Sitting of 18 November 1976

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

  CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration read.
  Mr. Speaker: To be further considered what day?
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Myer Galpern): No day named.
  Mr. Speaker: No day named.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Animals (Experiments)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that over 100,000 animals are used each year in various forms of research and experimentation, whether he is satisfied that the employment of animals on such a scale is justified; and if he will provide information on the types of animals used and the nature of the experiments and tests to which they are subjected.
    Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Question is answered, may I point out that an error has crept in. The figure of "over 100,000 animals" should be "over 5 million animals".
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): My right hon. Friend's responsiblity is for the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, under which 5,379,084 experiments were per-
    1540
    formed last year. The available information about these experiments is published in annual returns made to Parliament. We intend to provide more information in these returns as soon as new reporting arrangements can be introduced.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does not my hon. Friend remember that the Littlewood Committee, which reported 11 years ago, recommended that the 1876 legislation should be revised? Does she recall that Little-wood recommended that in the meantime there should be no tinkering? Is it not the case that in those 11 years there has been a lot of tinkering but no legislation? Therefore, will not my hon. Friend agree and accept that this large amount of experimentation on animals is totally unacceptable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] How many inspectors—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that he is setting a very bad example.
    Mr. Jenkins: May I finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker? How many inspectors does my hon. Friend's Department employ to supervise these 5 million experiments?
    Dr. Summerskill: The Cruelty to Animals Act is supervised by my right hon. Friend. It is constantly being reviewed. At the moment, the advisory committee is having its constitution and role re-examined. There are 14 inspectors who make approximately 5,000 visits a year. There is no reason to believe that the working of the Act is not satisfactory in supervising experiments carried out on animals.
    Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady has stated that about 5,000 visits are made annually. Can more information be given about the information provided by these visits, and will the hon. Lady say whether any prosecutions have been mounted as a result of visits by the inspectors to any laboratory animals? If there have been such prosecutions, will the hon. Lady say when they took place?
    Dr. Summerskill: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the latest annual report of the inspectorate entitled "Experiments on Living Animals". The last section of that report deals with the personnel in the inspectorate, the number of visits

    1541
    made and the irregularities brought to light by the inspectors.

    Illegal Immigration
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now propose some new initiatives to reduce drastically the number of immigrants entering Great Britain illegally.
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he is taking to prevent illegal immigration into Great Britain.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The Immigration Service and the police are fully aware of the need to combat illegal entry. Both have established special units to counter this, and there is close cooperation with the authorities in neighbouring countries. While I am satisfied that all practicable and reasonable measures for countering illegal entry are taken, these measures and the resources devoted to them are kept under review.
    Mr. Smith: In spite of that, is it not a fact that the scale of illegal immigration to this country is increasing? While I realise that it was the fault of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, may I ask why something more positive was not done by the Home Office? Was it really a question of incompetence, or was it rather the fact that for political considerations the Government have decided to turn a blind eye to this question?
    Mr. Rees: There is no question of turning a blind eye to illegal entry. The hon. Gentleman talks about the scale of it. The way he talks is not in accordance with the advice I am given. He should be careful not to confuse illegal entry, which is a term of art in immigration, with the problem of overstaying in this country, which is a different matter. He is very wrong to talk about a lack of resources directed to illegal entry.
    Mr. Clemitson: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to improve interview procedures so that people who have a genuine right to enter the United Kingdom are not refused entry?
    Mr. Rees: The interviewing takes place either here or in the country of
    1542
    origin. My hon. Friend will find that I have something to say in reply to a later Question about steps taken abroad. When people arrive here, if their documentation is weak the situation is extremely difficult, which is one of the reasons why it is very much better to interview before arrival at the port of entry.
    Mr. Budgen: Would the Home Secretary agree that the problem of overstaying is at least as great as that of illegal entry, and, indeed, may be greater? What proposals has he for dealing with this problem? In particular, has he any proposal for changing the law so as to enable immigration officials to require visitors from the Commonwealth to register with the police while they are lawfully here?
    Mr. Rees: I certainly have not put my mind to that last point, but I recall that we considered it when I was a junior Minister in the Department. The first step is the control on entry, which marks us as different from Europe and the methods used there. I should not like to see, after that point, agents checking and checking in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, as is done in many parts of the Continent. I am concerned about the problem of overstaying, because it fuels many of the arguments that are used by people who have different arguments to put. We shall do anything we can in that direction, but I shall not turn to a European system of checking.

    Commonwealth Immigrants
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the number of Commonwealth immigrants into this country was nearly 16,000 in the first six months of this year compared with 14,500 in the corresponding period of 1975.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The figures relate to the numbers of Commonwealth citizens, including non-patrial United Kingdom passport holders, accepted for settlement on arrival in the United Kingdom. The increase was mainly due to the speeding up in the Indian subcontinent of the rate of issue of entry clearances to wives and children waiting to join heads of household already settled in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Home Secretary aware that these figures will cause considerable concern to large sectors of our population who had hoped to see a reduction rather than an increase? Is he aware that when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary the rate of immigration had dropped to 37,000 per annum, and that it is now rising higher than the 53,000 per annum of last year?
    Mr. Rees: With regard to total figures, one must look very carefully at what the individual figures mean. In the first half of 1976—to take a precise figure which I have here—669 more wives and 785 more children were admitted as a result of the speed-up. Having read the debates that have taken place here, I think we should get away from the idea of a pool which grows bigger and bigger. That cannot be the case. It is much better for us all if we can reduce the pool quickly.
    Miss Joan Lestor: The only unrestricted immigration into this country today is from the EEC countries. In addition, 6,000 work permits are issued to the catering trade for foreign nationals to come here to work, and the number of Filipino girls coming into this country mainly for domestic work is increasing all the time. Would it not therefore be better, when we are discussing immigration questions, to deal with the whole area of immigration and not concentrate on coloured immigration, which does not help the race situation in Britain?
    Mr. Rees: There is no doubt that the number of people coming here from the Commonwealth with work permits has fallen to almost nothing. The figures that my hon. Friend gave in respect of Europe and the rest of the world are far more meaningful.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real worry about the pool of dependants in the Indian subcontinent is that the size of the pool is totally unknown? Until it is known, can it be wise or right to speed up the numbers of those coming from that sub-continent?
    Mr. Rees: Allowing the dependants of people settled here to come cannot increase the pool. When I came to the Department I found that the Franks Com-
    1544
    mittee was looking at this matter and, as I shall have reason to say later, I understand that the report is finished. I believe that the best thing now is to look at the Franks Committee's report. I have not read the report, but it cannot possibly resolve all the questions that need to be asked about this. However, it will be available shortly.

    Murder Convictions
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of convictions for murder in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and by what percentage this total exceeds or is less than the comparable figure 5, 10 and 15 years previously, respectively.F
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): There were 107 persons found guilty of murder in England and Wales in 1975. This represents an increase of 10 per cent. on the figure for 1970, 88 per cent. on the figure for 1965 and 155 per cent. on the figure for 1960.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of those disturbing and alarming figures, showing an increase in murder convictions of 155 per cent. in the past 15 years since the introduction of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, does the Minister think that it would be right for the House of Commons to reconsider the whole issue of capital punishment once again very soon?
    Mr. John: The House of Commons has on a number of occasions considered this. I believe that the last occasion was in December 1975 when, on a free vote, with support from all parties, it was thought right that the death penalty should not be reintroduced; and that is my personal view.
    Mr. Christopher Price: In considering the issue of capital punishment, will my hon. Friend bear in mind my constituent Ronald Leighton in the Confait case, who was found guilty of murder in 1972 and whose conviction was quashed three years later? Is it not wise to bear in mind that convictions of murder in our courts do not always correspond to what actually happened?
    Mr. John: As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.

    1545
    Taylor) will know, we have always said that conviction rates are not a reliable indicator of the incidence of murder. To quote but one example, if three persons are involved in one murder there could be three convictions, and that gives a false picture. The more important point that my hon. Friend makes is that the finality of the death penalty means that when mistakes are made they are irrevocable. I think that all of us would hesitate very long before having any one of those mistakes on our conscience.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any reason to believe that with the abolition of capital punishment there have been more convictions for murder rather than convictions on diminished charges?
    Mr. John: That is one of the things that statistics by themselves do not show. It may be possible that that is so. Another factor may be the introduction of majority verdicts by the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present methods of dealing with young offenders.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government's views on this subject were set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 6494, containing their observations on the report from the Expenditure Committee on the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which was published in May. They include a number of proposals for strengthening the law, consultations on which are now proceeding.
    Mr. Roberts: Is it not clear by now that the juvenile courts should have power to order that persistent offenders should be kept in secure accommodation when they are placed in the care of local authorities? Is it not equally clear that it is wrong that faceless officials of the social services departments should have more power than the courts to decide the fate of certain offenders?
    Mr. Rees: I am not sure in this field. I have been at it for only a short while, but after a time I should be able to talk with more certainty about these points.
    1546
    Indeed, I feel that in such matters the less certain one is the nearer to wisdom one gets. There is a problem of a small number—a minority—of particularly difficult and recidivist juvenile offenders. It is a matter of resources in one aspect. There is a problem about the relationship of the bench to social workers—I would not call them faceless—and in the Department we should like to do all we can with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security as soon as possible.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is not satisfactory to remand to Prison Service establishments over 5,000 schoolchildren every year? With regard to young offenders generally, would not my right hon. Friend also agree that incarceration in penal establishments does not in any way affect their reconviction rate and that what we need, if we are to deal effectively with the problem, are far more imaginative alternatives than are being pursued at the moment?
    Mr. Rees: Imagination and alternative methods of sentencing—this is the view I have formed in the short time that I have been looking at the issue—are undoubtedly matters that we should all consider. But that does not invalidate one of the major problems that comes to my notice every day concerning a small number of recidivist young people who are remarkable for the things they do. Imagination is not the answer to that problem.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does not the Home Secretary agree that it is time that teeth were given to the powers of magistrates to deal with the recidivist hard-core offenders about whom he is talking? What efforts have been made by his Department to reallocate some of the resources that are available to it for the provision of secure establishments where discipline is an important factor in the treatment of those young offenders?
    Mr. Rees: Before my time in the Department, steps were taken with grant aid to do something in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman has any ideas with regard to the law, I shall be pleased to listen to him. I hope, if all goes well—I cannot say more than that—at least to make some marginal changes in the law, if possible in the next Session.

    Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. (Arrest of Pickets)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has asked for a full report on incidents leading to the arrest of eight pickets outside the Grunwick film processing factory in North-West London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the nine people who were arrested by the police on 1st November have not yet been dealt with by the courts. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for me to comment.
    Mr. Skinner: On a more general theme, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that in all these industrial incidents that take place year after year it is invariably those who are defending the rights of the workers who get arrested? Is it not high time that instructions or directives were given to the police to the effect that they have a duty to see that those in management who are paying low wages and twisting the employment laws of this country are tackled as well—and tackled first?
    Mr. Rees: As long as it is understood that I am not talking about the case that my hon. Friend raised, I can say that generally there is a problem in this respect. I have always found in my own area that a great deal can be done by discussion and sorting-out in the first instance. I cannot comment on the case my hon. Friend has raised.

    Television Licence Fees
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to introduce arrangements for people who give up colour television to receive a proportionate refund on the unexpired portion of their licence.
    Mr. John: No, Sir. The grounds on which refunds may be given must be limited if the licensing system is not to become unmanageable.
    Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that this situation is unfair, especially to elderly people who have been forced to give up their colour television sets due to financial hardship? Apart from the
    1548
    Obvious analogy with motor licences, which are refundable, can the Minister explain why it is apparently administratively possible to allow a refund on the unexpired portion of a black-and-white television licence when a move is made upwards to colour but not when the move is in the other direction?
    Mr. John: Hon. Members should realise that the licensing system was introduced because of its simplicity and that that is one of the ways in which we are able to keep television licence fees down. The more exceptions there are, the dearer will be the licence fees. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific point is that colour licences cover monochrome reception whereas the reverse is not the case.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend look at a related problem—that the British Broadcasting Corporation is obtaining money under false pretences by regularly showing old films which are not in colour but is charging a colour licence fee? Further, does my hon. Friend realise that the BBC is paying for these old films, imported from America, in hard currency? Is he further aware that licence-holders are threatened with a further increase in fees at a time when two-thirds of the films shown on television are in black and white? Can he stop this obtaining of money by false pretences on the part of the BBC?
    Mr. John: I do not think it is for Members to question repetition. No doubt it is due to my age, but, frankly, I think that some of the black and white films that are shown are infinitely superior to some of the other, more recently made films, about which I receive complaints from Conservative Members.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are ugly rumours of a massive increase in the colour licence fee? Will the Home Secretary resist such a move with all his strength? If he feels that he needs the support of the House, will he seek an opportunity for a debate before any increase in the colour licence fee is announced?
    Mr. John: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be grateful for such support as he can get on any matter. My answer is that rumours are rumours, and until we deal with facts we cannot comment.

    Football Hooliganism
    Mr. P. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take action in consultation with the police authorities to combat the problem of disorder and violence among football supporters.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am in touch with chief officers of police about methods of controlling football hooliganism. I also plan to meet representatives of the football organisations, and am keeping in touch with the other Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in towns such as Derby there is mounting despair at the depredations of hooligans masquerading as football supporters? Will he also bear in mind that, as this is a national problem, it is for him to co-ordinate methods by which it can be tackled? To fine such people amounts that they can pay next day or to send them to prison at public expense is not the whole answer. Will my right hon. Friend enter into consultations with the public transport services and the football clubs to see that these people are deprived of entry into football games and transport to matches, since this would he a more severe penalty for many of them?
    Mr. Rees: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I live alongside a football ground. Conditions are bad for people who live in those areas. I have met right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments who span the responsibilities. I have met the chief constables, and I hope to take further steps early in the new year.
    With regard to fines, my hon. Friend has a point and I hope, if all goes well, to increase some of the maximum fines. I hope also to be able to take steps much in line with what my hon. Friend has suggested for different types of sentence.
    Mr. Hannam: Does the Home Secretary agree that a large part of the problem is caused by pre-match drinking? What steps is he taking to deal with that part of the problem?
    Mr. Rees: I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    1550
    State for Transport. For a start, there are problems about the rules for having a drink on buses. It is not as easy as I thought when I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend. For example, a group travelling from the North to south of Birmingham to visit Anne Hathaway's cottage would not be a football crowd. If they stopped off at Aston Villa on the way there would be nothing to prevent them having a drink on board. There are little problems such as that. But we are looking at the whole matter.

    Vandalism (Penalties)
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for crimes of vandalism.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Offences described as vandalism are usually prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The penalties range up to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment for most offences. I am satisfied that in general they are adequate. However, the maximum fine available on summary conviction would fall to be increased in the light of the recommendations of the James Committee, which I have under consideration.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the present penalties act as a deterrent?
    Mr. Rees: That is a different matter. Dealing with what can be done under the Criminal Damage Act, if we can do something about fines it will improve the situation. But that is a different matter from my arguing, whether or not one doubles fines, that they necessarily act as a deterrent. It is a much more subtle matter.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest causes of vandalism is the excruciating boredom suffered by young people in cities such as Leicester who have nothing to do with their time when they have finished school? When considering that problem, will he do his best to see that there is increased provision and help for youth clubs and other facilities for young people?
    Mr. Rees: That is important. Unemployment plays a part in this, together

    1551
    with the planning of estates. Having said that, judging from reports produced by the Home Office he would be a brave chap who would say that those facts alone explain the growth of vandalism in the last quarter of a century.
    Mr. Charles Irving: The penalties seem appropriate. Would it not be possible for the Home Secretary to persuade the magistrates to use them?
    Mr. Rees: That is a different matter because, whatever else comes to the Home Office, I have no power to control what the magistrates do.

    Parish and Town Council Elections (Voting)
    Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will extend postal voting for parish and town councils.
    Mr. John: No, Sir. The extra costs Involved could not be justified in present circumstances.
    Mr. Walters: Would not the Minister agree that it is desirable to make it as easy as possible for people to participate in parish elections, and that as the same ballot papers can be used for town and parish elections as for district elections the extra cost would be very limited? Therefore, should not amending legislation be introduced?
    Mr. John: I believe that one could do something to combine the necessary forms. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the amount of extra expenditure would be inconsiderable. With the present evidence of turn-out at these elections, it would not be justified.
    Mr. Madden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is dissatisfaction when postal votes are available for district council elections but not for parish and town council elections, which are often held on the same day? Can he tell us what the increased cost would be? There is mounting concern about this. If we want to extend democracy, we should do everything possible to enable people to participate in all elections.
    Mr. John: I accept that our aim is to make participation in local elections as widespread as is possible and to take
    1552
    account of the problem. But because there would be differing postal registrations, even were I to accede to the principle which hon. Gentlemen have proclaimed this afternoon, there would still be a great opportunity not only for mistakes in counting but confusion in registration.
    Mr. Marten: Following the Minister's argument about low turn-out, am I right in assuming that there will be no postal voting in the unhappy event of our having to go through direct elections to the European Parliament? The turn-out for that is likely to be even lower than in the worst boroughs in this country.
    Mr. John: What the hon. Gentleman and I may speculate about the turn-out at those elections would perhaps not be universally accepted in the House.

    Community Service (West Sussex)
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the progress of the community service in West Sussex.
    Mr. John: Community service arrangements already exist in six out of the nine petty sessions areas. An extension to the other three has been under consideration, but we cannot provide resources additional to those contained in the last rate support grant settlement.
    Mr. Hordern: Will the Minister recognise that the purpose of community service is that people who have been found guilty of an offence should carry out their sentences in the service of the community instead of being sent to prison, at a considerable saving of cost to the public in general? Therefore, is it not common sense to extend the service to those three other parts of West Sussex, including Horsham and Crawley, which are in my constituency, at a considerable saving in cost to the general public? Surely this is one matter at which the Minister should look again.
    Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that community service arrangements are valuable. That is why in 53 out of the 56 probation areas in England and Wales community service arrangements exist. As regards saving by making community service an alternative to imprisonment, the diversion of

    1553
    comparatively few people to community service orders would not reduce the overheads which have to be borne by prison establishments. Only if a sufficiently large number were diverted from imprisonment to community service orders so that some prison accommodation could be closed would a saving be possible. I do not believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman is advocating in his Question.
    Mr. Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that information reaching me from South Yorkshire suggests that the community service order arrangement has proved to be extremely successful and is to be welcomed? In view of that experience, which I think is fairly common, will my hon. Friend ensure the further rapid development of these community service arrangements?
    Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know that there are exigencies of public expenditure, but within that limit we are satisfied with the development of the community service projects and I am pleased to note that my hon. Friend has that happy experience from his own part of the world.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas visitors have been charged with and convicted of shoplifting in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months for which records are available.
    Mr. John: I regret that the information is not available: the statistics do not record the country of origin of offenders.
    Mr. Janner: As it is well known that, unfortunately, visitors from overseas figure prominently in the number of shoplifters who are rightly convicted, will my hon. Friend warn such people that they are not at all welcome here on that basis? At the same time, as the Christmas shopping and shoplifting season approaches, will he warn people from overseas and in this country of the grave danger in this country of being wrongly charged with shoplifting?
    Mr. John: I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has taken a deep interest in this subject over many years. I deprecate shoplifting, whether it be by over-
    1554
    seas visitors or people in this country. I am not xenophobic in that regard.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Minister accept that there is a wholly different set of circumstances between what pertains in the West End of London and in other towns and cities, where many individual tragedies take place on wrongful conviction due to the trading methods of self-service stores? Will the Minister look again at his own Home Office working party's report, and if stores will not take the preventive measures recommended in that report will he consider introducing legislation to force them to do so?
    Mr. John: I have knowledge of vases in my constituency in which tragedies of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have taken place. The report itself did not recommend any Government action. It was directed at the stores and the reform of their trading methods. If the hon. Gentleman would care to submit any evidence which he has in his possession, I will certainly look at it.

    Fire Service (Grant Aid)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis the level of grant aid for the fire services is determined; and what flexibility this allows to meet emergencies.
    Dr. Summerskill: Estimated expenditure on the fire service is among the estimates of relevant local authority expenditure taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in determining the amount of the rate support grant.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that in my county of Gwynedd alone, £100,000 extra was spent by the fire service this year due to the effect of the drought on its work? Will the hon. Lady give an absolute commitment that in the rate support grant allocation next year extra funds will be available to make up for those expenses?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am aware that in many parts of the country there has been greatly increased expenditure due to the drought. The possibility of increasing next year's grant to take account of heavy fire service expenditure this year has been considered in the context of the need to

    1555
    avoid increases in local authority expenditure next year. As the House knows, on Monday 22nd November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will announce the Government's decision on the amount of rate support grant for 1977–78.

    Summer Time
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received urging his responsibility for the fixing of summer time to be devolved to the proposed Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in respect of those parts of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Summerskill: None, Sir.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Lady realise that this unwanted proposal in the White Paper to devolve responsibility for summer time to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies must be one of the silliest decisions made by the present Government? Does she realise that if the Assemblies used those powers and if she wished to drive from Cardiff to Edinburgh she might have to correct her watch twice during the course of the journey? Will the hon. Lady withdraw the proposal now rather than force the House to have a lengthy debate on the subject in the coming months?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a decision of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies which has not yet been taken. It must not be assumed that the devolution of responsibility for summer time would mean that those Assemblies would decide to have different periods.
    Mr. Watt: The Minister may not agree about the outcome of devolving responsibility for summer time, but does she agree that at least the economic climate in Scotland will be better?
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is a bizarre proposal? Is she aware that it could mean that the 10 o'clock news in London would be heard at 9 o'clock in Cardiff and at 11 o'clock in Edinburgh? If the idea of devolution is to unite the people of Britain, this is not the way to do it. Will my hon. Friend deny the report that if the proposal were accepted there would be a national supply of cuckoo clocks?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can only repeat that no decision to that effect has been taken by Assemblies that haw, not yet even been set up. No doubt those Assemblies, when they consider the subject, will take into consideration the difficulties put forward by hon. Members.

    Student Immigrants
    Mr. Macfarlaneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new steps he proposes to take to ensure compliance with the conditions upon which visas are granted to immigrant students.
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that no applicant seeking to enter the United Kingdom on a student's visa is permitted to do so until he has produced satisfactory evidence that he is able to benefit from the course for which he has applied.
    Dr. Summerskill: The immigration rules for control on entry, laid before Parliament, require a person seeking entry for study in the United Kingdom to satisfy the officer to whom he applies of, among other matters, his ability to follow a full-time course of study. The rules for control after entry impose similar requirements on anyone seeking an extension of stay as a student. We have no plans for further controls.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Is it not a fact that in recent years there has been an alarming growth in the number of overseas students who have come to this country and opted out of their courses soon after arriving? Would it not be right for the Home Office, the Department of Education and Science and local authorities to start monitoring this aspect very urgently?
    Dr. Summerskill: We certainly have it in mind to seek the co-operation of colleges in resolving the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and drawing the attention of principals of colleges to the value of entry clearance being obtained by students before they come to this country.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend realise that many of us who are interested in education in the interests of developing countries believe that many, though not all, courses are best given in

    1557
    the developing countries themselves? To what extent does the Home Office take that into account in deciding whether a visa should be given for training in this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: The absence of sufficient courses in developing countries is a matter for another of my right hon. or hon. Friends. The courses in this country are either language courses or other educational courses for people from foreign or Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that entry under a student visa is always governed by considerations of genuine aptitude and ability and that there are no loopholes in this system through which illegal immigrants can come?
    Dr. Summerskill: This is why we have definite immigration rules for control on entry and why we are making every effort to see that the rules are adhered to.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that not only are there these rules but there is also a very strict interpretation of them by entry certificate officers, to the point where even genuine students with a full course arranged, and with maintenance also arranged, cannot obtain entry into the country because it is suspected that they may not leave at the end of their course?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend can send me particulars of the specific cases to which he refers, I shall certainly look into them.
    Mr. Alison: Leaving aside the procedures for entry, what machinery does the Home Office have for monitoring the requirements for an extension of courses or applications for permission to stay after the expiry of a right of stay, and is that monitoring regularly applied?
    Dr. Summerskill: It is certainly applied regularly. The same conditions apply to the student extending his course as to the student coming in. Because we are anxious to see that the rules are adhered to, we co-operate fully with the Department of Education and Science.

    Children and Young Persons Act 1969
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what pro-
    1558
    gress his Department has made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Eleventh Report of the Expenditure Committee on the working of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government's response to the Expenditure Committee's recommendations was given in the White Paper published last May, Cmnd. 6494. The proposals contained in it concern a number of Government Departments. On a number of those which are primarily the concern of my Department, consultations and, where appropriate, other preparatory work are well in hand.
    Mr. Sims: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that of the 40 recommendations in the report at least 13 are the direct responsibility of the Home Office, four have been rejected outright, one has been carried out and the remaining eight are still under consideration 14 months after the report was published? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the real concern amongst those dealing with juvenile offenders, and can he inject some sense of urgency into his Department?
    Mr. Rees: It was for this reason that I met the Magistrates' Association and others a few weeks ago, and I hope that, not on the points of rejection but on other points, we shall have announcements to make soon.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When will the remanding of schoolchildren to Prison Service establishments be ended?
    Mr. Rees: As soon as I can do it, because I think that it is wrong. But it is not enough to think that it is wrong. We need the proper resources, and they are not available to enable me to do what I want to do.
    Mr. Bowden: When the Home Secretary met the representatives of the Magistrates' Association, did they tell him that they were concerned about a lack of facilities to keep violent young offenders under control, and did they urge him to provide more of these facilities?
    Mr. Rees: Yes, they did. I made that point earlier in Question Time.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Mr. Corbettasked the Prime Minister when he last met the heads of nationalised industries.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met some of the chairmen of the nationalised industries on 8th November.
  Mr. Corbett: When my right hon. Friend next meets them, will he make it clear to Sir Frank McFadzean that people generally take a dim view of the boss of a State industry turning round and biting the hand that feeds him? Does he agree that it is the role of the chiefs of these public industries to sustain and promote those industries and the jobs within them rather than act as some subversive agency for the private sector?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I read Sir Frank McFadzean's speech with some interest. He only recently took up an appointment with British Airways under the Labour Government and he has already proposed a scheme for reorganisation, which has been put to the Ministers whom he criticises so heavily and has been accepted. Having known him for a long time, my own view of Sir Frank is that he is a most efficient business man but has an abysmal ignorance about either politics or government.
  Mr. Adley: Will the Prime Minister tell Sir Frank that large numbers of his employees have recently twice come to this House to protest about the imposition of the closed shop upon all employees of British Airways and that they have been refused a meeting by top management to discuss the issue, have been refused access to the correspondence columns of British Airways News and have been refused a ballot? Whilst most people will wholeheartedly disagree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), nevertheless many people feel that it is up to the bosses of nationalised industries to ensure that they discover the views of their employees before pronouncing on them.
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is criticising Sir Frank's knowledge of industrial relations or how
  1560
  he carries them out. I agree with the hon. Member that it is important that Sir Frank should be keenly aware of these matters, and I will see that what the hon. Gentleman has said is drawn to his attention.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is still hell-bent on increasing the number of heads of nationalised industries that he must meet on any one occasion? What is the Government's intention on the future of the ship-repairing industry if the other place maintains its view?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what the other place will do. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is in league with it—
  Mr. Steel indicated dissent.
  The Prime Minister: —and can tell us. It would be a great departure from the traditions of the Liberal Party if it were to be in league with that Chamber. In relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bil, I hope that the other place will take into account that, whatever may be the merits of any other measure, this measure was put to the country in the fullest way on two occasions, in February and October 1974. that it passed through the House of Commons without one defeat on the issues now before us and that, therefore, an unelected Chamber has no right to take its own view on an issue of this sort which has been before the electors.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the choice whether to nationalise the shipbuilding and aerospace industries is his and that of his Government alone and that there is nothing that can now be done to stop him if he wishes to go ahead? If he chooses not to do it, may I congratulate him on taking the right approach? However, let it be understood that they have not been nationalised by his choice.
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure what that convoluted question is supposed to mean. I totally disagree if it means that the elected Chamber should acquiesce in decisions taken by an unelected Chamber concerning items in a manifesto that has twice been put before the British people.

  UNITED STATES PRESIDENT-ELECT
  Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet the President-elect of the United States of America.
  Mr. Townsendasked the Prime Minister when he intends to meet the President-elect of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on 11th November.
  Mr. Neubert: When the Prime Minister meets Mr. Carter, will he discuss with him the presence in this country of American citizens apparently hostile to Western security services? As Mr. Agee has been settled in the United Kingdom for some months, why has the taking of action been delayed for so long?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that there is a Private Notice Question to the Home Secretary about this matter and I have no doubt that he will wish to deal with it when it is asked. However, in general, we take our own decisions on the issue of foreign nationals living in this country and I would not discuss the matter with President-elect Carter.
  Mr. John Mendelson: In the reports he has received about the election campaign, has my right hon. Friend noticed—I hope with approval—that the President-elect has carried on a successful campaign in favour of increased public expenditure to create more jobs in the United States? Does he agree that the American trade union movement, which played a considerable part in President-elect Carter's success in the election, was particularly responsible for supporting this programme, with the result that the new Administration creates a fresh atmosphere of hope? Will my right hon. Friend therefore co-operate in this policy and adopt some of these wise counsels for his own Administration?
  The Prime Minister: I do not find the economic circumstances of individual countries necessarily strictly comparable.
  1562
  For example, unemployment in the United States is far higher than it is here. There may be a need for different types of measures for different countries. However, what is clear is that there is a growing interdependence among the economies of the Western world and that we cannot solve our problems if we each take decisions in isolation.
  Mr. Townsend: Will the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Carter his strong and positive statement on the Cyprus question? Bearing in mind that Britain is a guarantor Power and that Cyprus is a fellow member of the Commonwealth, will he make certain that British policy on Cyprus is kept in line with that of the new Administration in Washington?
  The Prime Minister: I could not guarantee that. We would each approach the problem of Cyprus in our own way. We would, of course, attempt to coordinate policies, and I have no doubt that there will be discussions between President-elect Carter's new Administration and the Foreign Secretary in due course on these issues. However, I would not guarantee to be subservient to the United States or to anybody else.
  Mr. Whitehead: If President-elect Carter should raise with my right hon. Friend the systematic campaign carried on by Conservative Members to denigrate the loyalties, as well as the abilities, of hon. Members of this House, will he draw to his attention the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to the effect that it was unworthy for a party to attempt to claw its way back to power by a systematic witch-hunt of the very poor and of political opponents?
  The Prime Minister: Would my hon. Friend expect anything else from the Opposition? Surely, the bankruptcy that they have shown and their complete incapacity to put forward any rational alternative policies must lead them either into elevating an unelected body such as the House of Lords or into attacking the integrity of their opponents—or trying to run scare campaigns on dole scroungers. That is what we always expect of the Conservative Party, and I am not a bit surprised.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 18th November.
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements for 18th November.
  The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, and I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. McCrindle: If the Prime Minister and the Cabinet continue to find difficulty in the taxation of short-term benefits, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country whether, as an alternative, we can look forward to the raising of the tax threshold in the forthcoming package of economic measures, thereby returning an incentive to the less-well-paid?
  The Prime Minister: I do not intend to be discussing that matter either in the Cabinet or with my ministerial colleagues or others today.
  Mr. Lamont: When the Prime Minister is fulfilling his engagements, may be not bump into some of the visiting officials of the IMF? If so, will he tell them whether, if he had taken up the job he once wanted himself as managing director of the IMF, he would seriously lend money to a country whose Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the pathetic statement that the British people would rather borrow more money than have a reduction in their living standards? Why do the Government always use the excuse of borrowing money for running away from the difficult decisions that have to be made?
  The Prime Minister: As a matter of history, if it be of any significance, it is true that I was approached by the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer—who presumably had sufficient confidence in my abilities to believe that I might have filled that post—but there were other difficulties. I am glad that it did not come off, or I should not have had the opportunity of dealing with the hon. Gentleman now.
  1564
  But to deal with the major part of the question, the International Monetary Fund officials, whom I do not expect to bump into today, are conducting their inquiries and discussions in the normal way. There is little doubt that the loan will be forthcoming, and that will he of very great assistance to us.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Yet another one?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, yet another one—to try to make up for the deficits that the hon. Gentleman's party left. I see that I have to repeat the information for the sake of the hon. Gentleman. His party's Government entered office with a surplus on the balance of payments and they left with a deficit and a vast increase in the borrowing requirement and in the money supply. All these things we are now coping with.
  But as to the future, in a rational atmosphere there is no reason why a country should not borrow against its assets, if by its economic policies it has a good opportunity of coming through. As long as we maintain the existing policy of relying on an export-led growth, of keeping a cash control over public expenditure and of putting the needs of industry first, there is every reason why we should see our way through this temporary period into the 1980s.
  Mr. Thorpe: When the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues are meeting with him today, may we hope that they will be reviewing all his more recent speeches in order to give them greater clarity and effectiveness—in particular, his remark at the Guildhall that any increase in oil prices would be disastrous for the world at large? Will he agree, that being so, that it is essential that the North-South conference, meeting in Paris, should not be adjourned as has been suggested but should meet before OPEC meets, and that there should be some collective view from those who are the buyers of oil by which they can bring some influence to bear upon those who are selling the oil?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point that a substantial increase in the price of oil—or, indeed, any increase in its price—is likely to be disastrous for the poorest

  1565
  countries and will hit the economies of even the better-off countries. I am not sure that it would be right to make a link between the CIEC Conference and oil prices. Although oil and energy is one aspect of it, the CIEC is dealing with a far wider problem. We want to make a constructive reply to the developing countries at the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, in relation both to what is called a common fund and other matters. I hope that this matter will be discussed by the Heads of Government when we meet at The Hague at the end of this month.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend take time to reflect upon the fact that the Opposition, when rooting out so-called abuses in the Welfare State, never once made mention of the £900 million of unpaid surtax, corporation tax and capital gains tax which is, in effect, being stolen from the Treasury and the ordinary wage earner?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that there is a great deal of unpaid taxation, and I hope that the Inland Revenue follows it up. If that is done quickly, it will certainly lessen the borrowing requirement that we shall otherwise have.

