend the Board to be independent, would it not be simpler to say what they mean? My Amendment is to make the wording more explicit. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that we deal also with Amendments No. 52 and 53 as they go together? The effect of these Amendments taken together would be to provide that the Board should not
1446
be the servant or agent of the Crown or enjoy any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown. The Amendments alter the wording, but our view is that they do not alter the meaning of the paragraph. We find this Amendment rather surprising, because in point of fact the wording is much the same. It is the same wording that goes in other Bills; I have to confess that the words have been taken out of other Bills and have gone into this Bill. The wording of the paragraph is a standard provision which is used in other legislation; for example, in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Fair Trading Act of 1973 in relation to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee.
As your Lordships must be aware, the Bill has been drafted—and I am not in any way exaggerating—by a professional legal draftsman, and since there would be no alteration in the sense, there is no reason why it need be altered in the way proposed in these Amendments. I do not think anything is gained. I am not suggesting that anything is lost, but as it is already in the Bill, and they really both mean the same thing, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he leaves it as it is.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, since the objective we share is the same, and in spite of feeling that on the whole it is better to say what you mean, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.21 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 54:
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 Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter about which we feel strongly, because it is concerned with the filling of vacancies. I think that on the previous Amendment the noble Lord mentioned that the legal draftsmanship of the Bill had been based on previous legislation concerned with committees of this nature. It is possible, therefore, that there is a simple explanation why the draftsmanship in Part IV of Schedule I is as it is. The way it is drafted rather suggests that it is concerned with the ineligibility of the retired or

1447
defunct member for remuneration. It is the sort of drafting which one would expect in matters concerning Revenue points or those concerning the Treasury.
There is a real need for a small Board, a Board consisting of only a few members. Of course this afternoon your Lordships' House has increased the membership from five to seven. Even so, there is a very small membership, and therefore it makes it even more a matter of urgency that the Secretary of State should fill a vacancy if and when it occurs. As drafted at the present moment, we learn from Schedule 1, Part IV that the Secretary of State may declare the office to be vacant and he is told to notify the declaration in such a manner, et cetera. But there is no instruction for the Secretary of State to act on that declaration.
This may be a form of words; it may be a current practice, and we believe that it should be incumbent upon the Secretary of State to act forthwith. I should here refer to the word "forthwith" because it is important. It implies an urgent obligation, and "forthwith" means something rather special in legal terms outside its definition in day-to-day terms. As we understand it, "forthwith" in this context means by following the normal procedures and without delay in all the circumstances. I think that our request for further information here may not be satisfactory so far as the Government are concerned. We hope it will be. But it seems from our inquiries, and indeed by examination of notes on clauses, that no particular urgency is to be expected in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I can satisfy the noble Lord. As he says, this Amendment would require that whenever the Secretary of State declares an office of a member of the Board vacant in the circumstances set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, he shall forthwith fill the vacancy. That is the purpose of the Amendment. We discussed this question on Amendment No. 134 at Committee stage. As I said then, if "forthwith" is to mean immediately, this puts us in some difficulty.
The Amendment is inconsistent with Schedule 1(1), which places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to consult
1448
interested bodies about the appointment of members of the Board. This is a duty that is placed on the Secretary of State; if there is a vacancy he must consult the interested bodies about the appointment. I do not see how he could appoint somebody "forthwith" if he has to carry out these consultations. That does not mean that there need be great delay; the consultations could be undertaken very quickly. However, it will not amount to forthwith if "forthwith" really means immediately. I also said that the Government entirely agreed that there should not be any undue delay in the filling of a vacancy and that vacant posts should be filled as quickly as possible. We therefore accept the principle of the Amendment, but at the same time we must have regard to the duties placed on the Secretary of State under Schedule 1(1).
A further important point is that the Board must consist of seven members and that the Secretary of State has an obligation to discharge his statutory duties under this provision. If a chairman or member were unexpectedly to resign his office or die or become incapable of discharging his responsibilities to the Board, it would not be practicable for my right honourable friend to complete the necessary consultations by appointing somebody to replace him in a matter of a few days, and I do not think any noble Lord would want him to do so. The bodies he is required to consult will need time to consult their constituents in order to form a view of some proposals that they may want to put to the Secretary of State.
The Government recognise the difficulty, because it is a real one; there is much to be said for what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said about the importance of getting on with it and not wasting time. On the other hand, one must see that the right person is appointed and this can be done only by consultation. I think there is nothing between us on this issue because the noble Lord will recognise the importance of allowing a certain amount of time. If his point is that the Secretary of State should not lose any time, should not let the grass grow under his feet, then the Government agree with him in that respect.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I agree that there is very little between us because I hope I explained to the House the legal