CONDUCT OF DEBATES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Private Notice Question, I have a statement to make.
Yesterday a motion was considered in an atmosphere which did the House no credit. Disorderly recriminations were hurled across the Floor with such frequency that I was obliged on two occasions to warn the House that, if order was not restored, I should have to suspend the sitting.
One of my major responsibilities is to maintain the dignity of the House the best I can and respect for it outside. I am, therefore, determined that what happened yesterday should not be repeated and I remind the House that it lies within the power of the Chair to see that it is not.
1566
I call attention to Standing Order No. 23:
"Mr. Speaker or the chairman shall order any Member or Members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting."
I am perfectly well aware that today's proceedings are of vital moment and that every vote will count. But, if hon. Members cannot restrain themselves and cannot use parliamentary language, I must warn the House that I shall not hesitate to use my powers under Standing Order No. 23 if grossly disorderly expressions are exchanged across the Floor, from either side of the House.
It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House that any Member who is ordered to withdraw will not be able to participate in the rest of this day's proceedings.
May I say in conclusion that I find it slightly offensive to the Chair that, when hon. Members are asked to withdraw a statement, they do so in a half-hearted manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I am addressing the House in general. I expect hon. Members, when they are asked to withdraw, to do so in an unqualified manner.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this matter with you beforehand. May I direct your attention to the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings which states that I said:
"The hon. Member is a big twit."—[Official Report, 17th November 1976; Vol. 919, c.1355.]
That may or may not be true about whichever hon. Gentleman that was directed against, but I did not say it. If one is to be recorded in Hansard, I hope that in future what I really say about hon. Members will be recorded accurately. I trust that this will be corrected.
Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that a correction is made in Hansard. But may I remind the House again that the proceedings in this House are read throughout the Commonwealth, and the sort of language that has been wrongly attributed to the hon. Gentleman was, I believe, typical of the unworthy language that was used yesterday.

MR. HOSENBALL AND MR. AGEE (DEPORTATION)
Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his decision to deport Mr. Philip Agee.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will make a statement about the cases of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. I should like first to explain the relevant provisions of the law.
Under the Immigration Act 1971 there are powers to refuse entry to this country and powers to remove people from this country. As regards removal, there is, in the ordinary case, a statutory right of appeal. Where, however, deportation is ordered on the ground that it is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security, there is no statutory right of appeal.
There are, however, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Maudling) explained when the Bill was going through the House, non-statutory arrangements for representations to an independent advisory panel. A person who wishes to make representations to the panel is allowed to appear if he wishes; he is not entitled to legal representation but, to such extent as the advisers sanction, he may be assisted by a friend and arrange for third parties to testify on his behalf. The chairman of the advisory panel is Sir Derek Hilton and the other two members are Sir Clifford Jarrett and Sir Richard Hayward.
This non-statutory provision is available only in the case of deportation and not in cases of refusal of admission where security is involved. On 15th November Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were informed that I had decided to make deportation orders against them under Section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 because I had concluded that their departure from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.
Mr. Agee was informed that I had considered information that he had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers; had been and
1568
continued to be involved in disseminating information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom; and had aided and counseled others in obtaining information for publication which could be harmful to the security of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hosenball was informed that I had considered information that he had, while resident in the United Kingdom, in consort with others sought to obtain and had obtained for publication information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom and that this information had included information prejudicial to the safety of servants of the Crown.
Both men were also informed of the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act and of the non-statutory procedure which I have described and were told that they had 14 days in which to decide whether to make representations. They have also been informed that they may make any representations to me direct.
My decision at this stage is one of notice of intention to deport. Before proceeding to make deportation orders I shall consider the advice of the independent advisory panel, if the two men decide to submit their case to it, and I shall also consider any representations which they themselves may make or which may be made on their behalf to me direct. If I do make deportation orders, there is a statutory right of appeal against removal to the country specified in the removal directions on the ground that the person ought to be removed to a different country specified by him.
I reached my decision after the most careful consideration. I must emphasise that it was taken solely in the interests of the security of this country and of the personal safety of individuals in the service of the Crown.
I must tell the House that, because of the security issues involved, I am not prepared to go into greater detail than I have already given about the grounds for my decision.
Mrs. Hart: I recognise the great difficulty of discussing matters of this kind in the Chamber. I can relate my questions only to Mr. Agee, because I do not have any personal information about Mr. Hosenball, but given the closed and necessarily secret nature of the advisory panel—I accept that its members are extremely

1569
good people—is the Secretary of State ready to see Mr. Agee?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend promise to read two pages, 567 and 570, of Mr. Agee's book "Inside the Company—CIA Diary", which I believe are relevant to the background of this case? It is my view from having talked to Mr. Agee that it is highly relevant to the questions which have led the Home Secretary to his conclusions.
Finally, will the Home Secretary be prepared privately—one appreciates that he cannot, on a question affecting the security of the State, be public about these matters—to give to Mr. Agee, before the advisory panel hearing, information about "the regular contacts" which are named in the letter to him and indicate whether these were clandestine or perfectly open contacts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I am about to finish; I shall not keep the House long.
Will the Home Secretary also indicate whether any of those contacts were detrimental to British security and whether, having considered these matters, he could regard these open contacts as being entirely consistent with legitimate journalistic research?
Mr. Rees: With regard to letters or visits, all I can say is that I will, of course, do anything that is within the rules. The letter that I sent to Mr. Agee is as far as I can go under the arrangements.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to go into the nature of the visits. It is the purpose of the arrangements set up under the 1971 Act that I must take an administrative decision. The weight is taken off my shoulders, and three independent people consider it and take a judgment. That is what is involved, and if I say any more about the nature of contacts with foreign intelligence officers I may do more harm than good.
Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Home Secretary aware that, although the House is rightly jealous of individual liberty, the security of the State must be the primary consideration? If, therefore, on the evidence available to him he believes that this action is necessary in the interests of the security of the State, he deserves, and I trust will receive, support from all parts of the House.
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's words. My approach to the matter is clear in the way that the right hon. Gentleman put it. It is one thing to have free discussion—and in a democracy that matters—but the way in which that discussion takes place must be considered; and then I must make a judgment. That is what I have done in this instance.
Mr. Speaker: I shall allow just one question from each side of the House on this matter.
Mr. Whitehead: As these two cases are linked, and without going into the details of either, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the case of Mr. Hosenball? As the case against Mr. Agee is not to be put to examination in the courts, how can Mr. Hosenball—because the cases are linked—make any representations about the case against him when he meets the tribunal? If that is the case, is he not in precisely the position of Mr. Rudi Dutschke about five years ago when the position was very rightly criticised from our side of the House?
Mr. Rees: I had views about Rudi Dutschke, but I an, not sure that I can see the connection in this instance.
Under the law as I have to operate it, I have to take a decision based on the facts which is not a matter for the court. In the last three or four weeks I have considered how it should be dealt with. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that security is not a matter that can he bandied about in open court.
This is one of the problems here, because if there is a security aspect to this—my judgment is that there is a security aspect—words that are taken out of context can do harm not only to those involved but to many others whom I should protect.
Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) made her case cogently and asked a pertinent question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—would he be prepared to see this gentleman personally?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has long experience. He knows that

1571
that is not really a point of order. It is a question to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You decided that there should be one question more from each side of the House. Yesterday I tabled a Question concerning the other person involved in this case—Mr. Hosenball, a man well known to those in the Press Gallery and to me personally—and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter as important as this further questions be allowed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have announced my decision to the House.
Mr. Churchill: Is the Home Secretary aware that there will be no sympathy for those foreign guests of this country who seek to abuse our hospitality by meddling in security matters, especially those that concern Northern Ireland, and that there will be concern that individuals have been maintaining contact with Cuban and Soviet bloc intelligence services? Will the Home Secretary say whether, in his judgment, these actions have at any time placed in jeopardy the lives of servants of the Crown?
Mr. Swain: What about the Dardanelles?
Mr. Rees: I think that I should stick firmly on the basis that I have a responsibility for security. I have carried out my duty as I think best. There are means laid down by the House whereby people can put their case to independent members of a tribunal. I think I ought to leave it alone at that point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the original Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just realised that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) who was told by me that it was not a point of order but a question to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Litterick: This House's rights have been violated.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the It is a hon. Gentleman that he is not to argue with the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President of the Council to state the business of the House for the rest of the Session?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir.
The business on Monday 22nd November and, if necessary, Tuesday 23rd November will be consideration of Lords amendments.
If there is time on Monday, there will be a debate on regional policy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Lady. I do not know whether she wished me to make a further statement about tomorrow's business, but I gave some indication of that last week.
Mrs. Thatcher: I am not quite satisfied with that reply. I wonder whether the Leader of the House would reconsider having a debate on regional policy on Monday? It seems rather casual treatment of an important subject to have it "only if there is time". Could we not have the usual motion on the Adjournment upon which hon. Members may raise their own subjects?
Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady makes that representation I shall certainly consider it and see whether, by discussion through the usual channels, an alternative subject might be selected for Monday. We are certainly not treating that subject as unimportant, and I am sure that we shall return to it in some other way in the new Session. But if the Opposition wish to have further discussion about a possible subject to be discussed on Monday, I shall be glad to discuss it through the usual channels.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Knowing the Lord President of the Council's great interest in questions of freedom and democracy, may I ask him, as a former editor of the Evening Standard, whether he is of the opinion that a debate is necessary to ascertain why Ministers are not prepared to take any action, knowing that there

1573
are traitors to the country who are not being prosecuted—action which would have enabled them to answer either in open court or in camera, when they are having their liberties taken away? Will the Lord President allow time for a debate on the general issue of freedom of information, the right of the people to know and an opportunity for these people to be heard, either in camera or in open court?
Mr. Foot: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have underlined the importance of this subject. It would be an abandonment of our allegiance to proper liberal principles if the House did not show an interest in such questions. But my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already stated the situation in these cases and has informed the House of representations that can still be made. If the House at some later date wished to discuss the matter, it would be for the House to see how it could be raised. I suggest that the procedures which the Home Secretary has already outlined are those which were laid down by the House to deal with those questions and that we should use those procedures first.
Sir David Renton: What is the point of our having a debate on regional policy on Monday without the House having been presented with the Government's White Paper on the constitutional future of the English regions?
Mr. Foot: There are many aspects of regional policy which can be, and are, debated in the House constantly, irrespective of any proposals for devolution. Many questions have been discussed in meetings of the Regional Affairs Committee and I am sure that many hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, would find many questions to raise on regional matters. We thought it a convenient time to have that debate. But if Opposition Members and other hon. Members wish to have discussions about that subject, we are prepared to do so, but hon. Members on this side of the House will certainly wish to return to full debates on regional policy at an early date.
Mr. Peyton: There is some doubt how tomorrow's business will work out. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gen-
1574
tleman will confirm that first we have six hours allotted to the Health Services Bill and that thereafter we deal with messages from the other place on the Education Bill? How long will they be expected to take?
Mr. Foot: It could be—it is certainly our understanding—that the first business tomorrow will be the discussion on the messages we receive from the other place on the Health Services Bill, and that will be for six hours under the timetable motion agreed by the House. If we receive any other messages from the other place on the Education Bill, they will be considered after that period, with the possibility of a three-hour debate. We hope that we shall not receive such messages and that the other place will accept the Education Bill.
Mr. Rose: In view of the curtailment of discussion on the important matter of the deportation by the Home Secretary of two persons, one of whom, Mr. Hosenball, is known to me, will my right hon. Friend provide time for the debate on the iniquitous procedure under the 1971 Act, whereby unspecified charges are brought by anonymous persons and the person accused has no way of knowing what the charges are or who is making those charges, and has no legal representation? Is my right hon. Friend aware, and will he convey to the Home Secretary, that many could vouch for the complete integrity of that journalist and would demand a debate on the Floor of the House in order to discover who has lied and given false information about him?
Mr. Foot: There was no question of any curtailment by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because the matter of how many questions are to be put in this House is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and you exercised your authority on that subject.
I have nothing to add to what I said before. What the Home Secretary described are the next procedures laid down and accepted by this House for dealing with these problems. If, after those procedures have been dealt with, the House wishes to discuss the matter, representations may be made for the House to consider whether it is desirable to discuss the subjects that have been raised by my hon. Friend and others.

1575
I am not surprised, and I do not think that any Member of the House should be surprised, or indeed regretful, that the House wishes to consider these matters very carefully.
Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to invite hon. Members to prepare for a debate on the important subject of regional policy which he acknowledges might not take place? Would it not be better to allocate the time to unfinished Government business, namely, the Public Lending Right Bill?
Mr. Foot: We may deal with some unfinished Government business on Monday. We should be very happy if all the unfinished Government business could be concluded without our meeting on Monday, but I do not think that that is likely.
We proposed to have a debate on regional policy, and we thought that was a reasonable proposition, but if that is thought inadvisable in other parts of the House we are prepared to have discussions about it.
The Public Lending Right Bill is supported by the Government and by the official Opposition and, indeed, by the House of Lords. It is of importance to many people in the country, and it has certainly commanded the support of those in this House who have given real thought to the subject. It is a tragedy that such a Bill should be lost, but, in view of our experience on the measure, I do not believe that if we put it down for consideration on Monday, as is suggested, we could deal with it successfully then. When we come to the next Session, we shall have to consider how we can revive the Bill and ensure that it reaches the statute book.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fate of the Public Lending Right Bill reflects very gravely on the procedures of the House? The Bill was given a Second Reading without opposition. No one voted against it. It was debated for seven hours on Second Reading, for 21 hours in Committee and for nine hours on Report, yet we cannot find the time to get it through, even though we succeed in getting other more controversial legislation passed. Can some measures be taken to improve the procedures in these matters?
Mr. Foot: I repeat that I am as sorry as anyone—I hope that I may declare my interest—that the Public Lending Right Bill has not become an Act in this Parliament. Certainly it was the Government's desire it should be passed. However, it was prevented from reaching the statute book on this occasion because some hon. Members exercised their right, under our present procedures, to continue debates. One of the arrangements that we have in this House means that a few Members can, if they wish, seek to obstruct the passing of a measure. It is most deplorable that it should have been done in this case, but when we return to the subject, as I trust we shall in the next Session, the House will have to consider whether it wishes to proceed under the normal arrangements or to have a timetable motion.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The responsibility for losing the Public Lending Right Bill rests principally on the Government for introducing it so late in the Session.
In view of the importance of any message that may come from the House of Lords on the Education Bill—I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no more knowledge than he has on whether a message will come—it will be most inconvenient to consider it late on a Friday after all the other business. If a message comes, the Bill should be taken on Monday.
Mr. Foot: I am sure that we have time to get the Education Bill through successfully. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to assist us in the matter, he might use his influence with the House of Lords to ensure that we get no message on the subject. That would be of great assistance and would ensure that the Bill went through. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us his assistance on the matter, particularly as he now tells us that he has no knowledge whether we are likely to have any message of that character.
The hon. Gentleman says that the responsibility for the failure of getting the Public Lending Right Bill on to the statute book rests with the Government. I do not accept that. The Government made a number of efforts to have the matter discussed and brought to a conclusion. Had we received the full-hearted support of the hon. Member for

1577
Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on some occasions, we might have had a better chance of doing so.
Mr. Swain: In view of the apparent unholy alliance between the Conservative and Liberal Oppositions, having looked at the voting record of the Liberals over the past 12 months and bearing in mind their interest in regional affairs, as well as my own interest in the subject, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider bringing the House back on Sunday to discuss this important subject, with double time for hon. Members who attend?
Mr. Foot: If we made that proposition I am not sure that we should not get into trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on public expenditure grounds.
Mr. Adley: Most people will be glad that national security decisions are in the hands of the Home Secretary rather than the Group of Ten, but is the Lord President nevertheless aware that the question of individual freedom raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is a serious and current topic, particularly in view of the deprivation of rights being experienced by many people especially in the nationalised industries over the imposition of the closed shop? Will the Lord President consider the request of his hon. Friend for an early debate on individual liberty?
Mr. Foot: This subject is discussed constantly in this House in reference to certain Bills and measures and that is the best way for it to be dealt with.
Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend note that the proceedings of the North-West Regional Affairs Committee yesterday terminated against the wishes of a substantial majority of Labour Members? Does he agree that if, in future, we are to have discussions of the affairs of a specific region, they should be of a longer duration than yesterday? Further, will my right hon. Friend agree to put down a motion on a specific subject affecting that region and ensure that a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for that subject is present to reply to the debate?
Mr. Foot: I know that there was a mishap in that Committee and that as a result the arrangements that the Government had sought to make to assist in getting the time for the discussion that we had hoped to provide did not prevail. I am sorry that that occurred, but it was not the Government's fault. Of course I think it is desirable that, where possible, Cabinet Ministers should be available at such debates, but it is not always possible. That must be taken into account, particularly when many meetings take place towards the end of a Session and it is not always possible to fulfil that obligation. That is why there are other Ministers fully capable of dealing with these questions.
Mr. Stephen Ross: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early-Day Motion No. 109 dealing with the import of whale products?
[That this House is of opinion that the Government should impose a ban on the import of sperm whale products in this country and take all other practical steps to impose a moratorium on whaling for a period of 10 years as an essential conservation measure of great importance to mankind in general.]
The motion now has no fewer than 263 signatures. Previously, the Leader of the House indicated that he was sympathetic to the matter being discussed. It has not been discussed during this Session. May I have an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he will bring it forward early in the next Session?
Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman raises the subject with me at the beginning of the next Session I shall do my best to see whether it is possible to discuss it.
Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend look at Early-Day Motion No. 682, which will be handed to him in a moment, and which relates to Consolidated Gold Fields whose directors are proposing to give an executive a golden handshake of £250,000?
[That this House deplores the decision of the directors of Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd. to give one of their executives a golden handshake of £250,000 as inconsistent with the policy of restraint.]
I realise that it may be difficult for my right hon. Friend to find time for the

1579
motion, but will he at least say whether he approves of it?
Mr. Foot: I have had difficulty enough in arranging debates on these matters without making declarations on each one. I understand that discussions are taking place through the usual channels on the possibility of finding time for a debate, but no conclusion has been reached in respect of this Session. We shall have to start discussions again in the next Session.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call two further hon. Members, one from each side of the House. Mr. Hugh Jenkins.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he said about the Public Lending Right Bill and about the firmness of the Government's intentions in the matter will be widely welcomed? Will he take steps to see that on this occasion those intentions prevail?
Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. I entirely agree that it is deplorable that all the work done by so many hon. Members from all sides of the House to try to get the Bill through should have proved abortive. No one has worked harder than my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) to put the Bill on the statute book. I hope that we shall both live to see that happen.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Leader of the House clarify the position in respect of the regional debate on Monday? Will he confirm that English regional matters will be discussed and that the debate does not cover the affairs of Wales and Scotland?
Mr. Foot: That is so. But hon. Members representing Wales and Scotland can always join in if they wish.
Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the best way to ensure public lending rights in this country would be to create two new peerages in that "Chamber of Dilettantes" up the road—the Lord Stoat and the Lord Moate?
Mr. Farr: Is it not important that the House should, now and again, look
1580
above the din of battle and possibly at an early date have what I would call a constitutional debate? Sensible proposals have been made not for reducing the power of the other place but for providing a second Chamber in a rejuvenated form. Would not a debate on those proposals at an early date in this House be opportune?
Mr. Foot: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not in favour of a second Chamber in a rejuvenated state. I am sufficiently opposed to it in its present decrepit state.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) asked me yesterday about the effect of the decision to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges upon any proceedings based on the same facts that might be instituted in the courts.
In her first intervention she asked whether there would be any offence to the traditions of courtesies of the House if individuals sought their own legal remedies while the Committee of Privileges was sitting. In answer to this I must say that there is no rule or practice of this House which inhibits hon. Members commencing actions in the courts in respect of publications of a non-parliamentary character, irrespective of whether the matter is under consideration here.
In her second intervention the right hon. Lady asked me, in effect, what view a court of law might take in regard to such an action. Under our constitution the courts of law have a jurisdiction quite independent of Parliament. I cannot therefore give a direct reply to her question; nor would it be proper for me to comment upon the practice of the courts. I can only answer upon the attitude which the House itself has always taken in regard to proceedings in the House. The House has always taken the view that no hon. Members can be compelled to give evidence in a court of law regarding proceedings in the House of Commons without the permission of the House, and the House has always upheld that right.

1581
Furthermore, no documentary evidence of the proceedings of the House, which includes reports from Committees, may be produced in court without leave of the House.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: I now have to rule on the complaint of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) yesterday. The hon. Member suggested that his complaint had something in common with that raised by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) on Tuesday. That may be his view, but I must emphasise that each complaint must be considered by the Chair separately and on its own. In reaching my decision, I have therefore considered the complaint of the hon. Member for Howden in complete isolation from that of the hon. Member for Paddington.
Though I have something to add at the end of my ruling, I shall come straight to the point. I rule 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.
The 1967–68 Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege drew the attention of the House to the fact that the powers of the House in regard to privilege, and particularly in the matter of contempt of the House, were extremely wide in their scope and that, in its view, these powers should only be exercised extremely sparingly. It is not for me to comment on that Committee's opinion on the exercise of the powers of the House, since, as I reminded the House yesterday, the House has never come to a conclusion on the Committee's recommendation.
However, no one can deny that the circumstances in which it is open to the House to treat a complaint as a contempt are wide in their scope, and, as long as that remains the case, any Speaker must give a complaint which falls within that scope precedence over the Orders of the Day.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of your
1582
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.
As I said yesterday, it has been the general custom—I do not say that it has always been the case—after a Speaker has ruled in the sense that you have just ruled that a motion of this character should be moved by the Leader of the House. That has been acceptable to the House on many occasions, and yesterday's debate and the decision reached by the House somewhat reinforce the idea that we should proceed along those lines today. I hope that the House can reach an early conclusion on this proposal.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sorry to delay the House and I know that many hon. Members will feel that, after the debate yesterday, it is unnecessary, but, having carefully read the document concerned, I consider that we should we wasting the time of the House and of the Committee of Privileges if this matter were taken to the Committee. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will vote against the motion.
As I have said, I have looked at the matter carefully. Any document which suggests that Mr. David Basnett and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) are dangerous and wicked Reds is so ludicrous that, frankly, it would be a waste of the Committee's time and energy even to consider such a document. Those hon. Members who feel that they have a right to take the matter further should do it through the courts on this occasion.
Yesterday the circumstances were rather different. I had not read the document yesterday. It is a pity that all hon. Members had not had the opportunity to see it. But now I have been able to read it, and it is so ludicrous and so silly that I hope the House just chucks it out and goes no further with it.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), which is why I voted against the motion yesterday. I think that the House is in danger of bringing itself and the Committee of Privileges into disrepute by referring to it at this time general matters of political dispute.
Mr. Robert Mellish: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) and to say that I support him entirely.
Yesterday I listened to the debate and I felt thoroughly ashamed. I thought that the House did itself a great disservice, Which resulted in—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not vote?"] I abstained from voting and refused to support the motion because I did not believe that it deserved support, and today, when the motion is voted upon, I shall vote against it because we have now reached the ludicrous situation where an hon. Member says something outside the House which certain individuals do not like and immediately we rush before you, Mr. Speaker, and ask for it to be placed before the Committee of Privileges—as if hon. Members did not have enough to do without listening to some of the rubbish uttered by individuals outside.
If this had been the practice in the past, we could have brought many matters before the House. I have been accused of being employed by the Church of Rome, and I have had a number of letters to that effect, and it has been said that I am in almost daily communication with it. One can almost imagine the phone calls.
I am putting the matter in perspective because the suggestion is so daft, as are all the other rubbishy suggestions that have been made. But the House took it all seriously yesterday and evidently wants to do so again today. Allegations of that kind are absolute rubbish and nonsense, and they should not waste the time of the House.
When someone outside is alleged to have said certain things, a Member of Parliament should take the matter to court and prosecute. But for the House to go through the procedure of the Committee of Privileges and have its busy members meet to consider all that rubbish again is ridiculous.
Let us throw this out and show that the House will not tolerate this kind of nonsense. I warn those who support the motion that if this goes on others will take advantage and this House will be used for every possible kind of exploitation.
Mr. David Steel: When motions of this kind
1584
are moved by the Leader of the House, there is a precedent for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion, having listened to the debate and taken the sense of the House.
I should like to support the hon. Members who have spoken so far. In your rulings both today and yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you referred to the report, still undebated, of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of 1968. I hope that, instead of pressing this motion, the Leader of the House will give us an assurance that in the new Session the report will be considered so that we may change our rule on privilege if we so decide.
Yesterday my right hon. and hon. Friends opposed the motion, and, if the Leader of the House wishes to press it, we shall oppose this motion today.
Mr. Nigel Lawson: I do not think that it would be right if it were thought that the House was unanimous on this point. It seems to me that right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far are in grave danger of making fools of the House, because, whatever else, we must be consistent.
I fully understand that there were arguments on both sides yesterday, and some of us voted one way and some the other. But an overwhelming majority decided that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
That was decided only yesterday, and it was very much a congruent matter. The circumstances were the same, although I admit that there was the difference yesterday that it was a complaint against one of my hon. Friends, whereas today it is a complaint against an organisation within the Labour Party. But, apart from that, it is the same complaint.
There is a congruence of names—[Interruption.] I do not intend to be provoked in any way, Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know. You will recall that of the 10 names—
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make an obvious mis-statement by saying that the Social Democratic Alliance is an organisation of the Labour Party, which it is not?
Mr. Lawson: I am given to understand that all members of the Social Democratic Alliance are members of the Labour Party. I do not think that that can be gainsaid.
As I was saying, there is a congruence of names. As the House will recall, eight of the 10 names mentioned in his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)—the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Barking (Miss Richardson) and the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—are included in the 33 we are discussing now. Only two of the remainder: the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—I understand why he raised that phoney point of order a moment ago—and Paddington (Mr. Latham) were left out of the "Autumn Double". Therefore, there is clearly a congruence.
The second reason I oppose right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far is that, despite some of the frivolity yesterday—I regret that as much as you, Mr. Speaker—I believe this to be an issue of considerable importance.
I should like to conclude by quoting two matters which will, perhaps, convince right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that that is so. The first is this statement:
"There are attempts being made by a small group, a militant group, in a number of constituencies I should think probably 20 or 30 constituencies at the present time, and I hope that the National Executive Committee will take this matter in hand. It is not a large number yet. But it is since we raised the proscription a number of very odd people have come into the party, people who do not share the kind of democratic Socialist views that I hold".
That was a statement made by the Prime Minister on Panorama a few nights ago.
As I say, this is an important issue. It is not a question of whether Marxists eat their peas off a knife or whether the Tribune Group is an undercover wife-swapping agency. This is a serious matter.
The present Prime Minister is not the only Prime Minister who has believed the Marxist influence in the Labour Party to be a very serious matter. It was so
1586
thought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Many of us will recall the great concern the Marxist influence in the Labour Party caused him at the time he was Prime Minister.
Many of us will recall, for example, the Conservative Party's election broadcast, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, of 19th February 1974, in which Mr. Bert Ramelson—he, of course, is the Communist Party's industrial organiser—was quoted as saying:
"The party can float an idea early in the year and it can become official Labour Party policy by the autumn."
Mr. Barber, as he then was—he is now Lord Barber—said in the same broadcast—
Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that Mr. Bert Ramelson was like Mandy Rice-Davies? He would, would he not?
Mr. Lawson: I must admit that I have heard that one before. It was almost as good the second time as the first time. However, I am merely quoting. I am not producing anything other than what was in this election broadcast.
The other quotation is from the noble lord, Lord Barber, who said in that broadcast, which my right hon. Friend had as part of his campaign, and rightly so:
"But the second thing they had to do to succeed in their Communist aims—as they frankly stated—was to replace a Conservative Government with a Labour Government—a Labour Government that would be putty in their hands."
Mr. William Small: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How many copious notes is an hon. Member allowed to use? It used to be a matter for some comment if an hon. Member came to the House with over-copious notes. How far has the hon. Member slipped from that dignity?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an overriding impression that both sides of the House are anxious to come to a decision.
Mr. Lawson: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, on grounds of congruence with what happened yesterday, and on grounds of importance, as

1587
attested to both by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup when he was Prime Minister, this matter should be referred by the Committee of Privileges.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The incoherent ramblings of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will undoubtedly make it easy to emphasise my own clarity and coherence in contrast. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are enormous differences between yesterday's consideration and today's.
Yesterday's consideration related to a Member of this House who accused other hon. Members of having been elected by fraud. I would have thought that there could hardly be a more serious accusation. It is not a question of saying that certain Members are Left-wing or Right-wing or any such thing, but that Members perpetrated a fraud to be elected. That statement was made by a Member of this House concerning 10 named Members and other unnamed Members.
It seems that the House has to treat that in a serious fashion and was right to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. But today we are considering a matter which has been raised mischievously by a Member of the Opposition, relating to wild, hysterical statements by one or two members of my own party, apparently, who represent nothing, are of no importance within the Labour Party and who do not merit the attention of this House. Those who say that these are matters equivalent in kind show their own ignorance of the importance that should be placed on statements of Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member who was accused yesterday of bringing the House into disrepute by impugning the motives of other Members, the honourable—or at any rate the Member—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There was a very clear implication in what the hon. Lady said, and she will understand that we refer to each other as honourable Members of this House.
Mrs. Wise: I shall refer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and I hope that he takes note of the need to behave accordingly.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has not only made wild imputations that other Members are elected by fraud but has descended to the politics of the gutter by poking his runny nose into everyone else's constituency, seeking to raise disruption and disunity amongst the population—[Interruption.]—Yes, Mr. Speaker, by playing off—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are not now discussing yesterday's motion. We are deciding whether the House in its wisdom wishes the matter on which I ruled today to go to the Committee of Privileges.
Mrs. Wise: I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. It has been argued that the two matters are equivalent, and in trying to make a case that they are not equivalent it is necessary to refer to the points made earlier.
I am trying to make the case that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has been disruptive and causing division in the population by seeking to play off the unemployed and the sick against those fortunate enough to be employed.—[Interruption.] In doing that—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is too late. I am on a point of order. The hon. Lady must address herself to the question whether the motion should go to the Committee of Privileges. I am becoming increasingly aware that the House wishes to come to a conclusion on the matter.
Mr. Cormack rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—
Question put, That the Question be now put:
The House divided: Ayes 243. Noes 230.

Division No. 419.]

AYES

[4.32 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Armstrong. Ernest

Bell, Ronald

Alison, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Baker, Kenneth

Benyon, W.

Anderson, Donald

Banks, Robert

Berry, Hon Anthony

Archer, Peter

Bates, Alf

Biffen, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Grieve, Percy

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Blaker, Peter

Griffiths, Eldon

Moyle, Roland

Body, Richard

Grist, Ian

Neave, Airey

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Neubert, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

O'Halloran, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Oppenheim, Mrs Salty

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Harper, Joseph

Padley, Walter

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Page, Richard (workington)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hastings, Stephen

Palmer, Arthur

Brotherton, Michael

Havers, Sir Michael

Park, George

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hawkins, Paul

Parker, John

Brown, Huge D. (Provan)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Parkinson, Cecil

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Heseltine, Michael

Percival, Ian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hicks Robert

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Buchanan, Richard

Higgins, Terence L.

Pink, R. Bonner

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hordern, Peter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Buck, Antony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Prior Rt Hon James

Bulmer Esmond

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Burden, F. A.

Huckfield, Les

Raison, Timothy

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Rathbone, Tim

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Hunt John (Bromley)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Campbell, Ian

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Canavan, Dennis

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Carmichael Neil

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Roberts Michael (Cardiff NW)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

James, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Cockcroft, John

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Jessel, Toby

Royle, Sir Anthony

Concannon, J. D.

John, Brynmor

Sainsbury, Tim

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Cope, John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shepherd, Colin

Corbett, Robin

Jopling Michael

Silvester, Fred

Cordle, John H.

Cormack, Patrick

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Sinclair, Sir George

Kelley, Richard

Skeet, T. H. H.

Corrie, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

Speed, Keith

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Spence, John

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Lamont, Norman

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sproat, Iain

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lawrence, Ivan

Stanbrook, Ivor

Deakins, Eric

Lawson, Nigel

Stanley, John

Dempsey, James

Le Marchant, Spencer

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Dormand, J. D.

Loveridge, John

Stoddart, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Luard, Evan

Stradling Thomas, J.

Drayson, Burnaby

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCrindle, Robert

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Dunn, James A.

McElhone, Frank

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Tinn, James

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Tomlinson, John

Elliott, Sir William

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Torney, Tom

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Eyre, Reginald

Mahon, Simon

Trotter, Neville

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Tugendhat, Christopher

Faulds, Andrew

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Marten, Neil

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mates, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Malher, Carol

Wakeham, John

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Maude, Angus

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Walters, Dennis

Ford, Ben

Mawby, Ray

Weatherill, Bernard

Forrester, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wellbeloved, James

Fox, Marcus

Mikardo, Ian

Wells, John

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

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

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Whitlock, William

Fry, Peter

Mills, Peter

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Galbraith, Hon T. Q. D.

Moate, Roger

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Molyneaux, James

Young, David (Bolton E)

Ginsburg, David

Monro, Hector

Younger, Hon George

Glyn, Dr Alan

Montgomery, Fergus

Gorst, John

Moore, John (Croydon C)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Mr. Peter Snape and

Graham, Ted

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. Joseph Ashton.

Gray, Hamish

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Allaun, Frank

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bidwell, Sydney

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Bishop, E. S.

Atkinson, Norman

Bean, R. E.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Awdry, Daniel

Beith, A. J.

Boardman, H.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Bradley, Tom

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Radice, Giles

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Brittan, Leon

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Richardson, Miss Joe

Buchan, Norman

Hunter, Adam

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Budgen, Nick

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cant, R. B.

Janner, Greville

Robinson, Geoffrey

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Channon, Paul

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Clemitson, Ivor

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rooker, J. W.

Cohen, Stanley

Kaufman, Gerald

Roper, John

Coleman, Donald

Kilfedder, James

Rose, Paul B.

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Conlan, Bernard

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Ryman, John

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Kinnock, Neil

Sedgemore, Brian

Cowans, Harry

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Selby, Harry

Crawford, Douglas

Lambie, David

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Lamborn, Harry

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Lamond, James

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Cryer, Bob

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Shersby, Michael

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Latham, Michael (Mellon)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Davidson, Arthur

Lee, John

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Davles, Denzil (Llaneill)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sillars, James

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lipton, Marcus

Silverman, Julius

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Litterick, Tom

Sims, Roger

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lloyd, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Dunlop, John

Lomas, Kenneth

Small, William

Dunnett, Jack

Loyden, Eddie

Spearing. Nigel

Edge, Geoff

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Stallard, A. W.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

McCartney, Hugh

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

English, Michael

McCusker, H.

Stott, Roger

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Strang, Gavin

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Macfarlane, Neil

Swain, Thomas

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McGregor, John

Tapsell, Peter

Fairgrieve, Russell

Maclennan, Robert

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Farr, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fell, Anthony

McNamara, Kevin

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Madden, Max

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Flannery, Martin

Magee, Bryan

Thompson. George

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Freeson, Reginald

Marks, Kenneth

Urwin, T. W.

Freud, Clement

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mayhew, Patrick

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

George, Bruce

Maynard, Miss Joan

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Gilbert, Dr John

Mellish. Rt Hon Robert

Warren, Kenneth

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mendelson, John

Watkins, David

Goodlad, Alastair

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Watkinson, John

Gould, Bryan

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Watt, Hamish

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Weetch, Ken

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mudd, David

Weitzman, David

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Nelson, Anthony

Welsh, Andrew

Grant, John (Islington C)

Newens, Stanley

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Noble, Mike

White, James (Pollok)

Grocott, Bruce

Oakes, Gordon

Wigley, Dafydd

Hannam, John

Orbach, Maurice

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Ovenden, John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Hatton, Frank

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Parry, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Heffer, Eric S.

Pavitt, Laurie

Wise. Mrs Audrey

Henderson, Douglas

Penhaligon, David

Woodall, Alec

Hodgson, Robin

Perry, Ernest

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Holland, Philip

Phipps, Dr Colin

Hooley, Frank

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Mr. Cyril Smith and

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. John Pardoe.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At what point in the proceedings will you require those hon. Members who are members of the Social Demo-
1592
cratic Alliance, in whose name this document was presumably published, to withdraw from the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: That rule applies only to Members of this honourable House.
Mr. Neville Sandelson: There are not any.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords amendments in lieu of Lords amendments disagreed to by the Commons, and a reason for disagreeing to a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment, considered.

  DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
    Clause 4

      SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREPARE NEW SCHEME
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 4, line 13, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof—
      No. 1, in page 4, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert
      "(3) Any premises as to which the Board has reported under section 6 of this Act that work done there is dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme as it applies in any port, or is so treated by custom and practice, are to be treated as part of the definable dock area which includes that port, if not otherwise falling to be so treated under subsection (2A) above.
      (4) The Secretary of State may, if it appears to him necessary in the light of local circumstances affecting any particular definable dock area, by order extend that area (or, having made in relation to it any one or more previous orders under this subsection, further extend it) by directing the addition to it of any contiguous area.
      (5) An order shall not be made under subsection (4) in relation to a definable dock area unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
      (6) Schedule (Procedure before making of extension order under s. 4(4)) to this Act has effect as to the steps which are to be taken by the Secretary of State before making an order under subsection (4) of this section; and where an order under the subsection is laid before Parliament in draft for the purposes of subsection (5) there shall be laid with it—

      (a) a statement by the Secretary of State certifying that Schedule (Procedure before making of extension order under s. 4(4)) has been complied with, and

      (b) where a public inquiry has been held, a copy of any report and recommendation made by the person who held the inquiry."

      No. 2, in page 24, line 22, at end insert new Schedule 1A—

    Schedule 1A

      PROCEDURE BEFORE MAKING EXTENSION ORDER UNDER S. 4(4)
      1. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order extending or further extending a definable dock area, he shall refer the proposal to the Board and invite them to report to him with their opinion and advice on it.
      2. He shall also publish the fact that he has referred the proposal, and the manner in which the area in question is proposed to be extended—

      (a) in at least one national newspaper and at least one newspaper circulating in and around the area proposed to be extended, and

      (b) without prejudice to section 15(2) of this Act, in such other ways as he thinks most appropriate for bringing the proposal to the notice of the persons likely to be affected by an implementation of it.

      3. The Secretary of State shall allow at least 60 days for representations to be made to him (by the Board and others) with regard to the proposal, and shall consider any representations that are made.
      4.—(1) For the purpose of determining whether to proceed with the proposal, the Secretary of State may cause a public inquiry to be held; and he shall cause such an inquiry to be held if it appears to him, from representations made by the Board and others, that there are objections to the proposal (other than objections appearing to him to be merely frivolous).
      (2) Any such inquiry shall be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons appearing to him to be impartial as respects the subject matter of the inquiry; and the person so appointed shall report his findings to the Secretary of State, together with such recommendations (if any) as he thinks it right to make.
      (3) In relation to any inquiry held for the purposes of this paragraph, section 250(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to require witnesses' attendance etc.) apply as they do in relation to a local inquiry held under section 250(1) of that Act.
      4.42 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I will deal first with Lords Amendment No. 1. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may consider Lords Amendment No. 2 and the following Lords amendments:
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 5, line 30, to which the

      1595
      Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 3, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      "(4) The work that may be classified is any which—

      (a) is done or to be done at premises in a definable dock area and is within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule; or

      (b) whether or not falling within paragraph (a) above, is reported by the Board to the Secretary of State under section 6 below as having been dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme or been so treated by custom and practice."

      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 8, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 4, in page 8, line 3, leave out from "Scheme" to end of line 7 and insert—
      "(6) In this section 'port' means any one of the individual ports listed in Appendix I to the 1967 Scheme, together with any area."
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 8, line 16, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 5, in page 8, line 16, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
      "at premises situated in a definable dock area"
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 10, line 32, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 6, in page 10, line 32, leave out
      "in the cargo-handling zone and"
      and insert
      "situated in a definable dock area and falling"
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 12, line 28, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 7, in page 12, line 28, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
      "situated in a definable dock area"
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 14, line 3, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 8, in page 14, line 3, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
      "situated in a definable dock area"
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 17, to leave out lines 36 and 37, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 9, in page 17, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
      "'definable dock area' has the meaning given by section 4."
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 25, line 38, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 10, in page 25, line 39, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area"
      The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in line 3 of the Lords Amendment in page 26, line 18, for the following Reason—
      No. 11, because Clause 4 of the Bill, as agreed by both Houses to be amended, does not relate to a cargo-handling zone but to definable dock areas.
      The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 26, line 35, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
      No. 12, in page 26, line 35, leave out "outside the cargo-handling zone" and insert
      "not situated within a definable dock area"
      Mr. Booth: These amendments were put forward by the Government in another place and accepted without dissent by all sides in another place as being the only amendments to the Bill which should be reconsidered in the Commons. The amendments take full account of the decision which this House reached last week and seek to make an effective working measure of the Bill in light of the view of this House that the concept of a cargo-handling zone should be changed for that of a definable dock area.
      The Government believe that the Bill, as amended in this House and assuming that these further amendments are agreed to, can still effectively serve the interests of the dock industry. The fact that the Lords rejected their earlier amendments to the Bill and accepted other Government amendments helped to emphasise the measure of understanding among all parties of the need for effective modern legislation in this area.

      1597
      The Government amendments sought to substitute throughout the Bill the concept of a definable dock area for that of a cargo-handling zone. They would ensure that a new dock labour scheme would be applied to all work to which the 1967 scheme is now applied, whether or or not located in a definable dock area. They would provide that objections to a proposad to extend any definable dock area would be subject to a public inquiry and that any subsequent order for such an extension would be laid in draft before Parliament and would need to be approved by a resolution of each House.
      If these amendments are passed, we believe that we shall have gone a very long way towards meeting the original objectives of the Government as set out in a statement made to the House by my predecessor on 15th July 1974. On that occasion he said:
      "Successive Parliaments have recognised that in the special circumstances of the docks there is a continuing need for control over employment arrangements. We must ensure that the coverage of that control is appropriate to modern conditions."—[Official Report, 15th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 32.]
      The Bill can play a positive part in achieving that end.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. James Prior: The Secretary of State made a statement on Monday in which he set out the Government's view and the action which they proposed in the Lords. Their Lordships have now taken decisions, and today we have the agreed amendments back in this House.
      I think that we should express our gratitude for the fact that we have a second Chamber and that, as a result of it, we have been able to make these changes. Although the Opposition think that the Bill should never have been brought before the House, it is now a considerably better Bill than it was when it first arrived.
      On many occasions, Oppositions claim that Bills are better as a result of going through the House, but that is not always true. On this occasion, however, we can all honestly say that this is a very much better Bill than it was, and we are grateful for that.
      We hope that the Act, as it will become, will result in a period of peace and stability in dockland and that the dockers
      1598
      and the other unions and workers involved will settle down so that we can achieve what we need to achieve in dockland, which is the proper reduction of the labour force as it becomes necessary with new technologies and, at the same time, a speeding up of goods going through the docks. The fact that the cargo-handling zone and the five-mile corridor have been removed from the Bill will enable confidence to return to the area so that warehouses may be built and the industry can settle down.
      The message which needs to go out from this House today is that we believe that the Bill as it is now will be a better one. We hope that it will lead to peace in dockland and that everyone can work together. The one factor that we all have to face at the moment is that we cannot afford to have unnecessary disputes at a time of economic crisis or at any other time. It is with that understanding, and the wish not to prolong proceedings this afternoon, that I hope we can come now to a rapid decision on these amendments.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not want to rupture the new-found harmony between the two Front Benches, but I must record the continuing disquiet felt by a large number of small ports up and down the country which are uncertain about their future.
      Certainly the port of Mostyn in my constituency is in a state of great anxiety. At present it is not known whether the scheme will be extended to the port. I cannot satisfy this uncertainty. I urge the Minister to end the uncertainty at the first possible opportunity. In assessing the criteria for bringing small ports into the dock scheme area, will he bear in mind the vital importance of them to the hinterland which they serve?
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: I, too, shall be brief. I think it is necessary, however, to make some comment on the situation which this Bill now presents for the docks industry. In spite of what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in very sweet tones about the future of the industry, the reality is that the amended Bill has been met with serious disappointment among trade unionists operating the ports of this country.
      The decisions of this House and of the other place indicate the lack of understanding which exists on the problems in

      1599
      the industry, and the Government's attempt to tackle them. Misunderstandings and distortions outside have led to a general feeling that this Bill is intended to do something quite different from what the Secretary of State said it would do in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
      In my opinion, without the five-mile zone this Bill becomes less meaningful than it was in its original form. This fact will not be fully understood by those who do not know the history of the industry in the past 10 to 15 years. The Bill was an attempt, not for the first time, to recover a position in the docks whereby there was an adequate classification of dock work. Most disputes in the deck industry have stemmed from the lack of a clear definition of dock work and the lack of a clear classification. This Bill was intended to set out the arrangements to deal with such matters.
      Those who hope for peace in the docks must look carefully at the decisions taken by Parliament to reduce the Bill to the meaningless state in which it is now. I hope that at the first opportunity the Government will take the necessary steps to bring back into the Bill the spirit and the intention of what it set out to achieve originally. No less than that will solve the problems of the industry.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I remind the House that Liberals have opposed the Bill from the beginning. Indeed, it was our motion on the Queen's Speech last year which objected to it originally, and our position has been consistent all the way through.
      Having said that, I go along with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in saying that this is a better Bill than the one we had in Committee, even if it had to be brought about by abstentions on the Government side.
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) in what he said about the five-mile corridor. I believe that the inclusion of such a corridor would have led to inter-union confrontation. I, too, hope for peace in the docks, but the five-mile corridor would not have assisted that.
      I join with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in what he said
      1600
      about uncertainty in small ports. I wish that the Minister had accepted the amendment on small ports because it was a very minor one. It would have taken out of the Bill the very small ports which I am sure it is not intended to include. This would have resolved the situation in places such as my constituency, where small ports are still in a state of uncertainty. I can tell them that I am sure that they will not be included, but nevertheless they have to go through the procedure laid down in the Bill, and that seems unnecessary and bureaucratic.
      However, I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of the position and the amendments which he has drafted to meet the decision of the House the other day. I hone that now there will be peace in the docks industry.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo the closing sentence of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in hoping that now there will be peace in the docks industry. But I must point out that this was the objective of the Bill originally.
      There has been so much misunderstanding about the purposes of the Bill, and the nature of the changes made to it last week. This misunderstanding is still rife in London dockland because communications in the industry are appalling and as low as anything I have come across anywhere. In fact, we cannot congratulate ourselves on the communication about the Bill between the two Houses of Parliament. Continually during the last year, and particularly in the last week, the popular media have been talking about dockers having a monopoly on certain types of job.
      I appeared on television where the introduction from the apparently neutral commentator was a travesty of the purposes of the Bill. People have not been told that all those working on their own account, inland waterways, navigation, and the petroleum industry, as well as airports, are specifically excluded from the Bill. That has not been made clear. Nor has it been made clear that in order to qualify for inclusion in the scheme a port must pass a 10-category test and three other tests. Perhaps this lack of understanding is due to the fact that the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, did not produce a White

      1601
      Paper on the way in which the Bill would have worked in its original form.
      I hope, therefore, that in this last debate on the Bill this Session we can at least agree across the Floor of the House that communications in public life and in the docks particularly are not good enough. Historically that has been one reason why things have gone wrong. In accepting these amendments, which still provide a very viable basis for extending the scheme, I hope that the Bill will provide a proper definition of what dock work is and what it is not.
      5.0 p.m.
      The Bill will take out of the hands of magistrates' courts the invidious task of deciding very technical matters and will put that properly in locally appointed boards. It will provide a basis upon which we can go forward. Certainly in London it will include all the work classified up to now. It will provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State, albeit after public inquiry and affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, to extend the scheme. Therefore, many of the rumours and misrepresentations that have been flying around in the last week are without basis.
      The Bill will provide something of a basis whereby we can go forward. Contrary to the screaming headlines, such as "Bill in tatters", "Bill disembowelled" and so on, the structure of the Bill and the definitions and machinery that it provides are still there.
      Therefore, I hope very much that even in its present state the Bill will provide a sound and workable basis for better understanding in dockland. But that means hard work. It means understanding by not only employees but employers. In passing the Bill in its present state, I hope that we shall have a basis for going forward, and not, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) indicated on Second Reading, the start of a dismantling of the present scheme. That was what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen said on Second Reading and what they indicated in Committee. I hope that they will at least agree that we have a reasonable basis from which we can all progress.
      Mr. Graham Page: It is the power of the Secretary of State to extend this scheme about which I am most concerned. I represent a constituency that contains a very large dock area. There was great consternation there about the five-mile limit. There is some satisfaction about the reduction of that limit, but it is also noticed that the Secretary of State has the power to extend it back again. Therefore, one is apt to look at that power of extension very closely.
      I do not know whether I have an early print of the Lords amendments, but there must surely be a misprint in subsection (5) of Lords Amendment No. 1. The previous subsection says,
      "The Secretary of State may—by order extend that area".
      Then subsection (5) says,
      "An order shall not be made under subsection (4) in relation to a definable dock area unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament"
      —it is all right as far as that—
      "and approved by a resolution of the House."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to that matter. The subsection should read "each House" instead of "the House".
      Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have not held up the House unnecessarily. How ever, if we may now understand this to be in the proper form, I am very grateful.
      Mr. Booth: Perhaps I may try to sus-stain the atmosphere of agreement between the two Front Benches for as long as possible. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the Bill is a better one for having gone through this House. My reasons for coming to that view may be slightly different from the right hon. Gentleman's reasons. I have in mind particularly the amendments made in Committee to make clear beyond peradventure that anyone whose work was classified as dock work would have complete statutory protection. These were very useful improvements to the Bill.
      I speak with some trepidation on the subject of small ports particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and that made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight

      1603
      (Mr. Ross), because small ports, as such, are not specifically covered by these amendments. However, I think that some of the remarks made reflected a misunderstanding of the debate of last week, because the option before the House was not one of agreeing with the Bill provided that the tests that are now in the Bill for the small ports permanently define small ports for all time. The alternative before the House was a formula for small ports, with a power to amend the formula. Therefore, there was a flexibility in the alternative that the House considered and rejected. The method that remains in the Bill for determining whether small ports should be brought within the scheme is one that lends itself to modern dock working conditions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Garston (Mr. Loyden) has said that without the five-mile limit the Bill is less meaningful. I shall not comment on that in a way that suggests agreement or disagreement with the decision taken by the House last week on the issue. That is a decision of the House which I am doing my best to implement very fully.
      However, I think I am entitled, as it is a matter that is subject to the present amendments, to say that under the amendments now before us there is scope for moving from the definable dock area by extension, as there was in the alternative considered by the House.
      The power of extension in the amendment now before us makes the power to extend subject, first, to public inquiry if there is objection to the proposed draft extension. It also limits the power in such a way as it may be applied to only one definable dock area at a time, and it retains the proposition that has been in the Bill from the very outset that the extension shall take place only where the proposition was affirmed by both Houses of Parliament.
      Therefore, while there is a change in the concept, there is no change in the basic proposition—that whatever geographical area we take within the Bill, under modern dock work conditions and with the changes that are taking place in the industry, a power to extend by examination of the situation on the
      1604
      ground is a desirable feature. This has been retained in the Bill.
      Sir. A. Meyer: I fully accept that the Lords amendment which the House rejected would not have given any greater certainty to the small ports as to their future than they have under the present situation. However, will the right hon. Gentleman respond to my earlier appeal and say that he will give the earliest possible indication, if not of those ports which are to be included and those which are to be excluded, at the very least of the criteria that he will adopt in assessing which ports are to come in and which are not?
      Mr. Booth: I seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman by saying, first, that the Bill in the form in which we proposed it to the House placed. in so far as we are considering the work now done by small ports, a limit on the amount of time in which there would be uncertainty, and there is a time limit attached to the requirement placed upon the Board both to review what is now the dock work and to consider the activities of loading and unloading operations. It would be only to the extent that a port changed its practices or increased or diminshed in its trade at some time in the future, that the question of any uncertainty—to use the hon. Gentleman's word—would again arise, and there would be a further survey.
      I think that the Bill is constructed in a way that helps by putting in a time limit. Obviously, while we may have disagreements about how long should be allowed, we can agree that the Bill limits the time. The initial survey must take place within the limitations imposed by the Bill.
      There is one other feature of the Bill that provides a partial answer to the question posed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston when he questioned how useful the Bill is without the five-mile limit within it. As a result of the decision of the House, we have changed "cargo-handling zone" to "definable dock area", but that is not in every case a limitation of the area which comes under the survey of the Board. In some cases that change means that areas are open to survey which were

      1605
      not open to survey under the concept of a cargo-handling zone.
      For example, the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Dunnett), Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) are now within a definable dock area but were not covered by "cargo-handling zone". The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has just been brought within a definable dock area. It previously fell some half a mile short of his constituency, which is now brought in by "definable dock area". The constituency of Worcester has been brought in by this change, as has Leeds, which is represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and York (Mr. Lyon) are now within a definable dock area. That is the decision of the House to which I have responded, I hope properly.
      But I must make it clear that the definable dock area is not so precise a geographical concept and is open to be surveyed in the way that the House, I take it, intended it to be surveyed, so that we can not only produce orders to set out the new dock areas or dock areas under the new scheme but also produce suitable classification orders to follow.
      Mr. Spearing: This point is important in view of what I have said about understanding. Will the order to which the amendment refers and by which my right hon. Friend can extend the definable dock area be pre- or post-survey? If it is the latter, has he the powers to conduct the survey before that order is made? If it is pre-survey, does that mean that premises can be examined in the way in which the original Bill intended?
      Mr. Booth: The initial survey of the area can take place prior to the order making the definable dock area. Classification can take place after that. That is to say, an initial classification is not a classification for all time. If dock work is started in new premises, that can be subject to survey and under the procedures of the Bill subsequently to classification. So classification can take place before and after survey. The most com-
      1606
      mon form which will be practised will be to bring at least two orders in respect of each area—one to state that there is a definable dock area and the second to say what is classified work within the area. But subsequent classification can take place. One effect of the amendments is that existing dock work under the present scheme can remain and will remain dock work under the new scheme even if it is outside the definable dock area.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that there has been wide misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Bill. I hope that we can do much to deal with that problem now, but I have to point out the limitations which were on my hon. Friends and me as Ministers in dealing with this issue. We brought forward a consultative document rather than a White Paper. I do not apologise for that. For an issue such as this, it was most important that there should be consultation.
      However, having done that, the Government cannot spend funds publicising a Bill. The Government cannot use public funds to combat propaganda. What we can do when the Bill is enacted. and what I hope we shall be able to do, is spend public funds on publicising the measure in the form in which Parliament has decided that it wants it enacted. I hope that in doing that we shall remove some of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings and make a contribution to ensuring what I hope the whole House wants—that the Bill will work smoothly and make for better working in the docks industry.
      Mr. Barney Hayhoe: As I have made clear from Second Reading onwards, I do not like this Bill. However, this is not the occasion for a Third Reading review of whether we like it or not, except to say that it is clear that every hon. Member on this side and many Labour Members do not like the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that we would all agree that it is a better Bill than it started. That at least is to Parliament's credit.
      I emphasise what has been said by my non. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about small ports. There is still concern about what

      1607
      will happen both to the small ports which are scheme ports and to those which are not. Clearly, uncertainty can lead to difficulties for the future. Therefore, I underline the request which has been made that we should remove as much uncertainty as fast as possible.
      This is the last time that we shall deal with this Bill in this Session and one hopes that it will achieve the objective of improving conditions in the docks industry. I hope that the fears which we have expressed about some features of the Bill will not come to pass. However, even though it has been amended, it would have been much better if we had cut its throat at the start.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY, AND THOSE WHICH MAY NOT, BE CLASSI FIED AS DOCK WORK
      Lords amendment: in page 26, line 18, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
      "11. Driving any vehicle whose use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any definable dock area; supervision of loading and unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load."
      The Commons agree to this amendment but propose the following amendment thereto:
      Line 3, leave out ("any definable dock area") and insert ("the cargo-handling zone").
      Lords Reason for disagreeing to the Commons amendment in line 3 of the Lords amendment in page 26, line 18—
      Because Clause 4 of the Bill, as agreed by both Houses to be amended, does not relate to a cargo-handling zone but to definable dock areas.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move,
      That this House doth not insist on its amendment in line 3 of the Lords amendment in page 26, line 18, to which the Lords have disagreed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 12 agreed to.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
[ALLOTTED DAY]
Lords amendments in lieu of certain Lords amendments disagreed to by the Commons and a Reason for insisting on certain amendments disagreed to by the Commons, considered.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
  Clause 30

    DISSIPATION OF ASSETS BY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING HOLDERS OF SECURITIES ETC.
    The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 42, line 12, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
    Lords amendment in lieu: No. 1, in page 42, line 12, after "if" insert—
    "(a) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company effecting the transfer, being property or rights used by the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it at a place which is not a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in the possession on the initial date, or
    (b)"
    5.15 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment in lieu.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): We are to discuss at the same time Lords amendments in lieu Nos. 2 to 4, together with the Government motion,
    That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendments,
    and the following Government amendments in lieu thereof:
    No. 2, in page 21, line 40, leave out "Part I" and insert "paragraph 1, 3 or 4".
    No. 3, in page 21, line 41, leave out "fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule" and insert—
    "(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and
    (b) fulfilled the conditions specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being for the purposes of that

    1609
    paragraph shipbuilding companies, manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines or training companies,".
    No. 4, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
    "(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the shiprepairing industry vesting date all securities of the companies which on that date were known by the names specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act, being the companies other than any excepted company which on that date—

    (a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

    (b) fulfilled the condition specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of that paragraph

    shall, by virtue of this section, vest in British Shipbuilders free from all trusts and incumbrances".
    No. 5, in page 77, line 15, after "Shipbuilders", insert—
    "by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act".
    No. 6, in page 77, line 16, at end insert "and
    "(c) in relation to a company which becomes, or would but for the provisions of section 27 of this Act become, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders by virtue of section 19(2A) of this Act, the ship-repairing industry vesting date;".
    No. 7, in page 77, line 34, at end insert—
    "'shiprepairing industry vesting date' means such date not less than 3 nor more than 6 months after the passing of this Act as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify for the purposes of section 19(2A) of this Act;".
    No. 8, in page 80, line 44, at beginning insert—
    "1. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being shipbuilding companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
    No. 9, in page 81, line 18, at end insert—
    "2. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2A) above as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
    No. 10, in page 81, line 31, at end insert—
    "3. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
    No. 11, in page 82, line 1, at end insert—
    "4. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above, as being training companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
    Mr. Varley: I want to make it clear at the outset that it is the firm policy of the Government that the nine privately-owned and three publicly-owned ship repair companies named in Schedule 2 should vest in British Shipbuilders. The reports in the Daily Express and the Financial Times that the Government have offered a deal to exclude some of these companies are completely without foundation. No such deal has been offered and no such deal will be offered.
    The Government have a clear mandate for these proposals. In our manifestos in both February and October 1974, we said clearly:
    "We shall also take shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering—into public ownership."
    It is clear that there is a firm commitment specifically to ship repairing in both manifestos. This afternoon a representative of Plaid Cymru suggested that that commitment was not contained in our manifesto. I am sorry that no member of the party is here to listen to that quotation.
    That commitment is as firm as our commitments to bring aircraft, shipbuilding and marine engineering into public ownership. All were published at the same time in the manifestos—not some in bolder and some in lighter type—and it is not for the House of Lords to pick and choose among the manifesto commitments which it deigns to permit us to implement.
    The amendments to the Lords amendments which I am moving today reaffirm our commitment to nationalise ship repairing and set out the time scale for vesting—no later than six months after Royal Assent, and earlier than that if this can sensibly be achieved.
    Ship repair was included in our proposals for public ownership for strong and powerful reasons. These are as follows. The ship repair industry is fragmented and has a rapidly declining work force. The level of capital investment in the industry has been nothing short of disastrous. There is an urgent need for injections of capital to bring about a rapid modernisation of ship repair yards. Under the present fragmented private ownership, the ability to plan investment effectively and to manage efficient modern yards is severely limited.