1449
meaning of "forthwith"; and in my view it meets the Government's point about consultation. If we take it that it means following normal procedures and not delaying in all the circumstances, then there is no time limit placed by the Amendment, which carries with it an implicit understanding that the Schedule 1(1) procedure has to be adopted. It really is quite straightforward.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Is the noble Lord seeking to withdraw the Amendment?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in view of what I said, the Government may wish to accept it. If so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would indicate that fact. If not, my noble friends and I may wish to press the matter at another stage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot accept the Amendment, because although the Government agree with its intention, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, lays down in it that it must be forthwith, and I was at some pains to explain that in the circumstances "forthwith" is not possible.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said, it seems that there could be more between us than he earlier suggested. I shall read the Official Report of his remarks with interest and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 60 en bloc:
Page 27, line 26, leave out ("or deputy member") and insert ("and deputy members").
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("a") and insert ("any").
Page 27, line 28, leave out ("or deputy member") and insert ("and deputy members")
Page 27, line 29, leave out ("a") and insert ("any")
Page 27, line 31, leave out ("or deputy member") and insert ("and deputy members").
Page 27, line 32, leave out ("a") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to a group of Amendments. It will be for the convenience of the House if I do so. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 57,
1450
58, 59 and 60. This concerns a central point, which is the drafting of the clause on the question of deputies. We looked at the document provided by the Government, Notes on Clauses, and sought out paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, and found it was notable that there was no note on this item. Perhaps there may be a reason for it. Both paragraph 9 and paragraph 11 are mentioned, but nothing is said on paragraph 10.
So far as we are concerned, the issue is straightforward, because we believe that it is the Government's intention as well as ours that a system of deputies should apply. Both at the Committee stage and earlier today we discussed this situation, and there has been misunderstanding in the interpretation of paragraph 10. At an earlier stage, we believed that paragraph 10(a) said something different, so we sought to clarify paragraph 10(a) by adding the words in Amendment No. 55. We believe that it should read:
"A deputy chairman and deputy members to act in place of the chairman or any member of the Board."
We believe that that would be very much better than what the Government have in mind. They refer to, "a deputy member" which rather suggests a singular situation and no more than one deputy. Perhaps in replying the noble Baroness will adduce further argument, but we felt that it would clarify the position considerably if we said straightforwardly that there would be deputy members for each member of the Board. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 as drafted provides that one deputy must be appointed for the chairman of the Board, one for the chairman of the Scottish Committee, one for the chairman of the Welsh Committee, and one deputy for each member of the Board and each member of the Welsh and Scottish Committees. These Amendments would change this position, so that more than one deputy must be appointed to act in the place of each individual member of the Board and Committees. I am not sure whether noble Lords did indeed intend this to be the effect of their Amendments. It is possible that during the Committee stage I may unintentionally have misled noble Lords on the question of the provision in the Bill for the appointment of deputies. Noble Lords may not

1451
have realised what the effect of paragraph 10 as drafted was.
I should make it quite clear that paragraph 10 provides that for each Board member and Committee member and for the chairman of the Board, and for the chairmen of the two Committees, a deputy will be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation. Regulations will be made laying down the circumstances in which a deputy may act for a member and the Government intend to provide in these regulations for a deputy to act where a member is likely to be ill or otherwise unable to perform his duties for a period of three or four weeks. This will enable the Board to continue to function as it should over a longish period, in spite of the continued absence of one or more members. We do not, however, intend to provide for deputies to attend individual meetings at very short notice, because a member is unexpectedly prevented from attending. It would not be beyond the wit of the chairman, in these circumstances, to rearrange the agenda to take account of the unbalanced numbers at that meeting. In these circumstances we do not think the appointment of more than one deputy for each member could be justified.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are of course glad to hear that explanation because what the noble Baroness has said is our understanding of the Schedule. The singular, "a member of the Board" in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 10 makes it clear that there is not a deputy for each member of the Board. Our Amendments are designed to meet that point. This is far more than a drafting Amendment or, indeed, a small difference between us. As I have understood it, the whole principle of the Bill is based on the membership of the Board and on the fact that there should be two members representing the doctors and consultants and two others representing other interests in the Health Service. We have now amended this to three and three.
It is therefore absolutely crucial that all should be there, present and voting. Otherwise, the whole purpose and basis of the Goodman contract could not possibly be carried out and no one would
1452
have any faith in decisions that were reached. Our Amendments are designed to secure that, when someone is ill or away, there is a deputy who can act and, furthermore, that the quorum shall be the entire committee sitting and voting.
This is a very important matter of principle when the Board and its particular composition is so important to the working of this entire separation of the two health services. I may say that it is not our wish that any such Board should ever be set up, or, indeed, that there should be the separate services, but, given that this is the purpose of the Bill, in order to fulfil the Goodman contract, the Government must agree that there must be deputies and that the Board must always be complete when it meets and decides. Otherwise, the Goodman contract will not be fulfilled. As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, have indicated time without number, the Government are tied to the Goodman Proposals. They promised to legislate and to carry them out and this would only be keeping their promise.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 28, line 33, after ("Board") insert ("for the taking of any final decision shall be 7 (including deputies)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important Amendment dealing with the quorum. Following on what I and my noble friend Lord Sandys have just said on Amendments Nos. 55 to 60, we believe not only that there should be deputies for all the members, but that the quorum should be the whole committee of seven. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that this follows automatically from the bloc of Amendments that we have just passed. Therefore, we have no option but to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 62:
Leave out Schedule 2.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we put down an Amendment to leave out Schedule 2 because the only reference to Schedule 2 was in Clause 2 of the original

1453
print of the Bill and there is no reference to Schedule 2 anywhere in the new version of the Bill. I believe that it ought to be removed because my understanding is that a Schedule must refer to something in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GREEN POUND
  NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GREEN POUND
  PAY BEDS AND FOREIGN NATIONALS
  PAY BEDS AND FOREIGN NATIONALS
  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS: HOME OFFICE REPORT
  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS: HOME OFFICE REPORT
  HEATHROW IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
  HEATHROW IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
  HOUSE OF LORDS: MEMBERSHIP AND ATTENDANCE
  HOUSE OF LORDS: MEMBERSHIP AND ATTENDANCE