    1611
    These conclusions were confirmed and echoed almost identically by a report on the United Kingdom ship repair industry commissioned by the Conservative Government from PA Management Consultants and published in June 1974. The report was rather vague about remedial measures—except to make clear that the investment which it considered necessary for the industry would not be forthcoming from the private sector, and to advise individual ship repairers to take the initiative to make applications for Government aid.
    The PA report showed that the ship repairing industry in this country had consistently declined over the last decade, during which employment in ship repairing had halved. It suggested that the major firms on the main estuaries should be encouraged and it identified a number of major obstacles to growth. They included outdated facilities of many ship repairers which do not compare with those of their rivals on the Continent and which will become even more unsatisfactory in the longer term. It also identified unsatisfactory labour relations and the impact of this upon international competitiveness.
    Therefore, the case in general terms for nationalising ship repairing is that the improvements badly needed in investment, productivity and industrial relations are unlikely to cone about otherwise. Under private ownership it has been an industry generally noted for outdated, run-down facilities and poor working conditions. In competitive world conditions, the industry must now pursue an active marketing policy at home and abroad. It can best do this under the umbrella of British Shipbuilders.
    Our ship repairing proposals are part of a clear industrial strategy for this sector. But another reason for bringing ship repairing into the Bill is the strong link with shipbuilding. Many shipbuilding firms in the Bill also carry out considerable ship repair work. Examples are Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, Hall Russell, Rob Caledon, Smith's Dock, Vosper Thornycroft and Goole Shipbuilding and Repairing Company. In most of these cases it would be impossible to split the two activities; in many cases
    1612
    there is interchange of labour and common facilities are used.
    Shipbuilding groups like Swan Hunter and Scott Lithgow have separate ship repairing subsidiaries. There also, shipbuilding and ship repairing complement each other to a great extent. When these matters were last discussed in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who has worked in both the ship repairing and shipbuilding industries, made a powerful case.
    The ship repair docks may be used by the shipbuilders at certain stages in the construction of ships. Some jobs—for example, conversions or refits—may call for the use of both shipbuilding and ship-repairing facilities. The same types of skill are needed in the labour force. Unless ship repairing companies in these groups come into British Shipbuilders, there will be loss of flexibility and inefficient use of resources. The ship repair companies named in the Bill were included for good industrial reasons.
    The analogy which has often been made, and which was made in a radio broadcast, a few day ago, comparing the difference between ship repair and shipbuilding companies with the difference between car manufacturers and garages is, therefore, entirely fallacious, inaccurate and inappropriate as far as companies named in the Bill are concerned.
    Mr. Tom King: Who made that analogy?
    Mr. Varley: It was said by a Mr. Bayliss whom I believe to be the secretary of the SRNA, who spoke on the radio a few nights ago.
    I have made it clear that our commitment to nationalise ship repair is firm and long-standing and has sound industrial logic behind it. This commitment has been upheld in this House since the Second Reading debate nearly a year ago, and not once in all the 58 sittings of the Committee stage, in the three days of Report and Third Reading or in the first Commons consideration of Lords amendments was a single Division carried against inclusion of ship repair in the Bill.
    On Tuesday the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) congratulated the Government on accepting what he called the "clear will" of the House on the

    1613
    Dock Work Regulation Bill. It has throughout been the clear will of the House that ship repair be brought into public ownership. It seems that the Opposition proclaim the clear will of this House when it suits them but reject decisions of this House when they do not suit the Tory Party. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he spoke of a conspiracy between the Opposition Front Bench and the Tory peers.
    It is impossible for the Government to agree to the Lords proposal that ship repair should be dropped. The Government have a duty to carry out the policy in their election manifesto, particularly when this has repeatedly been endorsed by the House.
    If the Lords maintain their present stance, the blame for delay in enacting the Bill will lie squarely on their shoulders. The consequences of delay for both shipbuilding and aerospace industries have been spelt out many times. My noble Friend Lord Melchett described them in another place on Monday as catastrophic. He was not exaggerating. Not least to suffer from the delay, will be some of the very private ship repair companies which the Lords are misguidedly fighting to remove from the Bill. Indeed, information reaching my Department indicates that a number of the nine private ship repair companies in the list are anxious that the Bill should go ahead as passed by this House.
    There is, of course, one notable exception which has consistently opposed the Bill by means of an extremely expensive and highly misleading publicity campaign. Some of this might have misled some Members in another place into taking a mistaken view of the industry and misunderstanding the logic of our proposals.
    One Member of another place on Monday who admitted that he knew nothing about the industry was impelled to contribute to the debate by reading a letter he had received from a worker shareholder of the firm thanking him for voting to remove ship repair. I, too, have had a letter from a worker in this company, backed up by the signatures of 76 per cent. of his fellow workers, both skilled and unskilled. The letter is from a shop steward in Bristol Channel Ship
    1614
    Repairers and I have his permission to read it.
    The letter is as follows:
    "We the undersigned are employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, Swansea, and wish to make it known that we fully support the Bill to nationalise the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries which includes this company. Also we would welcome an opportunity to meet any representatives of the Organising Committee."
    The letter is signed by 76 per cent. of the work force in Swansea drydock.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Perhaps the Secretary of State is not aware that this company operates in four of the South Wales Docks—Cardiff, Newport, Barry and Swansea. I have met numerous employees of the company, and the vast majority of them are strongly in favour of the company's action in seeking to be outside the ambit of the Bill.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Varley: I have just read out a letter representing 76 per cent. of those who work in the Swansea dry dock. There is other evidence, not only from Swansea but from Cardiff, of representatives of workers at Bristol Channel Ship Repairers saying that they want to be included.
    The Government have a clear mandate to insist on the enactment of the ship repair proposals. The great majority of those who work in the ship repair companies named in the Bill want the proposals to go ahead. The Tory peers, responsible to no one and elected by no one, take it upon themselves to decide which election commitments the elected Government should be permitted to fulfil and which they should be prevented from fulfilling. They never once did that when the Tories were in power.
    The Tory peers are as selective in their interpretation of their role as they are about the legislation they will pass. I hope—and I say this on behalf of the Government—that they will think carefully about the consequences for the many thousands who depend for their livelihood on the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries if they delay the Bill by insisting on disagreeing with this House. The responsibility for those consequences will be theirs and theirs alone.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: The House will be a little disappointed that the Secretary of State should have repeated the delusions which dogged his Minister of State and Under-Secretaries throughout the consideration of the Bill. Everybody working in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries is aware that both have a real difficulty in their forward work loading. That is not in dispute. But none of the people working in them is so naive as to believe that handing over £400 million to £500 million to shareholders who, by and large, have no wish to go will do anything to improve the work loading.
    Therefore, it is regrettable that the Secretary of State should have suggested that in some way nationalisation creates jobs. It is particularly regrettable on the day when the National Economic Development Organisation has produced a report, an independent report but nevertheless one heavily influenced by its role in government, which clearly shows trade unionists, management, civil servants and politicians that nationalisation has been a political disaster. In industry after industry, everybody who has been consulted by NEDO has panned the concept from start to finish, because it has not been able in any way to live up to the expectations that led the Labour Party to introduce nationalisation.
    Now we have yet another attempt by the Government to reach a compromise with their Left wing over that section of the British industrial scene that must be handed over to the State to buy a further period of unity for the party in government. It is extraordinary that in the course of this week we can hear the ringing tones of the Prime Minister talking about the need to rally the nation behind the mixed economy and make it work, as he sets off hot-foot back to the House to try to design the strategy with which to nationalise yet one more industry.
    The only standard by which this Government are judged now is that of the facts, which stare us in the face. Nobody listens to the words, to the arguments and speeches, because there is a quotation to support every concept that suits Ministers in every posture that they adopt. There is somebody representing every view, from the extreme moderate view to
    1616
    the extreme Left-wing view, within the Cabinet, so every argument is well rehearsed, depending entirely on the circumstance in which it is paraded. In industrial terms, it all adds up to humbug, because it contributes nothing towards job creation, nothing towards the prosperity of British industry and investment in it. All that it adds up to is the creation of additional requirements for Government borrowing to compensate shareholders who, broadly, have no wish to have occasion to be compensated.
    It is curious that the Secretary of State, who is regarded as a man with a certain concern for the well-being of British industry, should now come with a speech, doubtless polished up this morning in Cabinet, to try to present a case for moving forward in public ownership. He quotes the Labour Party manifesto. Doubtless he will soon quote the resolutions of the Blackpool conference.
    There is a whole string of industries now facing nationalisation, in whole or in part, by the Labour Party. Some of them are listed in the manifesto—the pharmaceutical, construction and transport industries. Others are now in the process of being debated within the Labour movement or have been accepted by the policy councils of the movement. In their judgment the process is irreversible.
    The Secretary of State says that the proposals have been carefully worked out, that there are ideas which are to be implemented. But all of us who sat through the 58 Committee sittings know that there are no such proposals. In no industry that has been nationalised have there been any factual, concrete proposals. It is one of the major problems facing nationalised industries that the theories are generalised and the practical proposals are never designed until the crisis hits the industry after nationalisation. We have never had a debate about where rationalisation will take place, or how, or, perhaps more important, where the work will come from to preserve the jobs after nationalisation.
    Our whole submission was that if the Government had spent the past two and a half years worrying about how the workload and efficiency of the industries was to be improved, to compete for what limited amount of work was available,

    1617
    there would be a much better prospect of job security for those two industries today. The Government have no ideas themselves. They appointed an organising committee to which they could give no instructions. The Government wasted those two and a half years. They did not put forward sensible or coherent policies for anyone in the industries to consider in detail, except within the privacy of the organising committee.
    The other place has powers given to it by the Labour Party in 1949. Presumably their Lordships were given those powers so that they might judge whether they wished to use them. If the Labour Party does not believe that there should be a two-Chamber system of government, it is up to the party to put forward that argument. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept that there is a case for reform of the second Chamber, but what is not arguable is the Secretary of State's case that the other place is not supposed to use the powers it has been given.
    Rather than putting forward this totally incomprehensible amendment to prolong the agony for another two or three days, the Government would have done better to face up to the fact that their Lordships have decided to represent the overwhelming wishes of the body of the people by deleting ship repairing from the nationalisation proposals.
    I have no doubt that the House, having heard the arguments about the ship repair industry many times, will wish to proceed to an early Division. I recommend my colleagues to support their Lordships.
    Mr. William Small: I thought that by now there had been a thaw between us and another place, but their Lordships always wear the mask to look in the mirror, and, like the reflection in the mirror, we have the Tory Party in the House of Lords defying the House of Commons. To that degree and to that degree alone, I have sympathy with the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    We in Britain have a problem of loss of face, which the Japanese know about in their religion called Shinto. This applies to the place of British shipbuilding in the world. We need to go for a total package, including ship repairing.
    1618
    If I met a lord to discuss the old question of hybridity, I would ask him down to the Lords' Bar. I would say "Let us have a Cutty Sark". He would look at the label and see the ship that was called the Cutty Sark. In referring to "Cutty Sark" there is that element of hybridity. This often arises in the use of English. For example, in one poem Burns uses the words "woman's chemise"—namely, a wanton witch. There are all these interpretations, difficulties and possible hybridity in the use of English. To say that ship repairing is not part of the shipbuilding package astounds me. To that degree, I hope that my right hon. Friend has some success.
    A constituent of mine is taking part in the Miss World contest. I hope that she wins.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is not necessary to hold any brief for the other place to agree with this hatch of amendments about ship repairing. It stands out a mile that if the other place had really wished to earn its money it would have tackled the legislative monstrosities of the previous Conservative Administration with the same exactitude that it has applied during the past few weeks. I have in mind the shambles of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Industrial Relations Act, two pieces of legislation that were inflicted upon a long-suffering country, uncorrected.
    To contest the claims of the other place, as I do, does not mean that one must deny everything that comes from it. Even the dimmest pupil in the class occasionally gets the sum right, but that is not a case for changing the principles of mathematics. When that happens the teacher graciously acknowledges that at last "Robert has a sum right". That is what has happened here. The other place has had one or two flashes of inspiration. They have come not entirely from the Tory peers.
    It is not for us to question how they have suddenly come upon this accession to wisdom. It is not simply a matter of their doggedly resisting everything labelled nationalisation. If that had been the case, the Liberal peers would not have supported the amendments. As I hope the House knows, Liberals are

    1619
    not dogmatic on these issues. The mischief is that in this case much new ground has been covered without any real mandate. Is it seriously maintained that the people of Chesterfield, Nuneaton, Keighley and those in part of Greater Manchester, for example, really believed, when they went to the polls on two occasions in 1974, that they were voting not only for the tremendously important principle of nationalisation in terms of ship repairing, but for the new principle of nationalising a service industry that is carried on in small units? If they had been enabled to realise that, they would have noticed that a serious precedent was being set which threatens every sort of service industry in the country.
    For the most part, the British people were not aware that such a course was to be taken. At this stage it seems completely irresponsible for the Government to contest the amendments and to move that we disagree with them. In so doing they are endangering the whole of the Bill.
    We did not have to be in the slightest sense parliamentary legal experts to know that the Bill was irresponsibly drafted and bristling with hybridity. All honour must go to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who, with his expert botanical knowledge, discovered the best hybrid of all blooming away in some remote Scottish area. But even those of us who do not have his expert knowledge were aware that when a Bill of this sort is drafted, when it is impudently supposed that the principle of nationalisation can be applied to manufacturing and servicing industries of great complexity in the same measure, we are bound to create not one instance of hybridity but dozens.
    It was common knowledge, even if the majority of Members do not have the same talent for spotting such strange things going on in other parts of the country as does the hon. Member for Tiverton, that various examples of hybridity could be produced. To send the amendments back to another place is to run the risk of provoking it into sending the Bill to the Examiner, in which case these failing industries—we have been told so often from the Treasury Bench how many thousands of redundancies the Government will have to declare as soon
    1620
    as they become responsible—may well face even worse trouble. Not only is it irresponsible to take that course; it is unrealistic.
    5.45 p.m.
    It seems that the Government do not realise that they are dealing with an industry that has become highly mobile between one country and another. Gone are the days—at any rate, they are going—when ship repairing had to be carried on in fixed abodes, in docks which, once established, are maintained until they wear out. We have seen in operation the large floating dry dock that can be moved from country to country. Indeed, one example is about to be moved from one continent to another. There will be nothing to prevent the floating dock that was proposed for Port Talbot in more rational times, which is expected to generate one thousand jobs, being floated across the Atlantic, to a French port, a Dutch port or, if necessary, to a German port.
    The Government do not seem to realise that they are dealing with an industry that is not entirely a captive. It is not an industry that has to submit to what is done in his House. Thank goodness, like so many of our citizens, part of it can sling its hook and vote with its feet, or propellor, when it decides that conditions have been made intolerable. To insist on this last scintilla of the Bill when the rest of the prize is at last within the Government's grasp, after all the mistakes that have been made in the past, is irresponsible and unwise.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I was appalled by the cynicism of the Secretary of State's remarks when he said that if he cannot have ship repairing the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry must wait, however long it is that they will be required to wait, and that whatever may happen to them in the meantime is no concern of his but is somehow the concern of another place. I find that amazing.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any of us that three industries have been incorporated within one Bill for the first time in the history of the House and that one day was given for Second Reading. By anyone's standards they are not industries that are compatible. They do not belong together in one Bill. The three industries were put

    1621
    together in the one measure to ease the passage of legislation, and that passage has not been eased by the incompetence of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman would have been far better advised to take each industry separately and examine it separately before deciding whether it belonged in the same Bill or whether, in reality, it would be better handled individually.
    If there is to be a catastrophe ahead for our airframe and shipbuilding industries because the other place is refusing to accept the nationalisation of shiprepairing, I say that the responsibility rests firmly and completely upon the head of this Government and the head of this Secretary of State.
    The employment of hundreds and thousands of persons depends upon what we decide and how much emphasis we place upon what the two Chambers say. The Government can have the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry in a Bill to nationalise them both, and they can have it before 24th November.
    We are told by the Secretary of State that he has a magical thing called a mandate from the nation which requires him to carry out, to the last jot and tittle, his duty to nationalise the aircraft, shipbuilding, and ship repairing industries. The right hon. Gentleman claims a mandate from the nation, but let us examine that mandate. It was a promise made to the nation in a Labour Party document on which the right hon. Gentleman supposed the electorate voted in October 1974. Is he unaware that in a Labour Party document not so long ago he was also to include Harland and Wolff within the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry? That never happened. Does he not have a mandate to incorporate that company within these other nationalised companies? Apparently he has no such mandate, because the mandate he has is that which he wishes to have rather than something that he has been given.
    If he were as sensitive to what people really want, he would not deny himself the reality of the two by-election results which clearly showed that the electors in two important Labour constituencies turned their backs on the mandate that he was supposed to have achieved in October 1974. But to recognise that fact flies in the face of what the Government
    1622
    intend to do. It is that intention, and not this supposed mandate, which governs the Government's actions tonight.
    I return to the question of Harland and Wolff—not because I wish to divert this debate in any way but simply to underline the nonsensical situation now created in the United Kingdom in which, if the Bill is enacted, we shall have two nationalised shipbuilding industries and two nationalised airframe industries. How can that situation be justified? If it cannot be justified, it is much more difficult to seek to justify the case that ship repairing—an international business—should be included in the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, when a Northern Irish shipbuilding company, which belongs 100 per cent. to the Government, is not to be included in British Shipbuilders.
    I suggest that the concept involving the national interest and a national mandate is not uppermost in the Government's mind. What is uppermost in their minds is their determination to succeed and a dogmatic intention to nationalise three industries, regardless of the consideration whether it is good for the workers of Britain and for British trade.
    I turn to a question which the Secretary of State must answer before lie asks anybody to reject these amendments from the other places; what sort of control is he looking for in regard to the shipbuilding yards? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that there are many of these ship repair yards. He will know that their business is international and that, because of that factor, they are in a different category from shipbuilding, which is essentially of a national character. The hon. Gentleman also will know that those who bring their ships to be repaired are concerned about time, price, delivery, and the geographical position of the yard to which they take their ships for repair. Is it being said that those yards will have the flexibility that they now possess?
    Will the Minister comment on what was said by Sir Anthony Griffin in The Times on 19th July this year:
    "It was not the intention that the industry"—
    he was referring to British Shipbuilders—
    "should be run by a 'faceless, far-off, monolithic corporation', but rather that the new body should create an environment under

    1623
    which the individual yards could utilise their resources to the full. The work being undertaken by the Organising Committee was based on international as well as national and industrial considerations. Policies derived from each of these would be combined into an updated national policy."
    Sir Anthony made that speech in a shipyard. Bearing his words in mind, may we be told how the Government envisage that ship repair is to be handled? Do the Government see the ship repairing yards having the kind of flexibility which they now possess? Does the Minister see them being able to meet the demands of owners in the short notice that may be required? Will they have the necessary flexibility in charging?
    If the Minister cannot satisfy us on those points, is he taking the attitude "I want all of my Bill—and the people in the yards can go hang"? Instead, will he not reconsider the matter? What is there to stop the Government including in the Queen's Speech on 24th November a new Bill just to nationalise ship repairing? That would get us all off the hook and would put an end to this futile tirade against the other place, which is only carrying out the job for which it was set up.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), although I appreciate that he has made a number of contributions on this subject both in the House and in Standing Committee. This is a brief debate as we all know, and I, too, shall be brief in my comments. This subject has been exhaustively discussed and is no longer in issue. What is in issue is the position of the House of Lords.
    The hon. Member for Newbury referred to a mandate—he might like to know that I represent a constituency containing a shipbuilding and ship repair industry. I assure him that this matter has been discussed in one way or another in my constituency in the long time during which I have been a Member of Parliament. Certainly the subject has been far more exhaustively discussed than has devolution. It has been discussed in my constituency because it is a fact of life—an issue that affects the lives of the people who live there.
    1624
    We are concerned about the question "For whom does the House of Lords speak?" Opposition Front Bench speakers say that it speaks for the overwhelming majority of the people. But does it? That statement has only to be expressed to be recognised as farcical. That surely is one claim that the House of Lords could never make. The only claim it can make is that it can exercise its power to seek to embarrass a Labour Government. That is the only occasion on which it seeks to exercise its power.
    We all remember that we had a host of amendments on the Race Relations Bill. In the previous Session their Lordships discussed the Sex Discrimination Bill. They moved no amendments to that legislation, but when the Race Relations Bill came along, containing almost identical provisions to those in the Sex Discriminuation Bill, their Lordships carried a series of amendments. In view of the political climate, they chose to be difficult. Of course, this is a political matter.
    I warn the Conservative Party over this matter, because Lord Carrington seems to be very active. I have already said that I have many shipbuilding workers in my constituency, but I should point out that the constituency also contains many miners who work in one of the biggest pits in the country. We remember that Lord Carrington had a major responsibility in what happened when the Tories upset everybody by their policy of confrontation. He will do the same again.
    Mr. Tom King: Should not Lord Shinwell also be warned? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) would not say that Lord Shinwell was unaware of this problem. Has he read the part of the noble Lord's speech which suggests that the ship repairing industry should not be included in the Bill?
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) who knows how objective I am.
    Last week I talked to a shipbuilder about the likely course of events. I was assured that the Conservative Party was anxious, because not only were there Conservative Peers in another place who

    1625
    were running wild and whom it was difficult to advise; Cross-Benchers and Liberals were also causing great difficulty. These people in the other place do not speak for the majority of our people.
    What I was about to say, which upset the hon. Member for Bridgwater—and he appreciates this as much as I do—was that it would be politically very dangerous if we had this confrontation. I am concerned with both management and men. Confrontation will be very harmful not only to the men in the industry, but to the companies.
    We know—it is no good hiding the fact—that one or two companies are on the brink of liquidation. It is doubtful whether they will be able to hang on. They are thinking of weeks and months. If they go into liquidation—I assure my right hon. Friend that he is taking the right course—they will not get the compensation provided by the Bill. They will be taken over on receiver terms.
    I argued the question of compensation in Committee. These companies are desperately anxious. It is all right for their Lordships, but these are people whose stake in the industry is threatened. The companies and the men are threatened. Therefore, Lord Carrington will have a confrontation not only with shipyard workers, but with the industry as a whole.
    I can speak forcibly because this matter does not affect me directly. Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd. was taken over because it begged to be taken over by Court Line. In the next few months, if the Lords upset the whole of the Bill, other companies will demand to be saved. However, the terms will be those of receivership.
    If there is a confrontation, the men will realise that the Conservative Party is trying to make political capital out of a national industry that is in desperate straits. We have only to read in today's Press about the difficulties with the Japanese. This is not the time to play politics. The problem in the industry is capital investment. The figure of £500 million has been mentioned. How will that be provided otherwise?
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: How will the Government provide it?
    Mr. Willey: We shall provide it when the Bill is implemented. This is the best formula to provide it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made an intervention from a sedentary position. Today Mr. Speaker referred to sedentary interventions. I hope that hon. Members will not give way at all and will completely ignore any sedentary interventions.
    Mr. Willey: I shall give way only to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was coming to a conclusion. It is no use saying that this will be a brief debate and then speaking at length.
    This is the old issue which has continually faced this House with the House of Lords. We have taken our decision. I know that it is a party decision taken on party lines. There was never better whipping than on this legislation. There was no better prolonged discussion than in Committee on this legislation. The decision has been taken It is for the House of Commons to speak up for itself. That is the issue.
    Mr. David Mudd: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for being both concise and consistent in his appraisal of the issue at stake in this debate.
    It seems that the yardstick that he seeks to apply is simply that the ship repairing industry should remain part of the Bill in the interests of good industrial relations, investment and jobs. If this is the yardstick which the Secretary of State seeks to apply, by his own definition Falmouth Docks should not have been included in the Bill in the first place.
    Falmouth Docks is an outstanding example of good industrial relations. There is a memorandum of agreement between the yard and management which is second to none in the ship repairing industry. There is no connection whatsoever between Falmouth Docks and the shipbuilding industry. The yard has neither received nor sought any grants whatsoever outside those which are available to industry within development areas.
    For many years the yard has put men on social employment at times when the work load has been a bit lean. I hope that dispenses with the Secretary of State's

    1627
    basic argument in relation to Falmouth Docks.
    I turn now to the right hon. Gentleman's final point—that in any case this commitment was in the manifesto. With respect, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody else on the Government side can pick selectively from the commitments in the Labour Party General Election manifesto.
    It will long be remembered in Cornwall that Labour's great manifesto commitment was to reduce unemployment, During the life of this Government—to a certain extent we must blame the Secretary of State in his time at the Department of Energy—we have seen the closure of the Hayle power station, and we now see the closure of the Ministry of Defence Research Establishment at Nancekuke and of the RAF Marine Unit at Falmouth. These closures lead to a direct loss of employment because of Government policy and are in total contradiction to the Labour Party's commitments. Time and again we have sought explanations for these matters. The Government have failed to give satisfactory answers. We have been fobbed off with excuses rather than explanations.
    The Government may claim tonight that they are seeking to fulfil a long-standing commitment. Perhaps the commitment that they are seeking to fulfil tonight is the commitment made by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir Harold Wilson) when he addressed the Labour Party Conference in Scarborough in 1965. The right hon. Gentleman referred glowingly to the many men and women in Britain who were looking forward to "undreamed of leisure". If this measure goes through, unemployment in this industry will give many people "undreamed of leisure" by bringing them into the ranks of the unemployed.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I was going to address some of my remarks to the Minister of State, but he is just leaving the Chamber. I shall try to save the remarks which refer to him until he returns—if he returns soon.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would prefer to resume his seat and allow me to call another Member?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should be obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not wish to make those comments in the Minister's absence.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, that raises the problem whether the hon. Gentleman has already contributed to the debate. I think that he had better continue.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the debate last Thursday night, on the very Lords amendments which we are again discussing, I made what I believed to be the important point that the total volume of employment in the ship repairing industry will depend more than anything upon the total volume of repair orders that come in from overseas. Those orders are not under the control of the British Government.
    Three times the same morning in Committee—I pointed this out in the debate last Thursday night—the question was put to the Minister of State whether after the industry was nationalised, if a customer wished to specify the yard in which his ship was to be repaired, he would be able to do so, or whether the Corporation would have the right to divert his order to another yard. If that happened I believe that a significant proportion of the orders would be lost to this country. Each time that vital question was put the Minister refused to answer it.
    When I put the question to the Minister last Thursday night he went off and consulted his advisers. I am prepared to believe that he had been taken for a ride by his advisers because, when he came back, the result was that he grossly misinformed the House on this crucial matter shortly before the House divided with a majority of only one for the Government. The Minister, referring to the specific point that I had made, said:
    "I wish to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton because I thought that he made some valid points. The hon. Gentleman said, as he has said on many occasions, that he will not accept a Minister's assurance on this, that and the other because he likes lo see words written into a Bill. I think he is right."
    The Minister added:
    "Therefore, I wish to draw his attention to Clause 5 of the Bill as it left this House in which we laid down the following …".
    The Minister then quoted from Clause 5(2) of the Bill. I shall read what he

    1629
    said, but I ask the House to note that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his quotation at the beginning of sub-paragraph (ii). He began it having left out a crucial sentence at the beginning of that sub-paragraph. I shall demonstrate. The Minister read out:
    "Therefore, I wish to draw his attention to Clauses of the Bill as it left this House in which we laid down the following:
    'decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, and in particular of Scotland and Wales and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations and responsibility for financial performance'."
    End of the Minister's quotation. He then added:
    "That is in the Bill and if it is carried it will, of course, be in the Act when it is passed. That is better than an assurance from me."—[Official Report, 11th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 751.]
    What the Minister omitted to read out to the House was the sentence at the beginning of sub-paragraph (ii) which states
    "(ii) without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above, of seeking the largest degree, consistent with the proper discharge of its functions …".
    The Minister then started his quotation, but sub-paragraph (i) said the opposite of what the Minister was quoting to the House. I shall read the whole of Clause 5(2) to demonstrate. I should like to believe that the Minister was misled by his own advisers and, in consequence, misled the House before there was a crucial vote that was carried by a majority of one.
    Clause 5(2) states:
    "British Shipbuilders shall, forthwith after the shipbuilding industry vesting date and subsequently from time to time when it considers it appropriate or the Secretary of State so requires—

    (a) undertake a review of the affairs of the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purposes—

    (i) of determining how the management of the activities of the Corporation and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries; and

    (ii) "—

    1630
    as I have already quoted—
    "without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above …".
    That brings it home that what the Bill says is the exact opposite of the gravamen of what the Minister said to the House. The point I made was that if the Shipbuilding Corporation wishes to divert work away from ship repair yards to shipbuilding yards in order to make those more viable—with the result that employment is lost in the ship repair yards or, indeed, they are closed—it is totally within its power to do so. That is why the Minister refused on three occasions to answer the question: "Can a customer specify a given yard?"
    6.15 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Without in any way accepting the charge that the lion. Gentleman makes—I shall endeavour to deal with it when I reply later—I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, because he is now telling us what all the Opposition have denied completely, namely, that it is perfectly possible and satisfactory to do ship repair in a shipbuilding dock just as it is possible to do shipbuilding in a ship repair dock. That is what I myself saw being done in Korea, and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made fun of me for that claim. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is now saying not only that it is possible but that we intend to control it.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. I have not said that ship repair work can be carried out in every shipbuilding yard. What I have said is that the Government may intend to divert work from ship repair yards to shipbuilding yards. It is not in dispute that there are some shipbuilding yards which do undertake ship repair work.
    The true state, as the House now knows it, is not as the Minister said,
    "decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres".
    The Government have laid down no such thing in the Bill. The whole of that is
    "without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above,".
    That sub-paragraph says that they can determine

    1631
    "how the management of the activities of the Corporation"—
    not of the ship repairing industry but of the whole Corporation—
    "and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised,".
    Therefore, what the Minister of State claims, doubtless misled by his advisers—[Interruption.] Either the Minister of State accepts responsibility for misleading the House himself or he was misled by his advisers. There is no third possible alternative.
    Mr. Kaufman: First, there is never a third possible alternative. "Alternative" means one of two. It is derived from the Latin "alter": one of two—Leeds Grammar School 1943. The hon. Gentleman has shown himself misinformed on that matter. I do not accept that I misled the House. I certainly do not accept that anything I said was the result of my being misled by my advisers. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) knows, possibly better than any other hon. Member in this House, the sub-paragraph to which the hon. Member for Tiverton has referred was drafted at my initiative and request and in the terms that I requested following discussions with certain hon. Members of the House earlier in the proceedings. Therefore, I do not accept that I misled the House. I also think it is unfair of hon. Gentleman to lay the responsibility on my advisers for what is my own responsibility.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am glad to [earn that it was the Minister who misled the House because there is no third alternative. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. One can have exclusive alternatives or one can have 100 or even 1,000 alternatives. "Alternatives" are not confined to two, even in the English language.
    I want to lay on the record that we now know that the Minister has written into the Bill not what he claimed by omitting the first sentence—
    "without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above".
    What the hon. Gentleman has written into the Bill is a specific authorisation to the Corporation to divert work away from where the customer wants to put it. Ministers, and hon. Members on this side of the House, have concentrated on the
    1632
    employment implications of these amendments. It is common ground between the two sides of the House that the volume of employment there will be in the ship repair industry depends more on overseas orders than on any other single factor. The reason for the high rate of unemployment in ship construction and ship repair at the moment is more than anything else the decrease in total world demand. There is a smaller cake to be divided up.
    We must be in no doubt that if we disagree with the Lords amendments to take ship repairing out of the Bill there will be a lower total volume of employment in the ship repairing industry. By their amendments the Lords have sought to sustain employment. The Minister, by his disagreement with the Lords amendments in this respect, is promoting avoidable unemployment. He is also discouraging the earning of foreign currency, because repair work undertaken on vessels owned or chartered by firms abroad brings in foreign currency. So on both those counts it cannot be disputed logically that their Lordships are sustaining employment and the necessary efforts to bring foreign currency into an industry which is important for many reasons.
    The ship repairing industry is important as a source of employment. It is also important because the employment which it generates tends to be in areas of high unemployment, whether Falmouth, Cardiff, Swansea, Wallsend or anywhere else. As I have said, it is a significant earner of foreign exchange, and that makes it doubly important.
    Both sides of the House are agreed that this is not a captive market. There are many ship repair yards abroad to which ship owners can and will send their vessels for repair. During the debate last Thursday a specific instance was given:
    "On 28th July I quoted the letter from Holter-Sorenson and Company, which reads: 'with our experience with nationalised companies, we must regret to announce that, in the event of nationalisation of your firm, we shall no longer be interested in making use of your docking and repair facilities'."—[Official Report, 11th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 747.
    What is the collision, if such there be, between the two Houses? It is that the Labour Government, purely for doctrinal

    1633
    reasons and for no other, are endeavouring to insist that the exclusion of the ship repair industry be removed. If they really want to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, why do they not agree to their Lordships' amendments and then introduce a new Bill in the next Session to nationalise ship repairing? The reason is that they want this Bill to be delayed. They know that the nationalised aircraft and shipbuilding industries intend to terminate the employment of thousands of British workmen. They know that those industries intend to cause widespread unemployment—what they would call rationalisation. Therefore, they reason, why not so conduct Government policy that the Bill they pretend to want is delayed? Then more men will lose their jobs before nationalisation and they can claim that it is due to the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, the Welsh nationalists, the Scottish nationalists and the United Ulster Unionists. The Government can blame them for the shortage of world demand.
    That is the Government's reason—the reason why they did nothing for six weeks during the second half of June and most of July. They did not try to make progress on the Floor of the House because they wanted the Bill delayed. They could either have let the Bill go to a Select Committee—it would have come out by about 7th July—or they could have commenced the Report stage in the second week of June. Instead they left it until the back end of July. So the delay in the Bill—a healthy delay, yes—is of their making and their intention. Any consequences that follow lie at the door of the Ministers in charge of the Bill and the Cabinet as a whole, who deliberately did not bring it on to the Floor of the House for nearly six weeks—
    Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend omits to take into account the delay of six months or so before the Government brought forward the Bill for processing in the House, having laid it on the Table for its First Reading.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That may be for the reason let out of the bag by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who suggested to the House that the more firms that can be induced to go bust, having been rendered totally un-
    1634
    creditworthy by the Bill among other things, the more will the Government be able to do the shareholders out of their proper compensation.
    The duty of the House is, fortunately, coincident with the duty which the House of Lords is doing. There is no collision of duties. There is only a collision between the party political obstinacy of the Labour Party, in which the elector ate has shown a devastating lack of trust in areas traditionally loyal to the Labour Party—
    Mr. Kaufman: Newcastle upon Tyne, Central?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman think that an election result in which a Member of Parliament is elected with under 5,000 votes is meaningful in any terms? That is the sort of mandate that the Chinese Government used to have—a heavenly mandate. The existence of the heavenly mandate was known only by the continued existence of the Government. When that Government were unseated by another the inference was that the heavenly mandate had been transferred. The heavenly mandate underwent a certain amount of erosion in Workington and Walsall, North, where electorates of the size that the Boundary Commission is supposed to ensure gave a definite opinion.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that when the Conservatives lost Bromsgrove, Sutton and Cheam, Isle of Ely and Ripon the House of Lords would have obstructed their legislation?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, because the party concerned did not as a result of that have to rely on the casting vote of the Chair to carry its legislation. That is a distinction which is a difference. It was able to carry its policies into legislative effect with its members on the Floor of the House.
    The House of Lords has done conscientiously the job that the House of Commons should have done. The House of Commons was prevented by the guillotine from giving consideration to the Bill on the Floor of the House. The Government introduced the guillotine not because they were short of time—they had six weeks after 7th June when they did nothing—but purely to stifle discussion and argument.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Rubbish.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why else did they do it? Will the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who was on the Committee, say why he said "Rubbish"? Or does he not have the courage of his convictions?
    Mr. Ron Thomas: I thank the hon. Member for inviting me to interrupt him. Will he give one example of any other Bill upon which the House has spent so much time?
    6.30 pm.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The House has spent very little time on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep in the Standing Committee and dreamt that he was on the Floor of the House. That explanation might account for the paucity of his contributions to the Committee.
    Today the House of Commons has once more the chance of debating the necessity or otherwise of nationalising the ship repair industry. The Minister's arguments are threadbare of anything except political malice towards the ship repairing industry. An attempt to argue it away by quoting a part of the Bill without giving the whole quotation is now exploded. We know that still further unemployment will be engineered by the Government if they insist on their rejection of the Lords' amendments.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I intend to make a short speech and I declare my interest in that I worked in the Clyde shipyards for five years before coming to this House, that I represent a shipbuilding area and that I am an adviser to the Ship Repairers National Association.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that there is an analogy to be drawn between devolution and ship repairing nationalisation. Both are expensive, silly, damaging and bureaucratic. I hope that we shall reject them both.
    The Minister must answer specific questions. Once again it has been alleged today that shipbuilding and ship repairing are closely integrated. The Secretary of State said today that there was considerable labour interchange. On
    1636
    Second Reading, on 2nd December 1975, the right hon. Gentleman said that six of the 12 companies had an interchange of labour. Through the long Committee stage we went over this point many times trying to find a firm, apart from Scott Lithgow, which is a special case, where there was an interchange. The nearest we came to it was some inconclusive talk about one or two people in Wallsend. Does the Secretary of State still think that the industries are closely integrated?
    Has the organising committee expressed any view to him about whether it would be difficult or impossible to go ahead with the Bill without ship repairing? Those involved in the shipyards believe that it is perfectly possible, and perhaps preferable, to separate shipbuilding from ship repairing.
    The Secretary of State said that if we agree with the Lords we shall endanger the Bill. My party has consistently opposed the Bill. The one thing which stands out is that if the Government wanted to go ahead with shipbuilding and aircraft nationalisation they could do so and have it completed within a couple of days. However, they choose to say that because ship repairing is not included they will not do so and that instead there will be a long delay. Why have the Government taken that view? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave an explanation. We know that a lot of redundancies will occur shortly after nationalisation. The Government's view might be that this should occur before nationalisation.
    There may be a second explanation. The IMF discussions are now in progress and we know that time is short for the Government. The money borrowed on the standby credit must be repaid on 9th December, and the Government must therefore get a large loan very quickly. Have the IMF officials told the Government that there must be no nationalisation and no increase in the public sector borrowing requirement until the deal has been struck? It is clear that the Government are choosing to put off the Bill on the basis of a bogus argument about ship repairing.
    All of my hon. Friends and I wish that politics had never been brought into this matter. A great deal of damage has been done to shipbuilding, aircraft

    1637
    and ship repairing by two years of uncertainty and delay. But we are entitled to hear from the Government reassuring and confident reasons why shipbuilding and ship repairing cannot be separated when all those in the industry believe that they can be separated, and when all the arguments about interchangability were exploded in Committee. The Government should tell us the real reason for their attitude, but I doubt whether we shall get it today.
    Sir Raymond Gower: I was disappointed at the Minister's attitude to the amendments. We have come a long way since the occasion, not so many years ago, when the late Herbert Morrison said that in proceeding towards nationalising industries any Government should proceed with caution and should never nationalise an additional industry without unanswerable reasons for doing so. We now see a very different picture. Modern nationalisers have an insatiable appetite. That is why they cannot conceive of an industry being left out of a sector that is to be taken over.
    Would it not be adequate to take over the two enormous industries of shipbuilding and aircraft? Cannot the Government be content with that? No, they must grab the lot. It is as though they could not endure the possibility of some small successful competitor to the State sector. Among those smaller ship repairing firms there might be some very successful competitors who would show up the deficiencies of the State organisation.
    That is in the very nature of the monster that some nationalised industries have now become, that they must be in a monopoly position. They cannot endure something that is beyond their control and that might highlight their inadequacies. That is why I am disappointed that the Government are not content to concentrate on the enormous task of making a success of shipbuilding and aerospace. It is not as though the nationalisation doctrine has been a conspicuous success throughout our economy. I cannot understand why Labour Members constantly decry the failure of private industry in Britain and say that it is surpassed by the industrial performance of other countries. Nearly all the countries that they quote are those which practise private industry. Those coun-
    1638
    tries are among our most successful competitors.
    We have contributed to our industrial decline in recent years by adopting this expedient of bringing industries into State ownership. The countries that have done well are those which, on the whole, have not taken that course. Yet Labour Members are prepared to disregard that lesson.
    The Secretary of State referred to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. It is a successful company. The Secretary of State implied that there was great resistance among employees there against remaining outside the Bill. However, I can assure him that there is a lot of evidence put before Conservatives, Welsh nationalists and Liberals about the high regard for this company of those who work in it. I have met numerous individuals at all levels, from the bottom right up to board level.
    This is the best example I have seen for some time of a company that commands a high degree of admiration and allegiance from those employed by it. This is a company that is practising those ideals of industrial democracy which have considerable support, at least in theory, on the Government Benches. It has put this into practice without legislative compulsion and is practising those ideals of profit-sharing and common ownership which I consider to be of considerable value if introduced voluntarily within the context of a particular industry. That is why this company commands so much support from its workers.
    The company has shown great initiative in seeking orders and has gone overseas to seek and obtain them. Many of the people employed by the company are apprehensive that in future it will not be allowed to go out to seek orders because those orders will be directed to another part of the country. It will not be the initiative of this company or the lack of initiative that will determine its future; it will be some diktat from above. That is the weakness of a massive, centralised State organisation. It does not allow success to be achieved by localised initiative. By its very nature, decisions must be made from the centre. I fear that those who are pressing nationalisation on the country, for good or ill—I hope for good, but the lessons of the last

    1639
    two decades make us doubtful about that—sustained as they are by a magnificent vote in the last General Election from 33 per cent. of our nation, will regret it, as will the country. The real trouble is that they will misguidedly bring to an end the identity of separate, successful and prosperous companies.
    I am sorry that the Government are taking over these two great industries, but, by golly, those are two formidable tasks. Why can they not be content with and concentrate upon those? Why must they grab the lot? There is far too much smash and grab in the policies of this Government and I hope that they will not have the power to carry them out much longer.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: I apologise for having had to leave the debate for a short while. We are going over ground that we have already gone over again and again. One hon. Member on the Opposition Benches suggested that we had not really looked at public ownership of ship repairing. He was reminded by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) of the time spent on this subject, at least in Committee, and of the many questions asked about it. Whether the hon. Member for Cathcart was satisfied with the answers is another matter, but we spent a great deal of time in Committee considering the public ownership of the ship repairing industry.
    Other hon. Members said that the House of Lords had done its job, but let us just look at the amendments put down there. The Lords debated amendments to delete the aircraft industry, Scottish aviation, ship repairing, and warship building, and another to prevent the Bill becoming an Act before the next General Election. If those were not pure wrecking and mutilating amendments, I do not know what they were. What would have been left of this legislation if this elected Chamber had accepted those amendments? Nothing at all. Even to begin to suggest that the other Chamber has acted as a revising Chamber to tidy up its legislation is nonsense. The Lords have attempted to multilate this Bill, the Education Bill, the Dockwork Regulation Bill, the health services Bill and the agricultural Bill. This was not by revision or tidying up in a legislative fashion but
    1640
    by carrying a whole series of amendments to completely wreck these Bills.
    6.45 p.m.
    The House of Lords is not a revisionary Chamber and I am very disappointed with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), because some of the things he said would make my friend, Lloyd George, turn in his grave. It seems the Liberals have come a long way since the days of Lloyd George. We know that the Tory-dominated House of Lords has tried to wreck both Liberal and Labour legislation, but that when there is a Tory majority in this House it has been silent.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: I do not blame the hon. Member for a moment for not listening to my speech, but if he had, he would have heard me say that I held no brief for the Lords as an institution and that it had failed dismally to correct the appalling legislation of the Heath Administration.
    Mr. Thomas: I accept that point. I remember the hon. Member saying it but what the hon. Member wants to do is pick and choose, saying, on the one hand, that he held no brief for the House of Lords but, on the other, that because it had done something with which he agreed it was a good institution. I would have thought that as a Liberal, believing in democratic institutions, the hon. Gentleman would have had no truck with that unelected Chamber. The Lords has this image of being a watchdog of the Constitution, but it is really a poodle of the Tory Party. I should have thought that Liberals who looked back to the days of Lloyd George would have joined with those on the Government Benches in getting rid of that unelected body as soon as possible. If we could get a brief Bill in this evening I would be very pleased.
    We have heard a great deal about the wonderful firm of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. I am astonished at the reactions of so many hon. Members to a company such as this, which has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to bribe hon. Members to behave in a certain way. There is no question about it. I am not saying that the company has succeeded in bribing hon. Members, but they have spent tens of thousands of

    1641
    pounds in wining and dining hon. Members in order to try to persuade them to their point of view.
    When we last debated this matter and discussed the relationship between Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and their employees, we got from the Minister a totally different picture of the real situation. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some more information about the unfair dismissals from that firm. This Company has attempted to sustain a myth, and I am surprised that hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley, have been taken in. The company claims to be spearheading industrial democracy, but the truth is far from that.
    The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) claimed that countries which had not gone in for public ownership had surged ahead, but many European countries have extended public ownership more than Britain. We are way behind, in, for example, banking and finance. To hon. Members opposite, the suggestion of control over banking and finance is a Maoist or Trotskyite revolutionary policy. But there are many so-called capitalist nations in Europe which have extended public ownership into banking, finance and aerospace. We are way behind in that regard.
    More particularly, it seems to me that the Tories and their friends have always supported taking into public ownership two types of industry. The first is industry that is absolutely bankrupt. On that basis it is all right to take into public ownership Rolls-Royce and to do everything possible to justify it.
    The second is the type of industry that is essential for the success of the rest of the private sector. It is all right to take into public ownership firms of that type. The private sector in Britain would have collapsed long ago had we not nationalised coal, electricity, railways and certain other areas of the economy. It would have collapsed immediately after the last war.
    The Tories go along with public ownership to that extent, so that the industries thus nationalised may ensure the profitability of private industry. When any industry looks like going bankrupt, the Tories are in favour of taking it into public ownership, but if an indus-
    1642
    try is profitable that is a different matter altogether.
    The other Chamber had the cheek to say that warship building could not be taken into public ownership because it is profitable. It is profitable because of the use of taxpayers' money.
    I have hardly heard a word said about shipbuilding in these debates. Why have there been no tears flowing down the aisles in regard to shipbuilding? The reason is that it is practically collapsing. The companies, the previous owners, have taken every ounce of profit out of shipbuilding and put nothing back. The industry is on the brink of collapse; therefore we have the same old Tory cry about taking it into public ownership. But if there were any chance of shipbuilding showing a profit, there would be all hell let loose in order to prevent it from being taken into public ownership.
    In our election manifesto we said that we would take into public ownership shipbuilding and ship repairing. I am very pleased indeed that the Government are standing firm and telling the House of Lords "We shall carry out that manifesto pledge." If it becomes a question of the peers against the people, the hon. Member for Colne Valley ought to know which side he should be on.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise for missing the opening remarks of the Secretary of State and an opportunity to intervene in relation to the comments made thereafter.
    I am surprised in many ways that I find myself in total agreement with the almost incredible postulation advanced by the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), that by this stage the Government do not want the Bill. They do not want ship repairing, shipbuilding or the aircraft industry nationalised, and are playing for time in order to lose the Bill. They are doing it deliberately for motives best known to themselves.
    If the Government wanted to get the Bill through they could have done so last week. They had a perfectly good opportunity to do so then, without jeopardising anything to do with shipbuilding or aircraft. They needed only to accede to the point—made by many hon. Members

    1643
    in all parties, including the Labour Party, at earlier stages of the Bill—that ship repairing should be excluded from the Bill. The Government chose not to do this, and in that way they are jeopardising, according to their own line, the likelihood of continued employment in the aircraft industry in places such as Broughton. The same can be said in regard to shipbuilding.
    The Government are now willing to throw it all away because, presumably, on the one hand they have the International Monetary Fund breathing down their neck and telling them what policies they may or may not follow and, on the other, it would seem that they want to be able to go into the next election with a manifesto for the reform of the House of Lords, with an instance that they can readily call to mind of a major Bill being lost as a result of the intervention of the House of Lords. Only in that way can they rally their troops around their tattered flag.
    I believe that this is the reality of the present situation. If between now and next Tuesday there is not some compromise on the issue of ship repairing, I am certain that my belief will be confirmed.
    Throughout the debate Labour Ministers and Labour Members have spoken of the common ground between shipbuilding and ship repairing. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Cathcart referred to the fact that six companies may have had an involvement in shipbuilding and ship repairing, and that six did not. Of the 12 that we are discussing in the amendment, which has to do with ship repairing only, at least four have no interface whatsoever with shipbuilding. It is possible that some compromise could be reached over these four companies, but the Government are not willing to discuss compromise. It is all or nothing for them, perhaps in the certainty that they will get nothing and will then be able to blame others for what has happened.
    The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has referred to the possible creation of 1,000 jobs in Port Talbot which required £100 million investment. The Government were not willing to find it. They said that they did not have the money. Yet they are willing to put
    1644
    up £150 million for the Bill. They could get their way at two-thirds of that cost, and provide 1,000 extra jobs if they were less pig-headed about the amendment and would reach a sensible compromise. The people of Port Talbot will lose 1,000 jobs because of the stubbornness of the Government in this matter.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton referred to a letter of March of this year that I quoted. I now have one dated 19th October, from Mr. George Walls, general manager of Empresa Hondureña de Vapores, S.A., of New York, in which it says—
    "Should this tragic step materialise, we feel that we would have to take a hard look at our practice of repairing our vessels al Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. yards, or any British yard".
    I see that the Minister of State is showing his usual Pavlovian reaction to the mention of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
    Recalling the words of the Secretary of State in opening the debate, if he was so happy that the employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited were so much in favour of nationalisation, why did the Government turn down our amendment asking for a ballot to be taken among the employees? The fact is that the Government know that they would lose such a ballot devastatingly. There has, in fact, been a proposal signed by some 300 employees of that company supporting the removal of the company from the Bill.
    If the Bill goes forward, we shall see a sector of industry run down in a devastating way, and probably killed off. If that happens, there will be jobs lost in Wales and elsewhere.
    Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
    Mr. Wigley: No, I shall not give way. I put it that we have—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We can have only one hon. Gentleman occupying the Floor at the same time.
    Mr. Wigley: I shall not give way. I am trying to be brief. Last week the Minister said that the implications of carrying the amendment were not as serious as they were in regard to other amendments. The Government now have

    1645
    a practical opportunity for a meeting of minds. They can get through those parts of the Bill that they regard as most essential. If the Bill is thrown out, it will show the Government's total hypocrisy and cynicism towards the whole Bill. The fact that they are climbing down on the whole Bill, and do not have the guts to say it publicly, is a reflection of their policy.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: I am sorry that the lion. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has left the Chamber, because he used a very interesting argument. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman has now returned, because I am sure that he would like to hear part of my remarks, at any rate.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of a percentage vote, and claimed that the 33 per cent. vote, or whatever it was, that the Labour Party received at the last General Election was not a justification for pursuing certain policies, particularly the one that we are debating today.
    I recall that since 1945 no Government have been elected with an overall majority in this Chamber. It may also be mentioned that 56 per cent. of the Members of this House were not elected by a majority of votes. The Conservative Government—of which I am sure the hon. Member for Barry was a strong supporter—introduced measures such as the Industrial Relations Act and claimed, when so doing that, that they had a mandate from the electorate to pursue their policy. It seems a little hypocritical for them now to condemn this Government for pursuing a similar tactic. We all have to recognise that this has been done by Governments of both parties over the past 25 years. Therefore, there can be no claim that my right hon. and hon. Friends are acting in any way against what has become custom and practice.
    7.0 p.m.
    In terms of the argument about public ownership, which was again pursued by the hon. Member for Barry, it seems to me that from the moment that this Bill was first discussed in this House we have been involved in a debate about public ownership. The last-ditch stand by the Opposition and their allies in the House of Lords is intended to prevent ship repairing being taken into public owner-
    1646
    ship. One wonders why they are not taking the same stand about shipbuilding. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made some valuable remarks in this regard, and I think that he was right when he pointed out that at the moment one is relatively profitable and the other is in the doldrums.
    I think that we have to look at the basis of the Government's approach to public ownership. The hon. Member for Barry argues that the Government are concerned about monopolies that are outside our control but that we want to establish a monopoly of our own. The reason why we are concerned with monopolies in Britain which are outside our control—though in fact in the main they are oligopolies—is precisely that we wish to do a planning exercise in regard to our economy and that we recognise that if we leave economic forces to the play of the market we shall be prevented from so doing.
    Without the exercise of Government control, the monopolies will take decisions on the basis of not what is in the best interests of the people and the needs of the country, which we would seek to do under planning, but what is likely to maximise their profits, be they at home or abroad. It is against that background that we reaffirm our belief that only through public ownership can we get real planning and make the sort of advances in economic terms that we need.
    Sir Raymond Gower: In that case, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the most successful companies in the world today are achieving these results without the State monopoly of which he is so fond?
    Mr. Thorne: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not named his most successful countries. Nor does he indicate their basis of success. He may well say, for example, that the United States of America is an extremely powerful and successful country. But I suggest that there is nothing powerful and successful about a country which registers between 7 million and 8 million unemployed. When making statements of that kind, we have to decide the criteria by which we define "successful" economies.
    In my view, we shall get a successful economy operating in Britain only when

    1647
    we have large-scale planning at the centre. I look forward to a new form of nationalisation. In Committee, many of us reiterated that we did not want to see a nationalised industry under the control of a centralised bureaucracy with the workers who are responsible for creating the product and the profits being divorced from decision making.
    Happily, in this Bill we have certain assurances—some of us believe that they are rather limited—to suggest that, following the launching of the two corporations, we can begin the process of creating a situation in which both blue-collar and white-collar workers will participate in decisions about the future of their industries and, therefore, that we shall eradicate some of the ills existing at present in our nationalised industries, which I recognise and accept. Obviously, mistakes were made when the National Coal Board and other organisations were set up. There were mistakes in the recruitment to the respective boards. The qualifications of some generals and air vice-marshals were not in keeping with the needs of those industries. But the recruits to the two new boards so far appear to have an understanding of the industries in which they are involved, and I think that they can learn from the rank and file in those industries how best to create the sort of industrial democracy which I referred to earlier.
    As for Bristol Ship Repairers and the others in the section which the House of Lords wishes to delete from the Bill, I confirm the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. During the Committee stage, I received a nice little envelope, appropriately addressed, containing an invitation card which suggested that there might be something worth discussing if I went to a certain luncheon room, had a few drinks, a lunch and a chat, and that in an atmosphere of conviviality we could probably reach some understanding of what was involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West referred to that as an implied bribe. In my view, when we talk about inviting councillors in local authorities to meet representatives of the building industry to discuss contracts over drinks and lunches, we are entitled to be a little suspicious. If that is the case at
    1648
    local level, is it not just as true at national level, when representatives of industries come here, using consultants and lobbyists who are professionals—a growing practice in British politics—to cause Members of Parliament to act in such a way that it protects their economic interests. I submit that, as far as we are able in accordance with our lights, our responsibility is to contribute to the making of decisions which meet the needs of the British people.
    It is against that background that Government supporters applaud the decision of my right hon. and hon. Friends to go ahead with this Bill as it stands, with no compromises to the other unelected Assembly down the corridor.
    Mr. Norman Tebbit: There are one or two respects in which I greatly envy the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). The first is his lofty contempt for his creditors. I wish that I had the sauce to go to my bank, tell the manager that he did not know how to run his business and that the place was a shambles, and generally express the contempt that the hon. Gentleman expressed for the United States, and then hold out my hand for the sort of money for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been to the United States recently again to grovel in order to keep this country on its course of spending disaster.
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not go cap in hand to the IMF with my blessing?
    Mr. Tebbit: I should very much like to see the sort of blessing that the right hon. Gentleman would get from the hon. Member for Preston, South if he could not raise another massive loan to keep this country staggering on deeper and deeper in debt.
    There is another feature of the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, South which I find remarkable—his threshold of corruptibility. If he is afraid that his Socialist views will be corrupted by a gin and tonic before lunch, he is a pretty weak-minded fellow. I must confess that I have occasionally accepted a drink from Socialist friends, but that has not changed my opinions in any way. I do not believe that the hon. Member is so easily

    1649
    corrupted by a drink or a meal. What he is really afraid of is that he might get a touch of common sense rammed into his blinkered mind by people who know about the real world. He has successfully kept himself out of this real world by sitting among his friends below the Gangway.
    I have a short word to say to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I think that he was wrong in one major respect. He referred to the Dock Work Regulation Bill being destroyed by the House of Lords. He is wrong. The other place gives this House a chance for second thoughts; this House took the opportunity, and destroyed the rotten Bill. It was this House which killed the Bill, or disembowelled it, or whatever the current trendy word is.
    Mr. Ron Thomas rose—
    Mr. Tebbit: No, I shall not give way. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can possibly differ from me on that point.
    At each stage of this Bill the Government have had narrow majorities, which have tended to get narrower all the time. Then, of course, there was the business of the disputed vote—something in which Labour Members can take no pride. There are two by-elections pending in Government-held seats, both of which would be lost on current form. The Under-Secretary may smirk, but obviously his arithmetic is not too bright. What-ever mandate the Government had when they first introduced this Bill, they are losing it fast, by-election by by-election. This is a lame-duck Government, with lame-duck Ministers in a lame-duck business. They will suffer the fate of all lame ducks—they will get subsidies for a while, if they can find someone to bail them out, but sooner or later they will come to the end of their career and be finished.
    If the Government insist on confrontation with the other place—and the other place has rightful powers—and insist on repudiating the will of the people, they must take the consequences. If the Government chose to take the Bill without the provision to nationalise ship repairing they could bring in a short Bill next Session to nationalise the ship repairing industry, if they still had a majority. If they choose to throw this Bill away, they
    1650
    can invoke the Parliament Act and bring back the Bill in December. But I warn them that it would take longer to get that long Bill through than a short one, on the assumption that they have a majority for either. Both the House and the country must come to the same conclusion as the spokesmen for both the Welsh National and Liberal Parties, that if the Government turn down the Lords compromise it will be because they do not want the Bill at all. It will seem that they want to delay the nationalisation process, if not drop it altogether.
    In the meantime the Government are using the spiteful policy enunciated by the Minister of State, which will cause massive redundancies in these two industries. There will be no new private investment in the industries while they are under the shadow of nationalisation. At the same time the Government have said that there will be no launching aid for the civil aviation industry until it is nationalised. Thus, the Minister of State has effectively told the world that if the industry is not nationalised it will be wrecked. That is no basis on which any industry, in private or public ownership, can make contracts with the world abroad. The Minister of State wants to close factories and shipyards and put men on the dole by proxy because he lacks the guts to do it himself. But he knows that his policies will lead to these results, inevitably.
    7.15 p.m.
    I turn briefly to the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers affair. That company has been spoken of at length, and I regret that we must discuss it again tonight, particularly as this suggests that other companies are not so worthy of saving from nationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and the Secretary of State both mentioned the company, and said that shop stewards claimed that 75 per cent. of the Swansea work force wanted the company to be nationalised. If that is so there has been a sudden change of mind, and I wonder why.
    I understand that 10 weeks ago workers in that yard tumbled to the fact that in the public sector businesses were run differently from those in the private sector. They realised that once they were in the public sector it did not matter whether they made money or even

    1651
    worked, they would be bailed out. It was discovered that a number of overtime workers had adopted the practice of leaving the yard at 5.30 pm while a few of their mates remained to clock off at 7.30 pm. That is the British Leyland style of overtime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
    About 100 men were caught at this trick, and they got written warning that they would be sacked if it continued. Their attitude was that it did not matter, because all the workers in the yard would soon be on the Government payroll. An overtime ban was imposed, and as a result an order by Texaco for repairing one of its ships was three weeks late in completion. This order was worth £500,000 and because of the delay Bristol Channel Ship Repairers lost orders for repairing two more Texaco ships, which went to Greece instead. So far, that little exercise has lost us £1 million in overseas earnings, and 70 man-years of work. This is all directly attributable to what is known abroad as "the English disease", but what might more appropriately be called "Kaufman's disease".
    Mr. Kaufman: I thought that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) wanted to speak. I awaited his intervention because it would have had a cleansing effect after that last speech.
    I am astonished that after all this time any hon. Gentleman should believe a single word which emanates from Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, and read to the House the phoney allegations that that company has produced. The one fact that has been established without any argument at all is that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers sacked workers who supported nationalisation. When the Bill came before the House in July I informed the House of that unfair dismissal procedure. This very week—I realise that I may be accused of rigging the timing to suit the debate—the appeals by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers against the findings of unfair dismissal of four of its employees were dismissed by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the company was refused leave to appeal again. That is the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers.
    1652
    As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is about to intervene I should say to him that I think it is very sad that he has been misled into getting on to the hook of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. A few men who have totally misrepresented to him the situation in those yards have alienated him from the true feelings of the Welsh workers who work in them.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has read out the letter that he received from 76 per cent. of the workers in the Swansea yard who have now been vilified by the company because they have had the daring to write to a Minister saying that they support the Government. In exactly the same way I have received telegrams supporting the Government—I received one only last week—from the Transport and Genera] Workers' Union at Bristol Channel Ship Repairers in Cardiff. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has just received a letter, which he has handed to me, from an address in Cardiff. I shall not name the writer because he would undoubtedly be victimised by these people if I did. The letter says:
    "I would like to thank you on behalf of my colleagues in the TGWU in Cardiff dry docks for your continued efforts to get the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill on the statute book."
    It goes on to say:
    "We are optimistic that the Government will be successful within the next two weeks and that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers will be a part of British Shipbuilders."
    If hon. Members are talking about the bona fides of letters that either emanate from or are addressed to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, I would tell them that this worker at Bristol Channel Ship Repairers who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Lord President, said:
    "Today or yesterday a director asked the worker directors and shop stewards to sign a letter of thanks which was to be sent to the House of Lords. I believe the TGWU shop steward refused to sign it. Our concern is that this letter will appear to represent everybody in the dry docks."
    He goes on to say:
    "A number of us were hoping that our union officers would have organised a party to the House of Commons to support the Government the next time Mr. Bailey is there with his tame poodles."

    1653
    The hon. Member for Caernarvon has been sadly misled. Whenever the workers in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers have dared to resent the victimisation from which they suffer from Mr. Bailey and his colleagues, and the kind of filthy vilification to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) so aptly lent himself—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caernarvon represents a great constituency, and a Member who stood up against the House of Lords, and he has mixed himself up in matters which are unsavoury and in which he ought not to involve himself.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister answer three points? First, of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers employees, 280 out of 300-odd are still opposed to the Government. Will he also comment on why the Government refused a referendum among the employees, if the Government are so convinced of the Tightness of their case? Second, before coming to the House I lived in the Glamorgan area and I knew many employees on the shop floor of the company—before I knew anyone in the management—and I know and respect their judgment. Third—a point on which I wanted to intervene earlier—in relation to the case reported in the Press this week I must tell the Minister that the case was lost because the presentation made to the judge was on points of facts, and he would accept only points of law.
    Mr. Kaufman: I shall never challenge the hon. Gentleman's own experience. I will challenge any fact that he quotes if he says that it has been supplied to him by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, because the company's word cannot be believed on this matter.
    The hon. Gentleman says that over 200 workers have signed a letter. I am sure that they have—because they are made to sign these letters. We have information as to how it is done, how workers in those yards are asked to sign letters and the letters must be taken to the management for the management to post, so that it is certain that they are posted. We have a great deal of information about what takes place there.
    The hon. Gentleman has mixed himself up in something unworthy of him. I say "unworthy" because I have respect for
    1654
    him. Even when I have never been able to persuade him to agree with me I have had respect for him. He can get mixed up in cleaner things than that.
    Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Minister explain why on 10th April 1975 he voted on Second Reading of the Referendum Bill in favour of a referendum but did not avail himself of the opportunity that he had of having a referendum among these workers?
    Mr. Kaufman: There was a poll about whether Bristol Channel Ship Repairers should be nationalised—in Cardiff, South-East at the last two General Elections.
    Mr. Paul Hawkins: Oh really!
    Mr. Kaufman: Yes. Mr. Christopher Bailey of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers offered himself in the first election as an independent Liberal candidate and got 3,000 votes. In the following election he offered himself as Liberal candidate and got 8,000 votes, coming third. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister beat him by a very large majority. That was the verdict of the people in Cardiff about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. Liberal Members are under some kind of impression that Mr. Bailey is a Liberal. He is whatever suits him. Therefore, Liberal Members have got on the same unsavoury hook.
    I would say this for SNP Members: they are here out of sympathy. They are doing some kind of exchange deal with their Plaid Cymru colleagues. That, at least, is nice of them. But they have not got mixed up in these nasty things and I am sure they are cleaner for it.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Taylor) asked a series of perfectly ludicrous questions, most of which do not deserve an answer. However, he answered one of his questions himself. He asked how he could illustrate that the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries were integrated in some way. He then muddled up various qualifications of his own, and sneaked in the fact that he is the paid adviser to a body called the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association. Why is there such an association? Why does it have a joint organisation that pays him to represent it in the House? It is very interesting that there is not a separate shipbuilders' organisation

    1655
    and a separate ship repairers' organisation. But no, they go together—and the hon. Gentleman is paid to represent them. He, of all people, asks what link there is between them. It is quite extraordinary.
    The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) asked a question to which he clearly deserves an answer. He asked about the remarks made by Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin about the way in which shipbuilding yards were to operate and asked whether ship repairing yards were to operate in the same way. The answer is that under the provision in Clause 5, which I have read out, they will be treated identically. I shall read out the relevant provision once again—and certainly read the words which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) claims that I omitted. [Interruption.] I prefer to answer the hon. Member for Newbury myself, if the hon. Member for Tiverton will permit me. What we say is that
    "British Shipbuilders shall, forthwith after the shipbuilding industry vesting date and subsequently from time to time when it considers it appropriate or the Secretary of State so requires—

    (a) undertake a review of the affairs of the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purposes—

    (i) of determining how the management of the activities of the Corporation and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries; and

    (ii) "—

    this is the part that is directly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question—
    "without prejudice to the generality of subparagraph (i) above, of seeking the largest degree, consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, of decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, and in particular of Scotland and Wales and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations, and responsibility for financial performance."
    What we are doing is putting the shipbuilding yards and the ship repairing yards on all fours. All of them will have the kind of independence of operation that is provided for in this subsection.
    1656
    7.30 p.m.
    Further on in the clause, the hon. Member will see that the Board of British Shipbuilders will be required to make a report to the Secretary of State upon the Corporation's conclusions arising from the review and the action that it proposes to take in the light of those conclusions. The report on the first review will have to be made to the Secretary of State before such date, no more than six months after the relevant vesting date. So what Sir Anthony Griffin said about shipbuilding refers in toto to ship repairing also. There will be the same kind of operation.
    The message that goes to the House of Lords from this Government, and which we ask the House of Commons to endorse in a few moments is clear and simple. This Government were elected on a clear pledge to nationalise shipbuilding, ship-repairing, marine engineering, and airframe manufacture.
    This Bill covers all four industries. The House of Commons has three times reaffirmed that this should be so after separate debates in Standing Committee, on Report, and on Lords amendments.
    The Government are firm in their insistence that the Bill should reach the statute book with all four industries still included. There have been no deals and there will be no deals. If this Bill falls through the action of the House of Lords, it will be for the House of Lords to carry full responsibility of the disastrous consequences to the industries affected that will undoubtedly and inevitably ensue.
    For two years or more the aircraft industry world-wide has been in deepening depression. Under private ownership there has been no serious move to take decisions on the next round of major civil aircraft projects: with the approach of public ownership that has changed quickly and decisively in the last three or four months. Within a short time—perhaps within months—the United Kingdom aircraft industry and the United Kingdom Government are going to have to decide which international collaborative projects to join, and negotiate terms. We are going to have to demonstrate the viability of our industry as a partner. No one doubts its technical viability. But its organisational viability, and its financial ability to provide the massive sums necessary for participation, are in doubt.

    1657
    Indeed, hon. Members opposite have accused us of saying that we will not provide the money for private enterprise to be enterprising with. These matters have been thrown into doubt wilfully and knowingly by the House of Lords.
    If nationalisation and the consequent amalgamation are delayed for a year, the international collaborative decisions will have been taken before vesting. The negotiating position of the British companies will be immeasurably weakened by four factors: the fact that they remain disunited; the organisational uncertainty which, I state as a fact, already concerns potential overseas partners; the improbability of the companies or their shareholders putting up the whole or the major proportion of the cost of such participation; and the extent to which the Government may feel unjustified in providing a significant part of that cost by way of launching aid while the companies remain disunited and in private ownership.
    Those factors taken together make it likely that, if this Bill does not proceed, if the House of Lords persists in blocking it by its insistence on these amendments, the British aircraft industry will wholly or partly miss out on the next round of civil aircraft collaboration, and that many thousands of jobs will be lost, permanently, in consequence. That is what the House of Lords is taking on itself.
    In shipbuilding, the circumstances are different but the result will be the same—literally many thousands of jeopardised jobs, in merchant shipbuilding, marine engine building and ship repair.
    The solution of the serious problems facing merchant shipbuilding in the immediate future can be arrived at in an orderly way only through public ownership, which will enable a planned and coherent strategy to be applied, instead of a process of disorderly, unplanned closures with last-minute appeals to the Government for rescue. There will be grave social and economic consequences, in some of the worst areas for employment.
    Without public ownership the Government will be powerless to control the timing and extent of these collapses. In some cases there might be a case for assistance, but the case for assisting a fragmented industry in private ownership,
    1658
    with poor prospects of being handled in a coherent way, is very different from the case for financing a Corporation which owns and controls the main firms in the industry and is handling them within a comprehensive strategy, agreed with the companies and with the unions.
    In ship repairing, too, there are some firms whose position is serious. The same considerations apply. Lloyd's List of today's date says:
    "Mr. George Arnold, chairman of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on the Tyne described as 'farcical' a situation where the Lords could stop ship repairing going into public ownership when everyone had worked towards this for the past two years."
    This is a man speaking for workers in ship repairing. According to Lloyd's List, he said that
    "Fragmented ownership did not help the industry in the present difficult time."
    The quotation goes on:
    "Mr. John Elliott, works convenor at the North Shields repair yard of Swan Hunter Shiprepairers, spoke of the yards being in a bad enough state."
    The Government are committed to this legislation—on aircraft and guided weapons, on shipbuilding, ship repair and marine engineering. I call on the House to support us in the Lobby.
    Mr. Neville Trotter: I had not intended to intervene in the debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "Well, do not do so, then."] I am delighted to intervene because the Minister's comments were utterly unsatisfactory. He spent most of his time dealing with the affairs of one yard in South Wales. Surely he should have concentrated on the whole principle of nationalising ship repairing.
    This is a matter of the gravest concern on Tyneside. It is one of the principal industries in the North-East and in my constituency we have the largest ship repair yard in the country: There can be only one basis for the future of ship repairing in this country, and that must be efficiency. It is simply a question of under which form of ownership we will achieve the most efficient ship repair industry—private or public.
    I ask hon. Members opposite to give me one example from the existing State ownership of industry to suggest that our ship repairers will have a better future under public ownership than under private—
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: North-East Shiprepairers, which is publicly owned now.
    Mr. Trotter: I am glad of that intervention, because that company has just closed down Greenwells dry dock and thrown several hundred men out of work. That is how State ownership has helped so far in the North-East. I believe that some union leaders in Sunderland said at the time that if any private yard had behaved in that way the whole of the Wear would have come out on strike. That is an example of public ownership, of the State as employer.
    The efficiency of the British ship repair yards compares very well at the moment with the yards of our competitors in North-West Europe. We hear much criticism of our yards, but that fact is overlooked by Ministers and their supporters. The reports and reviews of ship repairing have shown that, although there are problems, those problems are shared by our competitors and that the record of the British ship repairing industry in recent years is better than that of its competitors in North-West Europe.
    This is an international industry. There is no captive market for ship repairing. It is not like the gas industry or the railways. There are alternatives. If one wants to buy gas in this country, one must go to the nationalised gas corporation, whether it is efficient or not. But if one is a shipowner, one can go to the Dutch, German or French yards. There is no more international industry than this. Efficiency will decide where ships are repaired in future, whether in North Shields or South Wales on our side of the Channel or in Hamburg or Rotterdam on the other side.
    The numbers of ships involved are also completely different from those involved in shipbuilding. In one yard on the Tyne perhaps 300 ships are repaired in a year, with a vast number of ships coming in for relatively short periods of work. They come in at very short notice and dry docks are booked up only a few weeks ahead—an arrangement which requires great flexibility from the management of the yards. One feature of State ownership is the bureaucracy and lack of flexibility in the management of those
    1660
    enterprises. It is hard to think of an industry which is less suitable for national control and management than the ship repair industry. At the end of the day we shall see empty yards, repetitions of the closures of yards such as Greenwells.
    There are no State-owned ship repair yards in Europe. None of our competitors regard the State ownership of the ship repair industry as essential. The Government's main reason for this proposal is based on dogma. It is not based on a belief that it will increase efficiency but on Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution. The proposal is one further step down the path towards the complete State control of the whole of British industry.
    The people who work in the ship repair industry are being deluded into believing that under State ownership they will have access to a bottomless purse and continuous employment. But Greenwells should be an example to them of what a delusion that is. Efficiency alone will decide whether there is continuous employment.
    What do the customers say? The General Council of British Shipping has not publicly expressed dismay at the thought of the State ownership of the shipbuilding industry. Many of the heads of British shipping companies are against that proposal in principle but they have not thought it right to interfere. But, as users, they have expressed their complete opposition to the public ownership of the ship repair industry. I suggest that in this case the customer is right. The livelihoods of the people in our ship repair yards depend upon an efficiency that will be better obtained if we agree with the Lords in their amendment.
    Mr. Tom King: We have returned to a familiar subject. It is particularly familiar to those of my hon. Friends who have had the misfortune to listen today to the speech of the Minister of State, which was his usual standard. I thought that I had heard everything from him during the passage of the Bill but I have never heard a more pernicious or squalid speech than that which he made today. He is willing to tell everyone that other people should not be trusted but we have listened to the things that he has had to produce at a late stage

    1661
    to help him with his case. He has produced a variety of last minute letters and allegations. I cannot demolish his argument as effectively as did the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) with his personal experience of the industry.
    The Minister of State demeans the office which he holds and dignity of his Ministry. In the previous debate he grossly insulted a Queen's Counsel and, by any standards, made a lame withdrawal. Once again he has maligned someone who has no opportunity to reply. The continuous abuse of parliamentary privilege by a Minister of the Crown is a disgrace even to this Government.
    Against that background the cynical attitude which the Government are adopting towards the Bill can be better understood. The Minister of State said that the House of Lords was entirely responsible for whether the aircraft and shipbuilding industries are nationalised. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    7.45 p.m.
    We have fought the Bill every inch of the way. We have been determined to prevent the nationalisation of these industries. But we have to accept that in the case of aircraft and shipbuilding we have failed in our efforts. It lies within the Government's power to nationalise those industries—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State might listen to what I am saying instead of barking. He should save his voice. I know that he has been ill but I could understand if he regrets being here today for reasons other than health.
    It lies within his power to take these industries into public ownership. In his speech he used the same phrase as the Minister of State in the House of Lords. He said that there was an urgent need in respect of the aircraft industry and in respect of the shipbuilding industry. The
    Secretary of State can check the speech made in the House of Lords and that which he made in the Commons when he justified the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. Neither he nor the Minister of State named ship repairing. They said that the effect on the aerospace and shipbuilding industries would be catastrophic. They did not mention ship repairing.
    They have said that these industries are at risk. That is their judgment, not ours. The Secretary of State is prepared to take that risk by taking the action that he is taking today. He did not say that the ship repair industry was facing a catastrophic situation.
    The judgment in this case has been made by the House of Lords—not by Tory peers alone but by the great rank of opinion in that House. The most savage things said about ship repairing in this Bill were said by the noble Lord, Lord Shin well. I am not allowed to quote his words verbatim but he made comments on the particular ocean into which could jump those who criticised his view that great harm would be done to the country and the people who worked in the industries if ship repairing were nationalised.
    The Government have not made their case. It lies within their power to achieve what they regard as their crucial objective. But they are cynically, deliberately and in an act of pique over a relatively small section of one industry, deciding to put it all at risk. That is the action that they will take if they insist on disagreeing with the Lords amendments. Let there be no doubt who is taking that responsibility and who is making the judgment.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes, 280, Noes 278.

    Division No. 420.]

    AYES

    [7.48 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Bean, R. E.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Allaun, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Anderson, Donald

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Buchan, Norman

    Ashley, Jack

    Bishop, E. S.

    Buchanan, Richard

    Ashton, Joe

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Boardman, H.

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Campbell, Ian

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Boyden, James (B1sh Auck)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Bradley, Tom

    Cant, R. B.

    Bates, Alf

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Carmichael, Neil

    Carter, Ray

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Perry, Ernest

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Hunter, Adam

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Radice, Giles

    Coleman, Donald

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

    Janner, Greville

    Richardson, Miss Joe

    Concannon, J. D.

    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

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Cronin, John

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roper, John

    Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

    Kelley, Richard

    Rose, Paul B.

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Cryer, Bob

    Kinnock, Nell

    Rowlands, Ted

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Lambie, David

    Ryman, John

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sandelson, Neville

    Davidson, Arthur

    Lamond, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Selby, Harry

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lee, John

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Deakins, Eric

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Short. Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Litterick, Tom

    Silkin. Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Dempsey, James

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Sillars, James

    Doig, Peter

    Loyden, Eddie

    Silverman, Julius

    Dormand, J. D.

    Luard, Evan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Small, William

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Dunn, James A.

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Snape, Peter

    Dunnett, Jack

    McCartney, Hugh

    Spearing. Nigel

    Edge, Geoff

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    McElhone, Frank

    Stallard, A. W.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Stoddart, David

    English, Michael

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Stott, Roger

    Ennals, David

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Strang, Gavin

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Swain, Thomas

    Faulds, Andrew

    Madden, Max

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Magee, Bryan

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Maguire. Frank (Fermanagh)

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Mahon, Simon

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Flannery, Martin

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Thorns, 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 Wrekin)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Torney, Tom

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

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Urwin, T. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Meacher, Michael

    Varley. Rt Hon Eric G.

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

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

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Mendelson, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    George, Bruce

    Mikardo, Ian

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Watkins, David

    Ginsburg, David

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Watkinson. John

    Golding, John

    Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

    Weetch, Ken

    Gould, Bryan

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Weitzman, David

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Graham, Ted

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    While, Frank R. (Bury)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Moyle, Roland

    White, James (Pollok)

    Gram, John (Islington C)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Grocott, Bruce

    Newens, Stanley

    Whitlock, William

    Hardy, Peter

    Noble, Mike

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Ogden, Eric

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hatton, Frank

    Orbach, Maurice

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Ovenden, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Woodall, Alec

    Hooley, Frank

    Padley, Waller

    Woof, Robert

    Horam, John

    Palmer, Arthur

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

    Park, George

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Parker, John

    FELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Huckfield, Les

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Mr. Joseph Harper

    Pendry, Tom

    1664

    1665

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Alison, Michael

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Mills, Peter

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Moate, Roger

    Awdry, Daniel

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Molyneaux, James

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Gorst, John

    Monro, 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

    Morgan, Geraint

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Grieve, Percy

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Biffen, John

    Grist, Ian

    Mudd, David

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grylls, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Blaker, Peter

    Hall, Sir John

    Neubert, Michael

    Body, Richard

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Newton, Tony

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Nott, John

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Onslow, Cranley

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Hannam, John

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Hastings, Stephen

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Brittan, Leon

    Hawkins, Paul

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Pardoe, John

    Brotherton, Michael

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Henderson, Douglas

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Heseltine, Michael

    Penhaligon, David

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hicks, Robert

    Percival, Ian

    Buck, Antony

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Budgen, Nick

    Hodgson, Robin

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Holland, Philip

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Burden, F. A.

    Hordern, Peter

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Carlisle, Mark

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Carson, John

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Raison, Timothy

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Channon, Paul

    Hurd, Douglas

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Reid, George

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    James, David

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Clegg, Walter

    Jessel, Toby

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Cockcroft, John

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Cope, John

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Cordle, John H.

    Jopling Michael

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Costain, A. P.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Crawford, Douglas

    Kilfedder, James

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Critchley, Julian

    Kimball, Marcus

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Crowder, F. P.

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Knox, David

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lamont, Norman

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Shepherd, Colin

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Shersby, Michael

    Dunlop, John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Silvester, Fred

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lawson, Nigel

    Sims, Roger

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Elliott, Sir William

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Emery, Peter

    Lloyd, Ian

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Loveridge, John

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Speed, Keith

    Eyre, Reginald

    MacCormick, Iain

    Spence, John

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    McCrindle, Robert

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    McCusker, H.

    Sproat, Iain

    Farr, John

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fell, Anthony

    MacGregor, John

    Stanley, John

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Madel, David

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Forman, Nigel

    Marten, Neil

    Stokes, John

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Mates, Michael

    Tapsell, Peter

    Fox, Marcus

    Mather, Carol

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Freud, Clement

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Tebbit, Norman

    Fry, Peter

    Mawby, Ray

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    1666

    1667

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Wakeham, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Thompson, George

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Walters, Dennis

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Warren, Kenneth

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Watt, Hamish

    Younger, Hon George

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Wealherill, Bernard

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Wells, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Viggers, Peter

    Welsh, Andrew

    Mr. Jim Lester and

    Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Mr. John Corrie.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 disagreed to.

  Schedule 2

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
    The Lords insist on their amendments in page 81, to leave out lines 19 to 30; page 82, line 12; and page 82, line 42, for which insistence they assign the following Reason:
    Because it is considered to be in the best interests of the ship-repairing industry that the companies referred to in the said amendments should not be nationalised.
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendments [Mr. Frank R. White.]:—
    The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 278.

    Division No. 421.]

    AYES

    [8.6 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Allaun, Frank

    Cryer, Bob

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Anderson, Donald

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Hatton, Frank

    Ashley, Jack

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bagler, Gordon A. T.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hooley, Frank

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Horam, John

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Deakins, Eric

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

    Bates, Alf

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Bean, R. E.

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Huckileld, Les

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Dempsey, James

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Doig, Peter

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hunter, Adam

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Boardman, H.

    Dunn, James A.

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Dunnelt, Jack

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Edge, Geoff

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Edwards, Robert (Wohr SE)

    Janner, Greville

    Bradley, Tom

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    English, Michael

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ennals, David

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    John, Brynmor

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Buchan, Norman

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon & P)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Kelley, Richard

    Campbell, Ian

    Flannery, Martin

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Kinnock, Neil

    Cant, R. B.

    Ford, Ben

    Lambie, David

    Carmichael, Neil

    Forrester, John

    Lamborn, Harry

    Carter, Ray

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Lamond, James

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Castle, RT Hon Barbara

    Freeson, Reginald

    Leadbitler, Ted

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Lee, John

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Cohen, Stanley

    George, Bruce

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Coleman, Donald

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Lipton, Marcus

    Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

    Ginsburg, David

    Litterick, Tom

    Concannon, J. D.

    Golding, John

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Conlan, Bernard

    Gould, Bryan

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Luard, Evan

    Corbett, Robin

    Graham, Ted

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Cowans, Many

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Grocott, Bruce

    McCartney, Hugh

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Cronin, John

    Hardy, Peter

    McElhone, Frank

    Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

    Harper, Joseph

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Pendry, Tom

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Perry, Ernest

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Maclennan, Robert

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Swain, Thomas

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Madden, Max

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Magee, Bryan

    Radice, Giles

    Thomas, Ron (Sristol MW)

    Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Mahon, Simon

    Richardson, Miss Joe

    Tierney, Sydney

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanion)

    Tinn, James

    Marks, Kenneth

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Tomlinson, John

    Marquand, David

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Tonvey, Tom

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Urwin, T. W.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

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

    Meacher, Michael

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Rooker, J. W.

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Mendelson, John

    Roper, John

    Watkins, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rose, Paul B.

    Watklnson, John

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Weetch, Ken

    Miller, Or M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Weltzman, David

    Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

    Ryman, John

    Wellbeloved, Janes

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Sandelson, Neville

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    White, James (Pollok)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Selby, Harry

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Moyle, Roland

    Shaw, Arnold (Illford South)

    Whitlock. William

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Newens, Stanley

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Noble, Mike

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv ME)

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Ogden, Eric

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Sillars, James

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Silverman, Julius

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Skinner, Dennis

    Woodall, Alec

    Ovenden, John

    Small, William

    Woof, Robert

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Padley, Walter

    Spearing, Nigel

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Park, George

    Stallard, A. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Parker, John

    Stoddart, David

    Mr. Peter Snape and

    Parry, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    Mr. Joseph Ashton.

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Strang, Gavin

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Fry, Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    Alison, Michael

    Clegg, Walter

    Gardiner, George (Relgate)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Cockcroft, John

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Sparthorne)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Cope, John

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    Cordle, John H.

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Baker, Kenneth

    Cormack, Patrick

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Banks, Robert

    Corrle, John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Beith, A. J.

    Costain, A. P.

    Gorst, John

    Bell, Roneld

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Crawford, Douglas

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Critchley, Julian

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gray, Hamlsh

    Biffen, John

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Grieve, Percy

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Blaker, Peter

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Body, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Grist, Ian

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Gryils, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Hall, Sir John

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Dunlop, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Elliott, Sir William

    Hennam, John

    Brittan, Leon

    Emery, Peter

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Brotherton, Michael

    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Brown, Sir Edward (Beth)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Hawkins, Paul

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Fair grieve, Russell

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Buck, Antony

    Farr, John

    Henderson, Douglas

    Budgen, Nick

    Fell, Anthony

    Heseitine, Michael

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Hicks, Robert

    Burden, F. A.

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Hodgson, Robin

    Carlisle, Mark

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Holland, Phillp

    Carson, John

    For man, Nigel

    Hordern, Peter

    Chatter, Mrs Lynda

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Channon, Paul

    Fox, Marcus

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Clark, Atan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Freud, Clement

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    1670

    1671

    Hurd, Douglas

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Sims, Roger

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Skeel, T. H. H.

    James, David

    Morgan, Geraint

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

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

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Jessel, Toby

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Speed, Keith

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Spence, John

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Mudd, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sproal, Iain

    Jopling Michael

    Neubert, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Newton, Tony

    Stanley, John

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Nott, John

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Onslow, Cranley

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Kilfedder, James

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchtn)

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Stokes, John

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Knox, David

    Pardoe, John

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Lamont, Norman

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Tebbit, Norman

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Penhaligon, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lalham, Michael (Melton)

    Percival, Ian

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Lawson, Nigel

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Thompson, George

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Loveridge, John

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Trotter, Neville

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Ralson, Timothy

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    MacCormick, Iain

    Rathbone, Tim

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    McCrindie, Robert

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    McCusker, H.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Viggers, Peter

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Reid, George

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    MacGregor, John

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Wakeham, John

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Walters, Dennis

    Madel, David

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Marten, Neil

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Watt, Hamish

    Mates, Michael

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Wealherill, Bernard

    Mather, Card

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Wells, John

    Maude, Angus

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Mawby, Ray

    Rosl, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Mills, Peter

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Younger, Hon George

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Molloy, William

    Shepherd, Colin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Molyneaux, James

    Shersby, Michael

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

    Monro, Hector

    Silvester, Fred

    Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Lords amendments, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [8th November], proceeded to put forthwith the Questions specified in that Order.
    Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: No. 2, in page 21, line 40, leave out "Part I" and insert "paragraph 1, 3 or 4".
    No. 3, in page 21, line 41, leave out "fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule" and insert—

    "(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

    (b) fulfilled the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being for the purposes of that
    1672
    paragraph shipbuilding companies manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines or training companies,".

    No. 4, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
    "(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the shiprepairing industry vesting date all securities of the companies which on that date were known by the names specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act, being the companies other than any excepted company which on that date—

    (a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

    (b) fulfilled the condition specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of that paragraph

    shall, by virtue of this section, vest in British Shipbuilders free from all trusts and incumbrances".
    No. 5, in page 77, line 15, after "Shipbuilders", insert—
    "by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act".
    No. 6, in page 77, line 16, at end insert
    "and
    "(c) in relation to a company which becomes, or would but for the provisions of section 27 of this Act become, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders by virtue of section 19(2A) of this Act, the shiprepairing industry vesting date;".
    No. 7, in page 77, line 34, at end insert—
    "'shiprepairing industry vesting date' means such date not less than 3 nor more than 6 months after the passing of this Act as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify for the purposes of section 19(2A) of this Act;".
    No. 8, in page 80, line 44, at beginning insert—
    "1. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being shipbuilding companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
    No. 9, in page 81, line 18, at end insert—
    "2. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2A) above as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of paragaph 5 below are—".
    No. 10, in page 81, line 31, at end insert—
    "3. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
    No. 11, in page 82, line 1, at end insert—
    "4. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above, as being training companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question,
    That Mr. Michael Heseltine, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Tom King, Mr. Tom Pendry be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question,
    That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question.
    That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Lords amendments considered.
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  New Clause A

    RESTRICTIONS ON EVIDENCE AT TRIALS FOR RAPE ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out Clause 2 and insert—
    "A.—(1) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant.
    (2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked.
    (3) In subsection (1) of this section "complainant" means a woman upon whom, in a charge for a rape offence to which the trial in question relates, it is alleged that rape was committed, attempted or proposed.
    (4) Nothing in this section authorises evidence to be adduced or a question to be asked which cannot be adduced or asked apart from this section."
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
    Mr. Corbett: These amendments, which were moved by the Government on Third Reading in another place, are designed to meet the comments made in both this House and another place on the need to simplify Clause 2. It had been criticised in both places as being difficult to follow and rather tortuous in its construction.
    On Report, my hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook in this House to see whether something could be done to reduce the complexities of Clause 2, but this was unable to be done before Third Reading. Since then we have heard the views and received the advice of noble

    1675
    and learned Lords with practical experience of dealing with rape cases. I am glad to be able to tell the House that they are content with the amendments which I am now commending to the House.
    The clause, as hon. Members will see, retains the important test in the Heilbron Group's recommendation—namely, that prior leave of the judge in the absence of the jury must be obtained before questions can be asked in cross-examination or evidence can be adduced by or on behalf of the defendant about the complainant's sexual experience with any man other than the defendant. I am pleased to tell the House that the sponsors of the Bill accept the need for the replacement of Clause 2 in the terms of the amendment.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is remarkable to hear, for once, about the experience of their Lordships. It is also remarkable that we should actually have the Government asking us to accept a Lords amendment. We have been through the Race Relations Bill on which every amendment worthy of consideration from another place was reversed by the Government. We found yesterday that Lords amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, many of which were worthy of mature consideration in this Chamber, were reversed. Yet, in this case we hear in the dulcet tones of the promoter of this Bill—the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett)—that the Government agree with another place today and, therefore, it is in their wisdom that we should accept it in its entirety.
    The new clause is an immeasurable improvement. I have hardly ever seen any clause which ran to two pages which was so confused or obtuse and which would have made it so impossible for any jury to have understood the position, let alone for any judge to have been able to sum it up with any clarity and leave it to the jury to decide, as the original Clause 2. It would have led to unfairness, confusion and the gravest injustice.
    This amendment, to large extent, carries out many of the suggestions and observations which were made by the Opposition at earlier stages. We invited
    1676
    the Government to take away Clause 2 and to produce a new clause. To the extent that has been done in another place, it is certainly a great improvement on the previous position. Nevertheless, there are one or two aspects which still leave a great deal to be desired.
    The first aspect is extremely wise and we pressed it with the acceptance of many Labour supporters, such as those who were prepared to attend, who were very few in number. Subsection (2) provides that the judge shall not give leave in pursuance of this section for any evidence or question relating to the sexual experience of the complainant to be given except in the absence of the jury. It is plainly right to invite the whole of this matter to be dealt with as in practice it is so often dealt with in criminal cases—namely, that the application with regard to evidence which may be of a controversial nature should take place in the absence of the jury. I am sure that my hon. Friends would unanimously agree with that proposition.
    Secondly, it is right that the judge should give leave only if he is satisfied of a certain proposition. However, the proposition suggested imposes a burden of proof which is against the accused. It suggests that the judge must be satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to allow the evidence to be adduced. For example, he would have to be satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to adduce any evidence that the complainant was a prostitute or a woman of thoroughly loose morals who would be prepared to go to bed with any man perhaps if she were under the influence of alcohol or for the sake of money.
    The burden of proof is thus thrown on the defendant, and defendant's counsel appearing in a rape trial, to satisfy the judge that it would be unfair to him. That is contrary to the principles of natural justice which have obtained in this country for many centuries. The burden of proof has always lain upon the Crown throughout to establish that it will not be unfair to the defendant.
    I am surprised that the other place, with all the experience it is suggested that it has in these matters, should have put forward something which overturns that burden and places the burden upon the defendant. I believe that is unfair to the defence.

    1677
    I want to say what I believe would have been the right words to have inserted, and which would be acceptable to the juries of the country, the judges and all those right across the hemisphere of the world who think so highly of the principles of justice in this country. It should read as follows:
    "On such an application the judge shall give leave only, and only, if, he is satisfied that it would be relevant in all the circumstances of the case put forward by the defendant that he should allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked."
    The issue is whether it is properly relevant to the case put forward by the defendant. That case can vary in an immense variety of circumstances.
    I agree that we needed a change. I agree that under the present law a woman's character and conduct might have been unreasonably impugned, but the test is whether it is directly relevant to the proper case being put forward by the defendant. The test is one of relevance. It is whether it is reasonably relevant in all the circumstances to the proper case put forward by the defendant. I would therefore have liked to see the Lords amendment amended in the way that I have suggested.
    Nevertheless, the Bill has been through the House and Committee and has come before the House again for Report and Third Reading. It has had a fair consideration in another place. Bearing in mind all of those facts, it seems that this has crept into an amendment which, frankly, I would rather not have seen. However, I have no doubt that the amendment will be agreed to. But it may well be found that injustice will occur in some cases for judges will have to take a very hard view of their attitudes whether this is unfair to the defendant.
    8.30 p.m.
    It is of the greatest importance that judges bear these views in mind for cases will otherwise arise where, in an endeavour to seek a fair balance between the complainant and the defendant in a rape case, it will be exceptionally difficult to arrive at the correct interpretation of the facts. We may find that in endeavouring to do justice to the woman we end up by doing injustice to the man. That is a possible danger, although
    1678
    the new clause is an immense improvement on the previous position.
    In Clause 1 we have defined matters which very much identify the existing law. We have also dealt with the question of the cloak of anonymity—an important factor to the women of this country and to the men, too. In those circumstances I myself would not be prepared, in isolation, to vote against the new clause although I would have preferred to see it amended in the manner that I have indicated.
    Mr. John Lee: Not for the first time I find myself not in entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). In many ways this has been a long, rather vexing and troublesome Bill. It would be idle to pretend that I am satisfied with the general philosophy behind it. I shall not detain the House for long nor shall I seek to go over ground which lies outside the scope of the amendments that we are now discussing.
    There can be no doubt that compared with the long-winded and tortuous wording of Clause 2, as it left this House, what we now have has the considerable advantage of brevity. It also has the considerable advantage of clarity.
    I am bound to echo the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West that it leaves at large the question of the burden of proof in the resolution of the issue before the court. With the sole important exception of insanity—there are one or two other technical exceptions relating to forgery and coinage, which do not matter—the burden lies on the Crown throughout. Whatever twists and turns a criminal trial may take, once the issue is raised and made clear it is to the Crown that one looks to prove or disprove a matter in question. In other words, it is for the Crown all along to bear the heat and burden of the day.
    To the extent that the new clause clearly fails to support that principle it is open to a considerable measure of criticism. It is not put completely the other way. It is left at large. That leads me to a comment which in practice may resolve the problem or considerably reduce the risk of injustice.
    Nowhere in the Bill is there laid down anything to guide the judge on the way

    1679
    in which an application to question the relationship of a prosecutrix with regard to third parties should be evaluated. I tentatively assume that when that issue is raised there will have to be a trial within a trial. It will be open to the defence—and the defence should be able to insist upon it—that where it is sought on behalf of a defendant to cross-examine a woman as to her relations with other persons, or to raise some other issue of that kind which the Bill seeks as a generality to exclude, in the absence of the jury to cross-examine the witness on the lines along which he will seek to cross-examine the witness before the jury, and also to aduce such evidence as may be necessary by calling his client or any other witness to establish that it would be unfair for such matters to be withheld from the jury. The Bill is silent on that.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with whom I have had several talks about this. To an extent he has been able to allay some of my fears. I have had to address myself to the fact that this procedure of a trial within a trial, well-known to criminal lawyers, is not enshrined in statute. It is a practice that is commonly pursued when, for example, one seeks to challenge some admission or confession on the ground that it had been improperly obtained. Sometimes, but not invariably, these matters are resolved by argument and advocacy. More often than not, the practice is for the jury to withdraw and for the issue to be canvassed in the presence of the judge alone. Evidence is adduced on both sides, the Crown tenders its witness, the defence gives evidence and calls evidence and addresses are made to the judge before the matter is resolved.
    That is not in the Bill. I appreciate that as it is a matter of practice rather than statutory law or subsidiary legislation it would be somewhat incongruous if we were to embody the trial within the trial procedure statutorily in this piece of legislation when it is not statutorily embodied in legislation that appertains to the generality of criminal trials. My hope is that people in exalted places will consult, and that we shall have from the appropriate quarters—I
    1680
    apprehend the Lord Chief Justice—some practice direction that will be of guidance to the courts when these matters are put to the test.
    I cannot claim to be wholly satisfied with what has happened. I would prefer the burden to be placed unambiguously upon the Crown to prove that it would not be unfair to exclude evidence, but the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) seem unable to concede that. The provision as it has come from the Lords is an improvement and goes some way to reducing the risk of injustice. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am prepared to accept it, although not perhaps with enthusiasm.
    It has been said more than once on this Bill that in rape offences risks of injustice are great. In the nature of rape offences, it is obvious that one cannot easily look for corroborative evidence. Even in these permissive and avant-garde days people do not normally have sexual intercourse, whether consensual or otherwise, in public. Therefore, it is not likely that there will be bystanders who will be able to give testimony to back that of a prosecutrix on the question whether she consented. Therefore, generally speaking, the corroborative evidence is medical in character and is sometimes to be found from the demeanour of the parties, but is often of a fairly diminutive character.
    The law on rape is an area in which there will always be a high risk of injustice occurring. I hope that when the courts come to apply this law, if the Bill is enacted, as now seems inevitable, they will bear in mind that the overriding consideration must be that the Crown should prove its case. I do not think that it is the intention of the sponsors to reverse the burden of proof or to overturn a part of the criminal law which has been in existence since 1935, and in some circumstances even earlier.
    I wish that these matters had been stated more clearly in the Bill. I still have considerable misgivings about this matter, but I am grateful that something has been done to rescue a situation, the results of which otherwise might have been little short of disastrous.
    Mr. F. P. Crowder: I think it can be said that I am responsible for this Bill because about a year ago I introduced a Ten-Minute Rule Bill on the subject. However, I have come to the conclusion that we do not need a Bill on this matter. All that the judge needs to do—and I occasionally sit as a recorder—is to say to a jury "In rape cases you must look for corroboration." That is a most important consideration. It does not need a Bill to underline it.
    I introduced my Ten-Minute Rule Bill because I felt that something should be done about the situation following a difficult case that occurred in Norfolk. We must look at these matters from a common sense view. Juries must be told, "You must have corroboration, and you must think carefully about the evidence." I repeat that we do not need a Bill to cover the situation. The view may be put in court, "Rape is easy, my Lord."
    I do not think we need the Bill. It is a lot of nonsense. If judges proceed on the basis that there must be corroboration, that will meet the need. That is why I oppose the Bill.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): I give this amendment a quarter-hearted welcome, and that is being generous on the side of the sponsors of the Bill. Origin ally, I had two objections. I thought that the whole idea of inhibiting cross-examination might lead to injustice and the conviction of more innocent people than would be acceptable to society— and on that I have not changed my mind.
    My second objection was that the Bill was absurdly complex. It raised a number of issues, any one of which could have given rise to grounds of appeal, a waste of public time and money, unnecessarily putting money into lawyers' pockets and striking unnecessary terror into the hearts of those wrongly accused of rape. On that aspect, some good has been done.
    The original Clause 2 has been simplified, and that is a very substantial improvement, but it is practically the only good thing about the amendment. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend
    1682
    the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that the test which a judge should use is relevance, not unfairness. The test of relevance was originally put into the Bill by the noble and extremely experienced legal Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in another place. That was for the good reason that, in the normal course of our criminal judicial approach to the ancillary questions in a criminal trial, a judge must consider whether evidence is relevant. Our system protects the judge, as far as is reasonably possible, from having to come to a decision on the merits of the case or some ancillary part of it.
    It came naturally to a very experienced judge to suggest that it would be best for judges to apply the test whether such cross-examination was relevant. Once a judge has ruled that it is relevant, it is for the jury to decide whether the cross-examination is fair and true in its suggestions, and to judge the case accordingly.
    However, between the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on 4th November and today, the test has been changed back to one of unfairness. It would be a waste of time to dilate longer on this point, so I say only that I would prefer to see the established criminal judicial test applied here rather than the burden placed on the judge to be subjective and judge the issue on its merits.
    That leaves me with the all-important fear that I have about the amendment. Unnecessary time would be taken in my reiterating it. Not all the learned and experienced lawyers concerned with the Bill have shared my view by any means, and therefore I must bow to the ineviability of it.
    There are restraints upon members of the legal profession in regard to doing anything that is improper. If they are not already inborn in a defendant's lawyer, they will have been trained into him. If they are not trained into him, these matters will be watched over by the judge in the case. The fact nevertheless remains that if the defendant's lawyer is unable to draw attention to a woman's past, an injustice may very well result.
    As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, a woman with a past can, of course, be the victim of rape, but she is less likely to be the victim of rape than your maiden

    1683
    aunt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or a respectable married woman, or a young virgin. My fear is that a jury may very well wish it had come to a different conclusion if, having brought in a verdict of guilty, it subsequently discovers or is told that the lady concerned has been loose at some stage in the past.
    Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I believe that one eminent lawyer has said that he has never yet lost a rape case when appearing for a defendant who pleaded not guilty. Will the hon. Member agree that the dice are already fairly heavily loaded in favour of the defendant in such a case?
    Mr. Lawrence: If the dice are loaded in favour of the defence, it is only to make sure that no innocent people are ever convicted. It is a very difficult issue, which has always to be considered in cases of rape. I do not know to which learned leader the hon. Gentleman was referring. There was a speech in the House of Lords by a learned junior, who said that that was his experience. But I am surrounded here by very distinguished, eminent and learned leaders, and if I were to add my experience to theirs, I think that none of us could boast—if that is the right word—that we have always been successful in defending clients on charges of rape.
    I think, with great respect to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), that the observation to which he referred was a very subjective and perhaps a very limited one for someone to have made. We have to be particularly careful in these cases. It is not just my view: it has been a traditional view in the operation of the criminal courts that in cases involving sexual offences—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) will seat himself it will be easier for the House to conduct its proceedings.
    Mr. Lawrence: I had quite a shock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on seeing that most conservative of my hon. and learned Friends, the Member for Ruislip-North wood (Mr. Crowder), cross the Floor. It
    1684
    has almost rendered me speechless, but —as hon. Members will see—not quite.
    I have come to the conclusion that, provided the clause as now amended is used with discretion and with good sound common sense by our judiciary, and by the practitioners in the courts—I seem to have heard myself saying this on many ocasions in regards to similar sorts of Bills in this Session—it may not make too much difference. I can only hope that that will be so, and that innocent persons will not in future be convicted of rape who, under the existing law, would have been acquitted.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): It will probably be as well if at this stage I indicate the Government's attitude.
    First, I want to deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) about what he paraphrased as " a trial within a trial ". As he said, that is not provided for in any statute; it has been developed by judicial practice. I agree with him that the matter is left at large. There is nothing to forbid it in the Bill as drafted. It will be left to the judges, and I have no doubt that in practice they will evolve that which is necessary to see that justice is done.
    A number of hon. Members have said that the Bill is not necessary. That is not a view shared by the noble Lords, especially Lord Hailsham. The suggestion has been made that the clause as drafted does not meet the original comments of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. I might point out that when the Government's amendment appeared on the Notice Paper the noble Lord wrote to express his support for it and to apologise for not being able to be present when it was discussed, when, he said, he would have expressed public support for the clause as drafted.
    With that assurance, I think that the House can accept the Lords amendment quite safely.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: The acquittal of a man charged with rape can have the deplorable effect of damaging or even destroying the reputation of a woman complainant. Although she herself is not on trial, she may appear to be guilty. This Bill

    1685
    not only gives a woman in proper cases the protection of anonymity but, by the clause, seeks to save her from the distress of irrelevant evidence and cross-examination about her sexual experience with someone other than the accused.
    This clause, like others in the Bill, was inspired by the excellent report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Heilbron.
    The new clause has a simplicity and a clarity which the original clause lacked. It gives the trial judge a discretion about what shall be allowed by way of evidence and cross-examination concerning the past sexual history of the complainant.
    For these reasons, the Opposition support the clause. Although we have certain reservations, which were expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), about the dangers that could be implicit in a change in the law, we think that the clause is a considerable improvement on the old one. I am sure that the House will feel itself indebted not only to the Advisory Group but also to their Lord ships in another place for the way in which the clause has achieved the framing of the recommendations of the report in language which we hope will be useful and clear guidance to the courts.
    Mr. Lee: It will be of assistance, as it were, behind the scenes, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether he shares my view about "a trial within a trial" as a way of evaluating fairness.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Gardner: I do have sympathy with that point of view. Also, I think that the view put forward by the Minister—that this is a procedure that can grow with practice, just as other procedures which we know well in our courts have developed—will quieten most of the anxieties that would otherwise be felt.
    Question put:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Corbett and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

  Clause 4

    ANONYMITY OF COMPLAINANTS IN RAPE CASES, ETC.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is Lords Amendment No. 6, with which we may take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
    Lords amendment:No. 6, in page 6, line 22, at end insert:
    "; or
    (d) a bill of indictment charging him with a rape offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence.".
    Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    These amendments, which arise out of an undertaking given on Report by the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), include in the definition in Clause 4, of the time at which a person is to be regarded as being accused of a rape offence, a reference to voluntary bills of indictment.
    The first amendment achieves this purpose by adding to the definition in Clause 4(6) a new paragraph (d) relating to bills of indictment, and the two other amendments are consequential changes in Clause 5(1)(e) and Clause 6(6)(a).
    Mr. Lawrence: My intervention is almost in the form of a question. 1 cannot see for the life of me why it is necessary to have Amendment No. 6, which inserts in the Bill for the fourth time words saying that a person has been accused of rape, when a bill of indictment charging him with the rape offence is preferred before a court in which he may be indicted for the offence. Surely that is a situation that is swallowed up in paragraph (b), and a person cannot appear before a court charged with a rape offence unless there has been a committal, an information or a bill of indictment.
    This seems to be another example of the sort of verbiage that we keep churning out in this place and putting into Bills to add absolutely meaningless and useless words.
    Question put:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Michael McGuire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the procedures of the House for the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), who on the last occasion could not find a Teller, to abuse and waste the time of hon. Members? Do you not have powers to collect the voices and to give the Question to the Ayes in this case?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no power to do anything until I have collected the voices, which indeed I did on the last occasion.
    Mr. Crowder: I naturally accede—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member must be seated and covered if he wishes to speak We are in the process of a Division.
    Mr. Crowder: Naturally, I withdraw.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

  PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Foot be added to the Committee of Privileges for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this be a Standing Order of the House. —[Mr. Coleman.]

  COURTAULDS LIMITED (SKELMERSDALE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: I am indeed pleased that through good fortune—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish to hear the hon. Gentleman in his Adjournment debate kindly leave the Chamber quietly?
  Mr. McGuire: Due to good fortune, we have one hour and 20 minutes in which to debate this matter instead of the traditional half an hour. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on the
  1688
  last occasion I lost this debate due to a procedural device. That was a fortnight ago. Tonight I know that some of my hon. Friends will also wish to speak in the debate.
  The announcement on 27th October that Courtaulds intended to close its Skelmersdale factory, which employs 1,000 people, came as a complete shock to the people of the new town. It came as a shock because, when the Prime Minister visited Skelmersdale on 3rd September, he met not only me but local members of the Labour Party. We put to him the suggestion that the Government should help to reduce our already too high unemployment rate in Skelmersdale and our fear about some of the firms in the textile industry, particularly Courtaulds.
  It is not just Courtaulds, which employs 1,000 people, which is affected. There are also the gravest problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), which also suffers from the threat of steel unemployment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): Yes, indeed.
  Mr. McGuire: The reason given to me for the closure of one of the factories in my hon. Friend's constituency is that the market for tights had gone. Harwood Hosiery in Skelmersdale, which employs about 600 people, also manufactures tights, so I have fears about that factory as well. But what I am discussing is the proposed closure of Courtaulds.
  We explained to the Prime Minister our fears about the delicate imbalance in the town and above all in the textile industry. The Prime Minister has unwittingly been drawn into this. He wrote me a letter following his visit in which he assured me that he had made inquiries, presumably of Courtaulds—presumably someone checked it out—and he was pleased to be able to tell me, and I told my constituents, that there was no fear, certainly in the immediate future, of the Skelmersdale factory closing.
  I made inquiries when I heard on the bush telegraph of an announcement to be made on Friday 22nd October about the closure of Courtaulds factories in Northern Ireland and other parts of the country, particularly Hint. When I was told that

  1689
  the Skelmersdale factory would not be on that list I was reassured. I thought that the Prime Minister had really checked it out and the information was solid. I was sorry for anyone who would lose his job, but I felt a little easier about the factory in my own constituency.
  Hon. Members can imagine how I felt when, only six or seven weeks after the Prime Minister's visit, this announcement was made. It was a bombshell, because this area had earlier suffered its cruellest blow so far, with the closure of the Thorn colour tube factory, which had employed about 1,400 people. This proposal, on top of that, makes nonsense of our claim that new towns are somewhere where the best things in life will happen, with the key being planned employment. It makes our regional policy laughable.
  The statistics for Skelmersdale can be misleading. People may therefore think that I am over-egging the pudding when I quote our statistics of unemployment. The official statistic is about 13 per cent, unemployment. That is horrific, but is considered not too bad for Merseyside—although it is well above the national average. But it is diluted. We are in the Ormskirk-Skelmersdale travel-to-work area. I can prove how false these figures are.
  The total insured population—men, women, boys and girls—in the two towns is roughly 31,000. According to an official survey of last June, the total insured population of Skelmersdale New Town is 16,000.
  National statistics show that 37 out of every 100 workers are women. In Skelmersdale there are about 16,000 workers and potential workers. About 10,000 of them are men, and approximately 6,000 are women. There are 1,616 men, 194 boys, 549 women and 140 girls who are unemployed. That is a total of nearly 2,500, about 15 per cent, of the working population. If Courtaulds close—I stress " if ", because it is my job and that of the Government to stop that from happening—about 500 men out of the 1,000 employed there will be added to the list of the unemployed. That will give a total of 2,116 out of the 10,000 male employable population and this will give us a male unemployment rate of 21·2 per cent. My figures are incontrovertible. I use them because the
  1690
  official figures do not represent the true picture.
  I am pleased to see that both the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment are in the Chamber. It shows the importance that is attached to the debate. Travel-to-work figures should not be used. The true figures for Skelmersdale are diluted because Ormskirk, with a 15,000 insured population, has only 758 unemployed. It is because of that figure that the true situation in Skelmersdale is not revealed. That is dangerous, because it stops Governments from spotlighting the problem.
  My purpose in raising this subject is to try to prevent the closure, which will affect my constituency so badly. I want to hear the Minister tell the House tonight that he will institute an inquiry into Courtaulds' affairs, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I am particularly anxious about Courtaulds, Skelmersdale. They will appreciate that not all the factories are the same. The Flint factory, and others, did not receive the Government grants that enabled Courtaulds, Skelmersdale, to start. It is not, therefore, on all fours with the other factories.
  There are many reasons for an inquiry. First, we must allay the disquiet about the many millions of pounds of Government money which has been given to the company legitimately. It is Government policy to encourage firms to go to special development areas. But I do not want to see companies receiving huge sums and then, if they make a loss, heading out towards pastures new with other Government grants with which to set up other factories employing fewer people. One of the features of British industrial life is that the more one invests the fewer jobs are provided, and that is a problem which our Labour Government have got to deal with.
  The company was legitimately given huge amounts of public money and now it says " We are very sorry. We shall stay for 90 days more, then we are leaving." Incidentally, Courtauld considers the 90 days to be the consultation period. Thorn got away with giving notice and heading out after a couple of weeks, because the Labour Party's Employment Protection Act did not apply. The people of Skelmersdale are at least grateful

  1691
  for that Act. Without it the company could have legged it out and we should have had all the problems of people not receiving any wages, apart from redundancy pay, after a few weeks.
  What Courtaulds has said about the consultation period does not show enlightened management. It says that it has carried out a great deal of consultation about the factory and has come to the end of its tether. To think that the 90 days constitute the consultation period shows an abysmal understanding of sound industrial relations policy. There is enough public disquiet for the Government to say "We must have a public inquiry".
  Apart from the public disquiet, which I have referred to, there are three reasons why I would like an inquiry into the company's statement of why it intends to close what, after all, was in 1968 the most modern textile factory in Europe. After only eight years there is talk of closing it. The first strand of that statement is about losses. Sir Arthur Knight has said that the company had made continuing losses in Skelmersdale. The figure of about £6 million has been mentioned. The second strand was about the import problem.
  The company has faced, and still faces, tremendous import penetration problems. Some of my hon. Friends wish to develop that theme, and I shall not steal their thunder. The lightweight polyester fibre manufactured at the factory is used mainly for shirts and lingerie. Courtaulds has said that import penetration in the fibre has gone from 40 per cent, to 60 per cent, almost in the twinkling of an eye. It might be possible to prove at an inquiry that the Government could help keep the factory open with some form of aid or import controls. The price that Courtaulds could obtain was unrealistic, because of price control and probably because of the import competition.
  Those are two factors I should like an inquiry to consider. The third is an allegation of bad industrial relations. As far as I know, this is the only factory to be closed that has been the subject of that kind of announcement. The company uses the euphemistic phrase "not being able to attain the manning levels we
  1692
  should have liked to make the factory efficient".
  Union representatives taking part in the lobby yesterday begged me to secure the inquiry, because they were the only people to have been labelled in that way. They said that it put a question mark over their loyalty, honesty and work rate, and might irreparably damage the new town, so that employers would fight shy of going there. They told me " We have nothing to hide. We want a full inquiry. If we can concentrate on that, it will do us good." I hope that all hon. Members will give their full support to an inquiry for those very good reasons.
  I hope that the inquiry will take place immediately. We have already seen 21 days slip by, and if it is to be thorough even the 90 days may not be sufficient. We are talking about 60-odd days because 21 days have already elapsed. It will probably take a few days to set up the inquiry, and I hope that there will be a guarantee that, if necessary, the 90 days will be extended so that the inquiry may be completed. After all, it may be the key to keeping the factory open. It would be nonsense for the 90 days to expire and for someone to say at the end of that period "We could have kept it open because we have found a solution"
  The proposed closure calls into question the Government's new town strategy. The closure of Thorns and this proposed closure must mean that a question mark hangs over Harwoods, which I believe is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Courtaulds. It seems that the bottom has fallen out of the market, as two factories making tights have already closed. This background calls into question the fragile imbalance in Skelmersdale New Town—in other words, our industries are far too vulnerable.
  I know that it is easy to speak with hindsight, but if about 1,800 jobs are put into textiles and about 1,800 into the television tube industry—that would have been the figure if Thorns had come to full fruition—with no import controls and a free and open market and it is attempted to build the prosperity of a new town on those industries, it is clear that the Government's strategy was either badly planned or not planned at all.
  Skelmersdale is now faced with terrifying unemployment figures. I emphasise

  1693
  that it enjoys the highest form of grant aid that is available in Great Britain—namely, special development status. Apart from setting up the inquiry machinery as soon as possible within the 60-odd days that are left, I hope that the Government, when they decide to help us, will put in industries that will be able to survive the first sneeze of an economic cold. Skelmersdale's industry has not been able to do that so far.
  At present, Skelmersdale is getting a great deal of publicity. I wish that I did not have to raise the town's problems, but I have only to mention Skelmersdale and the television crews are on the scene. However, when the town is mentioned on television, it is bad news. That seems to be inevitable. It is rather like the cartoonist's caricature of a Frenchman. He is always shown to be wearing a beret, a thin moustache, and a leering smile, while chasing a blonde. 1 hope that I am not hurting the susceptibilities of any French people.
  The point I am making is that Skelmersdale news is bad news. Of course, the camera crews are always willing to be in the Merseyside area. They consider it a natural place for their presence, as the people are fairly loquacious, spontaneous and never stuck for a reply. It provides good television coverage, but that does not help Skelmersdale or Merseyside generally. I should prefer not to be raising this matter tonight, but if I were not it would be a dereliction of duty. When the Government bring industry to Skelmersdale, I hope that they will bring the sort that will stand the first sneeze and cough of any economic cold.
  When the Government decided to rescue Leylands, I supported their decision. Recently, the Prime Minister said that if the company had not been rescued the West Midlands would have been a desert. We need a bit of help to stop Skelmersdale becoming a desert. After all, in a way it is our money that is involved. I hope that the Government will encourage by all means possible—I know that they are doing so behind the scenes—the introduction of a Leyland component factory. Skelmersdale is able to offer a suitable site. Indeed, there is everything in our favour. There are roads and an empty factory.
  1694
  The people of Skelmersdale are demoralised. These events rocked them back. In previous Adjournment debates I have mentioned the plight of the new town. But all we get are kind answers and no action. We need to give these people a vote of confidence. It would take time, and it would not solve our unemployment problem, but it would help if we were to receive the news soon that the Government will give us one of the "Hardman" Government Departments. We have been badly treated in the North-West and shockingly treated in Skelmersdale. We are the biggest of the new towns, but we have not been given the smallest of Government offices. They are to meet a national need, and Skelmersdale is entitled to its share.
  Let me turn now to devolution. Whatever plans the Government may have in that respect, we shall have the power and capacity to upset them if the North-West continues to get such a bad deal. Wales has a population of 2·75 million, and under the Government disposal programme it will get 660 jobs per 100,000 of population. In the North-West we should get all that we are entitled to, but already people behind the scenes are saying that we shall get too much, even though our figure will be only 150 per 100,000. We have been badly done by and we need a better share of that cake. I hope that we have an announcement soon.
  We need an announcement to give hope to our bright young boys and girls and to give an element of economic stability and work for our unemployed building workers. Why can we not have an announcement for the advancement of the hospital? It should have been built, in any case. We are in a deprived area that has been short-changed over the years. That has been recognised by the historical deficiency grant which was recently awarded to the North-West Regional Health Authority.
  Skelmersdale was to have been a planned oasis of employment, but now we are to lose the factories that we already have. There are no skillcentres or training facilities in the town. Few of the employers has taken on apprentices. Why cannot the Government encourage employers to do that to employ some of the young people who are out of work? Why can they not give us some of these

  1695
  centres? The jobcentre staff are doing their best, but we just do not have the basic facilities.
  The Government's original strategy for Skelmersdale has left it extremely vulnerable. I believe that the Government's regional strategy is too blunt an instrument to help in cases such as Skelmersdale. The situation requires a sharper instrument. We do not complain that the Government's strategy did not work in earlier days. It has worked reasonably well. Areas which once had massive unemployment, however, have now got less than the North-West, which once used to have a neutral rate, just about the national average. But Merseyside suffers from huge pockets of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) will confirm that in Kirkby and Aintree the figures are as bad as, if not worse than, in Skelmersdale.
  Skelmersdale was planned. These towns or districts were unplanned. Therefore, the Government's duty to the people of Skelmersdale is more positive than it would be for an unplanned town, albeit with tremendous problems of unemployment. Because we have a blunt instrument of regional policy we are unable to direct resources and aid as quickly as we would wish to Skelmersdale, which would help it.
  When the Skelmersdale New Town was designated in 1961, there were many comments about the efficaciousness of the proposal and whether it would succeed. There was the argument that if the Government had given aid to older established industrial towns it would have been better. With the benefit of hindsight, there is a lot in that argument. They could have done more for the people for whom help was intended—the people on Merseyside generally.
  Merseyside has five new towns pulling the heart out of it. It is facing big problems now, with what is left behind. The costs are still great, and some of the people have gone. Nevertheless, Skelmersdale New Town went ahead in 1961.
  Flowing from that and the Government's advertising, through the development corporation—I say this deliberately—people have been lured to the new town.
  1696
  New towns are always expensive to live in. They are incredibly difficult to live in with the present unemployment figures. People had bright hopes when they went to Skelmersdale New Town. They were not expecting a new Jerusalem. Ordinary, intelligent people did not believe that they would never be out of work or that they would escape the harsh winds of the economic blizzards which blow from time to time, but they expected better and still expect better of a Labour Government. Their hopes have been cruelly dashed. They have already suffered too many harsh blows. Apart from the need for an inquiry, they want a vote of confidence by this Government. They are making a plea for help.
  I am a Labour supporter and proud to be the Labour Member representing Skelmersdale. I often reflect whether it was a good idea for Skelmersdale to be added to the Ince constituency in 1950. Probably it was for my sins. But what we need now is help—and urgently.
  I pay tribute to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is on the Front Bench today, along with several of his colleagues. I know that they have a desire to help. I want that desire to be expressed tonight in a concrete form so that the dark clouds over Skelmersdale will be lifted and people will say " The Government will help us. We shall have not only an inquiry but, with the help of the Government, will soon enjoy that better, richer life which lured us to the new town in the first place".
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Noble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on a moving and able speech on behalf of his constituents. The points that he made tonight are very strong, and I know that the Minister of State, Department of Industry will take careful note of them.
  I wish to deal specifically with the causes of the situation in Skelmersdale and in many other textile areas and perhaps the way out of that situation in future. Unless some dramatic changes are made in Government policy for the textile industry, we shall see other Skelmersdales and other closures of factories in the industry.
  It is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter tonight after the

  1697
  Sexual Offences Bill, because we are discussing the rape of Skelmersdale by a textile company which has cynically manipulated public money for its own ends. For that reason alone there should be an inquiry into the affairs of Courtaulds.
  I recall that when we fought the 1974 election the Labour Government were elected on the basis of accountability for the use of public funds. We met Sir Arthur Knight in this House not long ago. It appeared to me that, from a calculation of his figures, Courtaulds over the last three or four years has received £56 million in public funds in one form or another. In those circumstances it seems ridiculous for that company to define the word "consultation" as meaning taking a decision and then announcing it and at the same time saying that whatever consultation so-called takes place there will be no change in its opinions about the future of a number of mills which it had announced would be closed.
  I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Ince in his demand for an inquiry. My hon. Friend referred to the Early-Day Motion demanding an inquiry which has now been signed by about 150 hon. Members. I would remind the Minister of State that that demand is not simply as a result of disquiet outside. It is not simply as a result of disquiet in the trade union movement or in the Labour Party outside. Many hon. Members on this side of the House are extremely concerned that any company can receive the vast amounts of public money which have been poured into Courtaulds, it would seem without responsibility.
  Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Ince, for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and for Burnley (Mr. Jones), I visited a new Courtaulds mill at Belmont in Durham. The management was proud to tell us that the mill had cost £12 million, of which £3 million had come from public funds, and that it would provide about 240 jobs.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Ince referred to the interests of investment I know that he was referring to the experience we had that day when we saw that magnificent mill costing £12 million—one quarter of which came from public funds—yet providing only about 200 jobs. There can be no justification
  1698
  whatever for not having an inquiry which the public, the trade unions and a vast number of hon. Members are demanding.
  My second point relates to the reasons for this kind of situation developing. 1 know that the chairman of Courtaulds has said that the problem at Skelmersdale was not related to imports. I would say in reply that if we had not had the import problem the Skelmersdale situation would have been different and there would be fewer threats of closures in the textile industry as a whole. While I know that the Minister of State, Department of Industry, is not directly responsible for the trade side of the problem, I hope that he will take this message back to his colleagues in the Department of Trade. I can assure my hon. Friend that when he tells his colleagues what the problem is they will reply "Yes, we have heard it before". They have heard it from these Benches, and from people outside, on many occasions.
  It is worth looking at some of the events of the last two years. We were repeatedly told by the Government that the textile situation was being dealt with, that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement would regulate trade in textiles and that this would create a secure home market and a secure situation for the British textile industry.
  I liken the MFA Arrangement to a carefully constructed dam the top of which is three feet below the level of the water and as a result of which we have a continuous flood of imports. Let us consider cotton yarn from Portugal. In 1975, 5,800 tons came to Britain. Last year, despite controls, that had risen to 7,800. In 1974 we imported 63 million square metres of woven cloth from Pakistan. One year later, that had risen to 94 million square metres. The number of blouses from India has doubled in a year. In 1974 we took 2½million and in 1975 4½ million. The number of so-called handwoven blouses from India— which tests have shown not to be hand-woven—has increased tenfold in 12 months. In 1974 we took 27 million shirts from Hong Kong; last year we took 43 million. We took 15 million jerseys from Taiwan in 1974 and 18 million last year. We took 1½ million blouses from South Korea in 1974 and a year later 4 million.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year we imported 19,000 shirts from the People's Republic of China and already this year the total is well over 420,000? The Government have not acted. This inevitably will affect the textile industrv. Will the hon. Gentleman press his hon. Friends to do something about it?
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has pressed the Government, and I associate myself with his remarks. It is hardly surprising that the trade gap in textiles is becoming increasingly unreal. In textile products we have a surplus which is rapidly going down. It was £101 million in 1971 and £15 million last year. The trade gap in clothing is disastrous. The deficit in 1971 was £48 million and last year it was £240 million. It is hardly surprising that Courtaulds in Skelmers dale and other areas, and many other textile mills, are facing such enormous problems.
  It is essential that the Government should adopt a tough negotiating position when they renegotiate the Multi-Fibre Arrangement with their EEC partners and ultimately with the rest of the world. There are gaping holes in the Arrangement as it has been operating since its inception, not long ago. Thousands of our constituents, particularly in the North-West, have had their livelihoods put at risk or snatched away.
  We believe that there should be a new Multi-Fibre Arrangement to replace the present one at the end of 1977. When I say "we" I am speaking not only on behalf of my hon. Friends but also on behalf of the trade unions in the industry, with whom my hon. Friends have remained in close consultation. We think that this is the best way to regulate the trade in textiles.
  Some changes are needed. First, there is need for a recession clause. One of our biggest problems in the last 12 months has been that as the home market has dipped, imports have continued and have taken an ever-increasing share of the home market. There has, therefore, been a reduction in the number of jobs. We need a clause to regulate the growth in the level of exports so that when they reach a certain level the growth factor is set aside or existing levels are re-
  1700
  duced, depending on the state of the home market.
  Secondly, we believe that there should be a quota, so that when imports of particular products reach a certain level they can be cut off. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about imports from China.
  Thirdly, the procedure for dealing with dumping should be improved and speeded up so that complaints can be dealt with quickly before unemployment occurs.
  Fourthly, we want an assurance that an agreement of this kind will continue for at least six years and possibly for 10 years, so that the industry can get on with long-term planning to restore confidence in the industry and so secure investment and make more jobs available.
  The problem in competing with low-cost suppliers is that of comparing like with like. It cannot be said that there is fair competition when we are competing with countries whose workers are wage slaves and where there is no form of free trade unionism or free collective bargaining or any form of social security. We believe that we must attach to these negotiations a social clause which will ensure, through an international inspectorate, that the conditions of these workers are improved in such a way as to raise their wage levels so that British workers are able to compete on a fair basis. Unless this happens Government spokesmen will have to make constant appearances in this House to discuss closures similar to that at Skelmersdale We know that 40 per cent, of the labour force at Nelson and Colne and Rochdale is involved in the textile industry—in my constituency the figure is 25 per cent.— and a further 35 per cent, of the work force is concerned with footwear. This Government have the fate of those workers in their hands. We demand that the situation at Skelmersdale must not be repeated.
  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: We congratulate the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on affording us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I speak on behalf of a significant number of workers in Northern Ireland who are affected by the Courtaulds closures.

  1701
  Since the announcement of the closure of the Carnmoney factory in my constituency, I have kept in close touch with the management and with the work force, and I know that those concerned have acted in a responsible manner. The workers have recognised that there is a degree of inevitability about what has happened to their factory. Although those workers have undergone a painful experience in an area of high unemployment, they are not despondent and are determined to switch their skills to other openings that may be available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has an even bigger stake in this subject than I have, because he has a number of large Courtaulds undertakings in his constituency. I know that he shares my concern and the concern expressed by Labour Members about the future of the company.
  I pay tribute to the company for all it has done in Northern Ireland. As a major undertaking it has breathed new life into the industrial scene of Northern Ireland. We regret this temporary setback, but we recognise that it has occurred through no negligence on the part of the Government, and certainly through no ill will against Northern Ireland. It has happened simply as a result of the economic facts of life.
  I assure the House that we on these Benches will co-operate with the company and with Her Majesty's Government. I wish to place on record our appreciation of the work undertaken by the Undersecretary of State for Northern Ireland with his responsibilities for commerce, and also to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland office. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman present for this debate which will have its effects in a Northern Ireland context.
  We want to express to the Minister of State the appreciation of all concerned in the man-made fibre industry for the work done by his Department. He will not mind my saying that the Department of Commerce's contribution and intimate grasp of company affairs is unmatched by any Department on this side of the water. That is no criticism of those Departments, but it illustrates the value which is placed on decentralised Government structures in Northern Ireland. I think the Minister of State will agree that,
  1702
  had not the Department of Commerce machinery been available, his task of helping Northern Ireland companies who were in difficulty would have been very much greater. I want to place on record the appreciation of my hon. Friends for all that the Government have done, particularly in this case.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. James Lamond: I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on the way in which he presented his case. It was a fine example of an honourable Member standing up for his constituents. This is not the first time he has done this. Our minds go back to the unfortunate closure of the Thorn factory in Skelmersdale, when my hon. Friend put up a really magnificent fight. He has used every possible parliamentary opportunity to draw attention to the Courtaulds problem. He made a good case and explained the difficulties in his constituency, but he also widened the debate to include North-West England's textile industry. I am grateful to him for that.
  There have been many meetings between trade unionists and the Chairman of Courtaulds and between the Government and the Chairman. There was an excellent meeting in the House of the All-Party Textile Group. Sir Arthur Knight was kind enough to attend—I say this with due respect, because he had no need to come—and answer questions from hon. Members with constituency interests. Sir Arthur understood that when Courtaulds—which has more than 300 centres of employment in this country—has difficulties, repercussions are felt beyond North-West England.
  At the meeting of Oldham Metropolitan Council's Industrial Development Committee last week, a report was submitted which showed that although there were to be no direct closures in the Greater Oldham area, a cold fear gripped the hearts of my constituents, because there are Courtauld plants in the town.
  The inquiry, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince has correctly called should, if possible, include some reassurance about the future to employees at other Courtaulds plants.
  Courtaulds, like other firms in the textile industry, has been making massive investment over the last few years. The

  1703
  industry has moved from being labour-intensive at the beginning of the century to its position today as the second most capital-intensive industry in this country after the chemical industry.
  It is an example of the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince made about investment not necessarily creating jobs, that during this period of massive investment the number of textile jobs in the North-West has fallen to one-tenth of the level of 50 years ago. Nine out of 10 jobs have disappeared. I doubt very much whether there is another industry with such a record, but I am not wholly despondent about it.
  One of the things that I like about my constituency is that, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), it is not as dependent on textiles as it once was. The industry is much more diversified, and therefore, in my opinion, employment is much stronger than in an area which depends on one industry.
  Coming from Scotland as I do, I can think of many towns which at one time had only one industry. I remember the jute industry in Dundee before the war—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Mr. Lamond: It used to be said that Dundee was entirely dependent on jute, jam and journalism. The result was that unemployment in Dundee was at a very high level. Dundee was given aid even before the war for this reason. The idea is not new.
  When Sir Arthur Knight appeared before the committee I thought that he answered the questions put to him in a straightforward and reasonable manner, from the standpoint of someone operating in the market place. Courtaulds, of course, does not take into account the social consequences of closures of this kind. It takes into consideration the losses that have been made in the factory, the possibility of turning them into profit, and so on. I do not blame it for this.
  1704
  I accept that it works in that atmosphere.
  The Government have been trying to inject into the thinking of employers in this country the idea of taking social consequences into account. Based on that concept, the Government have developed a strategy for the regions. Obviously, when we see this sort of unemployment figure in new towns, the strategy has not been working. It is bad enough in areas on Merseyside, where there is an unplanned development of industry. But where it is supposed to be planned, where an area has every advantage that the Government can think of to enable it to develop in a correct way, and still there are closures, the Government must realise that it is time for a radical examination of their development area policy, and perhaps a reorganisation of grants, and so on.
  The present policy is a very blunt instrument. I do not want to be disloyal to my own home town—Aberdeen—which is very dear to my heart. I yield to no one in my admiration for that city, but for seven years it has enjoyed full development area status, while having unemployment of under 2 per cent. Dozens, if not hundreds, of firms have flooded into the area, drawn there by the market forces, yet it has persisted in retaining development area status.
  When I went to Oldham as a Member it had no development area status. I pay tribute to the Tory Party for making the area an intermediate development area and for recognising the needs of the North-West.
  I think that this inquiry is needed and that it should be as wide as possible. I recognise that it cannot possibly encompass an examination of the Government's entire development area policy, but that aspect also should be borne in mind by the members of Government when they are thinking about the problem.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I from the Conservative side congratulate the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on raising this vital subject in the House this evening. He has done the House a service, and I hope that some of what has been said in the debate will be taken on board by the Ministers.

  1705
  I am delighted that so many leading Government Ministers have been on the Treasury Bench tonight.
  I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), because he is chairman of the all-party textile group of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman. I think that all parties in the House, through this Committee, have made the strongest recommendation to the Government to persuade them to appreciate the position and the difficulties facing the textile industry at this time.
  It is unnecessary for me to pursue that particular matter further tonight, although inevitably the Courtaulds situation and the closure of some of their textile plants is very closely involved in the problems of the textile industry, which is facing unfair competition from the Third World and from the Comecon countries. Skelmersdale, however, is rather a different case.
  From the Opposition Benches, I wish to support the request by the hon. Member for Ince for an inquiry. Although an inquiry may be considered by the Minister to be unnecessary, I take the opposite view, because it may bring to the attention of the Government—especially that of the Departments of Industry and Trade—the unique problems being faced by the textile industries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) put forward some powerful arguments. I am sorry that he spoiled the effect of his speech by unnecessarily attacking Courtaulds for what he described as "an abuse" of the grant situation. I do not believe that Courtaulds has abused the grant situation. It went to Skelmersdale, as it has gone to other development areas, in good faith to try to provide much-needed employment. However, the company has encountered insurmountable problems which, after a number of years, have led it to take this very unfortunate decision to close the plant.
  Mr. Noble: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the legitimate use of public funds through development area grants and so on in circumstances where companies are not accountable may not perhaps be an abuse but can lead to diffi-
  1706
  culties of the kind that we see at Skelmersdale?
  Mr. Winterton: I think that a large public company such as Courtaulds is particularly accountable to the Government, to the public and to its own employees.
  I represent a constituency which has important textile industries. In recent times, Courtaulds has closed two mills in my constituency—the Clarence mill and the Adelphi mill, both in Bollington. Those two mills have provided employment in the village and in my constituency around it for many decades. The company took the decision reluctantly and it tried very hard to provide alternative work in those mills before finally closing them. Unfortunately, it was unable to do so.
  I believe that Courtaulds has acted in good faith. I took on board the point which Sir Arthur Knight made with considerable emphasis when he talked to the all-party committee that, by closing these plants, the company was safeguarding the employment of its other 110,000 employees. We must not overlook that vital fact. It would be stupid for Courtaulds to go on pouring money—whether it be Government money provided by the taxpayer or out of company profits—into a plant making huge losses year after year. I think that I quote Sir Arthur Knight correctly when I say that in the last accounting period—I forget whether it was a nine-month or a 12-month period—the plant at Skelmersdale lost almost £900,000. That is a great deal of money.
  An inquiry can be useful to the textile industry. It can also be useful to the hon. Member for Ince and to all his constituents whom he represents so well in this House.
  In addition to looking at the particular problems of the textile industry, I hope that the Minister will consider what help the EEC regional fund can provide to an area which is facing unique problems because of the closure of two very important industrial plants, with the dire results that it brings to the people of a new town area such as Skelmersdale.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I wish to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Maguire). I attended a meeting in

  1707
  Liverpool on Friday at which some of his constituents were present, and I know that he reflects the very strong feelings of those workers about the need for a public inquiry.
  My hon. Friend was right to raise the problems that the closure of Courtaulds represents for Skelmersdale. What is more, in the wider context of the argument, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) was right to analyse many of the problems and to project some of the solutions for the textile industry as a whole.
  One of the serious points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince was about the very nature of Skelmersdale. It is just a segment of the whole problem which exists in that part of the country. The people of Skelmersdale virtually were sent from Liverpool to this overspill area in anticipation of finding new homes and new employment opportunities for a considerable time to come. They were moving away from an area of persistently high unemployment into a new town which offered all the possibilities of security of employment and a better environment.
  This was all part of the grand scheme of depopulating the city of Liverpool in a way which has been going on every since. To the people of Skelmersdale, this planners' dream of ending commuting between that part of Lancashire and Merseyside has ended in a nightmare. Now they are virtually imprisoned in the area with only limited employment opportunities.
  The Government should consider the questions raised on a number of occasions about the indivisible problems associated with the depopulation of city centres and the development of new towns. The solution to one will bring the solution to the other. The Front Bench Ministers who are here tonight are well aware of the problems, not only in the context of Skelmersdale but in the context of Merseyside generally. They know about the declining nature of industry in the whole area, and they have given considerable attention to these difficulties.
  However, we want to see firm action on these problems. We believe that one of the first things which should be done
  1708
  about Skelmersdale is the establishment of a public inquiry to examine the correctness or otherwise of Government policy in relation to the provision of finance to industry. While it is quite right that reference should be made primarily to the loss of the Skelmersdale factory, there has been silence on the question of the general profitability of Courtaulds. I am not arguing that green pastures should develop overnight, but [ do want to see a firm commitment that these people, who went to Skelmersdale in good faith, will be treated decently. Opportunities for employment should be retained in the area so that it does not continue on the present downward spiral.
  10.14 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on getting this matter debated. It is an issue of great concern to hon. Members in all parts of this House. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the moving and clear way in which he pressed the case on behalf of his constituents and those of other hon. Members affected by closures in other factories.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will understand if I do not deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. However, I am sure that the Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office was very glad to hear his comments about the work of the Department of Commerce, and the role which Courtaulds play generally in Northern Ireland.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, has been sitting at my shoulder during the debate—muttering in my ear in a quite rebellious manner. I must remember to have a word with the Whips on Monday. Of course, he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, within hours of the announcement being made, had come to me about the closure and its impact and about what should be done further for constituents.
  I hope that the company will realise that although we shall have had nearly one and a half hours for this Adjournment debate, whereas the normal time is 30 minutes, the only thing limiting it to the one and a half hours is the procedure

  1709
  of the House and the fact that we cannot go beyond 10.30 p.m. I hope that the company will take this as a measure of the strength and depth of feeling that exists in the House and the disquiet here over the effect of these closures.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince said that it came as a shock to him when he heard the announcement. Equally, it came as a shock to the Government. We shared the disappointment that he and other hon. Members have expressed at the fact that only the minimum notice of 90 days was given of the intended closure. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, if ever there were a vindication of the Government's Employment Protection Act, it was this. One wonders how little the notice might otherwise have been, as the company clearly intended to give only that notice which legally it was required to give.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and other members of the Government have asked the company to consider extending the 90-day period, but as yet the company has made no positive response to this request. The Government have anticipated the points that hon. Members have made, and we have certainly impressed upon the company the points that hon. Members have wanted to put tonight. I shall see that these are reiterated to the company in the light of this debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince expressed concern about the future of Harwood Hosiery, another Courtaulds unit in his constituency. As he was, I am sure, expressing the disquiet of many of his constituents, I think that it would be appropriate, although it is not strictly on the actual Skelmersdale factory issue, if I give certain reassurances.
  We have been in touch with Courtaulds about Harwood Hosiery because of the rumours that have been circulating. According to Courtaulds, it is quite common for there to be short-time working just before Christmas in this particular sector of the industry, and this year Courtaulds will be introducing some short-time working in all their United Kingdom hosiery plants except for the two under notice of closure. This will not involve closure but will be done by cutting out the odd shift, perhaps, or extending the Christmas holiday. Short-time working will extend from 25th
  1710
  November to 1st January. Normal working should resume after that date.
  I am sorry that I kept fairly closely to the words with which I have been supplied, but knowing the extent of the concern there must be in Skelmersdale about the possibility of even further closures, I hope that I have gone some way towards alleviating the worries that my hon. Friend has expressed. Indeed, Courtaulds actually denied absolutely that it had any plans to close Harwood Hosiery. I hope that that is some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
  As to statistics, while we recognise the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), is representing—I shall not go into these in detail now because so many issues have been raised on which I want to touch—I would only say that in a sense my hon. Friend has a point, because of the differences between the travel-to-work area and the geographical size of Skelmersdale. On the other hand, this does not mean that the Government, in assessing the needs of an area, are not fully conscious of the situation even within its travel-to-work area. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Employment will probably contact my hon. Friend further about that matter.
  There have been comments about the paradox of capital-intensive industry—that the more money one puts in, the fewer jobs there are. Equally, however, if money is not put in, at the end of the day there are no jobs. It is a great tribute to the industry that the industrial relations over this period of capital restructuring have been incredibly good because workers and employers have recognised that it is in their interests to be among the most efficient and effective in the world. So although it is a paradox, we should be making a terrible error if we took the naive solution of saying that all capital investment is bad because fewer people in the end get jobs.
  Mr. Noble: Would my right hon. Friend accept that unless something is done soon about imports, capital investment will stop anyway due to lack of confidence?
  Mr. Williams: I am trying to work my way through the points raised. My hon. Friend certainly raised this matter clearly, as did my hon. Friend the

  1711
  Member for Ince and two other hon. Members when they met the Prime Minister and myself only last week to discuss the problems of textiles in the north-west end of Skelmersdale.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of Leyland Motors and the components factory. He referred to it also when he met the Prime Minister and myself. I have checked on this. There does not appear to be any plan for a new components factory. There is a project in relation to the bus and truck division which it is envisaged will be at Leyland, near Preston. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about that—if that is what he has in mind—he and I can have a word about it. I shall probably see him on Monday afternoon when he comes with another deputation.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend has touched on a difficult problem. St. Helens has one of these Leyland bus depots in my constituency. There is some development in this direction. I hope that he will not go ahead with any horse trading.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend should not jump to conclusions. All that I was doing was explaining that there was no project such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince had mentioned. I said that the only project of which I was aware was this project—
  Mr. Spriggs: I am watching you.
  Mr. Williams: I did not say that I intended to raid my hon. Friend's constituency to see how much employment I could snaffle from his area. I am sure that his constituents will be very pleased that, literally within seconds of anyone mentioning his locality, he is on his feet to defend it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince also referred to the need for skillcentres. My Department and the Department of Employment have discussed this. Again, I am speaking to another Department's brief—and a very good one it is—but my understanding is that the Training Services Agency recently carried out a review of the training needs of Skelmersdale and at that stage concluded that they were met by the skillcentres at Liverpool, St. Helens and Kirkby.
  1712
  But—it is an important "but"—approaches were made by the Merseyside Training Council and the Merseyside Development Corporation, as a result of which, and the representations made by my hon. Friend, the TSA is now urgently considering whether some additional training facilities can be provided in Skelmersdale itself. So the question has been reopened and I am sure that we all hope that the outcome will be satisfactory for my hon. Friend.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the need for an inquiry. I am sure that all Ministers who are present—an unusual range of Ministers for an Adjournment debate have been present tonight—will acknowledge the point made. The Government have said that they are willing to consider an inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment told me while he was on the Front Bench that he has himself already had certain discussions with some of the relevant union leaders. We undertook that the relevant unions would be consulted before an inquiry is set up. I hope that the Government decision on whether to have an inquiry will be announced soon. I shall convey to my colleagues the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling on this matter. I am sure that it would clear the air and lead to positive results.
  Hon. Members referred to the Courtaulds new factory at the Belmont. The company say that the equipment at the Belmont factory is for the manufacture of different fabrics from those produced at the Skelmersdale factory. The Belmont factory is not yet being used. Government funds were available along with the normal regional facilities. The company received regional development grants which, as hon. Members know, are virtually automatic. But, because we have been unable to get any assurance from the firm on a date for opening the plant, the company was asked on 1st November for repayment of the regional development grant.
  I trust that hon. Members who asked for scrutiny will accept that as evidence that the Government do scrutinise the use of funds. It is normal practice to ask for a refund if money is not used as originally anticipated or if the project

  1713
  does not reach fulfilment. The Government monitor the grants against the purpose for which they were allocated and they are therefore subject to accountability. In fairness to Courtaulds which has been heavily criticised this evening, I must say that it will be investing about £70 million in this country this year. It is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions about the firm's motives but it is still a major investor in this country and therefore in its economic future.
  I took up the issue of bringing forward the hospital project with the relevant department. I understand that the matter was raised as recently as August with the Department of Health and Social Security and considered sympathetically. Correspondence was copied to the North-West Regional Health Authority and the Lancashire Area Health Authority. I am advised that in the light of the current review of provisions for the Ormskirk district it is likely that the existing Ormskirk hospital will be developed as
  1714
  the district general hospital and that a community hospital will be provided at Skelmersdale.
  The plans are still at the investigatory stage and, in view of the current financial situation, it is difficult to give a firm assurance about a starting date. However, my hon. Friend's views were put to the Prime Minister, who has drawn them to the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services who will ensure that the North-West Regional Health Authority is made aware of the situation.
  I am sorry that we have not been able to cover all the issues in the debate, but I shall be pleased to meet hon. Members to discuss these matters in detail. I shall be meeting a deputation on Monday and perhaps we can have further discussions then.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Squatting
  Squatting
  Imprisonment
  Imprisonment
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Judges' Rules
  Judges' Rules
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Mr. J. J. Thorsen
  Mr. J. J. Thorsen
  Clergy (Parliamentary Membership)
  Clergy (Parliamentary Membership)
  Prison Officers' Widows
  Prison Officers' Widows
  Bedfordshire Police
  Bedfordshire Police
  House-to-house Collections
  House-to-house Collections
  Mr. Tongsun Park
  Mr. Tongsun Park
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Animal Quarantine
  Animal Quarantine
  Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Kerswell
  Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Kerswell
  Identification Procedures
  Identification Procedures
  Ballot Papers
  Ballot Papers
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Chileans
  Chileans
  Breathalysers
  Breathalysers
  Firemen (Health Hazards)
  Firemen (Health Hazards)
  Toxic Fumes Protection
  Toxic Fumes Protection
  Police (Resignations)
  Police (Resignations)
  Electoral Expenses
  Electoral Expenses
  Police (Rent Allowances)
  Police (Rent Allowances)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  WALES TUC
  WALES TUC
  WORKINGTON
  WORKINGTON
  LLANERCHYMEDD
  LLANERCHYMEDD
  SCHOOL LEAVERS
  SCHOOL LEAVERS
  CABINET PAPERS (INQUIRY)
  CABINET PAPERS (INQUIRY)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (REMANDS)
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (REMANDS)
  FINCHLEY
  FINCHLEY
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  STRETFORD
  STRETFORD
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  EDINBURGH
  EDINBURGH
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  CABINET COMMITTEES
  CABINET COMMITTEES
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle (Identification Marking)
  Cattle (Identification Marking)
  Fishing (Irish Sea)
  Fishing (Irish Sea)
  Holy Island (Jetty)
  Holy Island (Jetty)
  Butter, Cheese and Milk
  Butter, Cheese and Milk
  European Community (Surplus Food Stocks)
  European Community (Surplus Food Stocks)
  Milk
  Milk
  Potatoes (Imports)
  Potatoes (Imports)
  Milk Powder (Intervention Stocks)
  Milk Powder (Intervention Stocks)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Pig Herd
  Pig Herd
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank Lending
  Bank Lending
  Sterling (Remittances to Asian Countries)
  Sterling (Remittances to Asian Countries)
  Social Security Benefits (European Community Countries)
  Social Security Benefits (European Community Countries)
  Social Security Costs
  Social Security Costs
  Tax Collection
  Tax Collection
  Marine Pilots (Pensions Contributions)
  Marine Pilots (Pensions Contributions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Yields
  Tax Yields
  Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Speech)
  Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Speech)
  Road Fund Licence Duty (Western Isles)
  Road Fund Licence Duty (Western Isles)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Overseas Borrowings (Nationalised Industries)
  Overseas Borrowings (Nationalised Industries)
  Assets (Acquisition)
  Assets (Acquisition)
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Consumer Expenditure
  Consumer Expenditure
  Raw Materials (Costs)
  Raw Materials (Costs)
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Economic Prospects
  Economic Prospects
  Overseas Debt
  Overseas Debt
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Unemployment (Lost Revenue)
  Unemployment (Lost Revenue)
  Travel-to-Work Fares
  Travel-to-Work Fares
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Circulars
  Government Circulars
  LEGAL AID (DIVORCE CASES)
  LEGAL AID (DIVORCE CASES)
DEFENCE
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Overseas Students (English Language Tests)
  Overseas Students (English Language Tests)
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Conference (British Delegation)
  Water Conference (British Delegation)
  Water Companies
  Water Companies
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Water Resources
  Water Resources
TRANSPORT
  Railways Board (Purchasing Policy)
  Railways Board (Purchasing Policy)
  Bedford-St. Pancras Railway Line
  Bedford-St. Pancras Railway Line
  Railways (Expenditure)
  Railways (Expenditure)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
  Gatley (Crossroads)
  Gatley (Crossroads)
  Railway Fares
  Railway Fares
  Pigeons (Carriage)
  Pigeons (Carriage)
  Car Registration (Cherished Numbers)
  Car Registration (Cherished Numbers)
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Office of Science and Technical Information
  Office of Science and Technical Information
  Departmental Surveys
  Departmental Surveys
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Student Grants and Accommodation and Catering Deficits
  Student Grants and Accommodation and Catering Deficits
  Students (Income and Expenditure)
  Students (Income and Expenditure)
TRADE
  MV "Halcyon Isle" (Crew's Wages)
  MV "Halcyon Isle" (Crew's Wages)
  Trade Competitiveness
  Trade Competitiveness
  Cotton
  Cotton
  China (Shirts)
  China (Shirts)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Meat Imports
  Meat Imports
  British Airways Board
  British Airways Board
  Beef
  Beef
EMPLOYMENT
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Burton on Trent (Jobcentre)
  Burton on Trent (Jobcentre)
  Wages and Benefits
  Wages and Benefits
  Leek
  Leek
  Unemployed Person
  Unemployed Person
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Pay Policy
  Pay Policy
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Pay Code
  Pay Code
  Safety Representatives
  Safety Representatives
  Industrial Disputes (Pay Settlements)
  Industrial Disputes (Pay Settlements)
  Trico Dispute (Settlement)
  Trico Dispute (Settlement)
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
INDUSTRY
  Steel
  Steel
  Waste Recycling
  Waste Recycling
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Denaby Main
  Denaby Main
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Pumps and Valves
  Pumps and Valves
  Scientific Instruments
  Scientific Instruments
  Plastics
  Plastics
  Rubber
  Rubber
  Office Equipment
  Office Equipment
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Raw Materials
  Raw Materials
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Hire Purchase
  Hire Purchase
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Bread
  Bread
  SOCIAL SERVICES
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Self-Employed Sub-Contractors
  Self-Employed Sub-Contractors
  Benefit Claimants (Holidays)
  Benefit Claimants (Holidays)
  Medical Certificates (Welsh Language)
  Medical Certificates (Welsh Language)
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Fraudulent Claims (Prosecution)
  Fraudulent Claims (Prosecution)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Sickness and Unemployment Benefit
  Sickness and Unemployment Benefit
  Children (Divorced Fathers)
  Children (Divorced Fathers)
  Pay Beds (Debts)
  Pay Beds (Debts)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Pregnancy Tests
  Pregnancy Tests
  Medicines (Warning Labels)
  Medicines (Warning Labels)
  Brain Death
  Brain Death
  Infant and Maternal Mortality
  Infant and Maternal Mortality
  King's Fund (1940)
  King's Fund (1940)
  Michael Parrott
  Michael Parrott
  ENERGY
  Oil Industry (Government Participation)
  Oil Industry (Government Participation)
  Solar Energy
  Solar Energy
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Pipelines
  Pipelines
  Gas Explosion (Hackney)
  Gas Explosion (Hackney)
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  House Building (Londonderry)
  House Building (Londonderry)
  Community Centre, Londonderry
  Community Centre, Londonderry
  Local Government (Expenses Allowances)
  Local Government (Expenses Allowances)
  Mater Hospital, Belfast
  Mater Hospital, Belfast
  Public Expenditure Reductions
  Public Expenditure Reductions
  Public Expenditure (Antrim)
  Public Expenditure (Antrim)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

UNESCO CONFERENCE CONCLUSIONS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the recent meeting of UNESCO, particularly on the issues of State supervision of the Press and the right of Member States to belong to a regional group of their choice.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, these matters are still the subject of debate at the UNESCO General Conference in Nairobi and we shall not have the conclusions until the last days of the Conference, which ends on 30th November.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that two decisions were reached at the meeting: first, that there should be no State control of newspapers; and, secondly, that there should be a reversal of the decision that Israel should be excluded, by being allowed the choice whether or not to join the European Community? Were not Resolutions to that effect carried?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the proposed draft Declaration on the mass media has been referred to a reviewing and drafting committee and we await the result of the review, which I think will be next week. On Israel, the chairman of the Conference is consulting the regional groups and he will be reporting back this week too, and the conclusions will be reached in the following week.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, were not the Resolutions carried in principle?
1458
May I ask the Minister whether it is not greatly significant that the Third World group not only was unaligned from the West but unaligned from the Communist countries on these issues?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we very much welcome that.
Lord JANNER: My Lords may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is a fact that the British representatives have voted to see to it that Israel shall be allowed to do what she is asking, and that the other question raised by my noble friend is also practically certain to be carried? If so, would she convey to the British Government for the position they have taken the thanks of those who, like myself, follow these issues? Can the noble Baroness give any hope at all that the intolerable abuse of this Agency, which exists for the purpose of cultural advancement, shall not continue by certain States or groups of States attempting to introduce improper political issues which have nothing at all to do with the Agency itself?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I think I said last week, Her Majesty's Government very much deplore having Resolutions at UNESCO which should more properly be put to the Security Council. But it is absolutely true, as my noble friend says, that Her Majesty's Government have spoken and voted against all Resolutions directed at Israel in this context. I am afraid I must add that nothing is certain in this wicked world—nothing is certain even in your Lordships' House—and I cannot guarantee that it will be as we wish, but we hope that it will.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, in view of the Resolution referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and purely as a matter of interest, could the noble Baroness tell us whether there is a single member of the third unallied group in which the Press is allowed to criticise its Government?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should think there probably are, but without notice I could not confirm it.

BNOC AND THE TREATY OF ROME
3.11 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the compatibility of the role and proposed operations of the British National Oil Corporation with the Treaty of Rome, in particular with Articles 34, 37 and 90; and whether they intend to discuss these with the EEC Commission in the context of the circumstances likely to exist in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government intend that the role and proposed operations of the BNOC shall be fully consistent with the Treaty of Rome. The Government have not been in touch with the European Commission on the matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Are the Government looking ahead realistically and responsibly? These Articles provide for a ban on restrictions on trade between Members, and also for fair competition, and these are in the interests of the United Kingdom as much as in the interests of any other Member. While the BNOC appears to be being. prepared as a State Corporation, its operations would run counter to these Articles. Have the Government at least sounded the Commission, shortly to have a British President, about this general question?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are of course willing to discuss the matter with the Commission should they wish to do so. The Government are confident that participation is fair to the companies, is in the national interest, and is consistent with our international obligations.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can we take it from that reply that there will be no discrimination as to marketing, which is forbidden by Article 37, and that the BNOC will confirm with the EEC's rules about free competition under Article 90?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government's expectation is that up to two-thirds of United Kingdom continental shelf oil production will be refined in this country. This was stated by the then Secretary of State for Energy in December 1974. The Government are naturally concerned to maintain flexibility in any policy decisions. We do not see this as contravening the Treaty.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING: TANK ARMAMENT
3.14 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Memorandum of Understanding signed in September 1975 by the United States and the United Kingdom will apply to the tank armament trials due to take place between Germany, the USA and the United Kingdom in December.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, the tank armament trials planned for this December are within the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding to which the noble Lord has referred, though they are in practice a further instalment of earlier trilateral tank armament evaluation trials which took place in the first half of 1975, before the Memorandum of Understanding was signed.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister very much for that full Answer, may I ask whether the British invention of Chobham armour will be used in future as a factor in deciding whose armament we shall use, or were the secrets given to our allies in such a way that there were no strings attached?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: That is another question, my Lords, but I will bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend. If the noble Lord would care to put down a Question on the subject, I will try to answer it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may we have an assurance that the information

1461
that is being conveyed to the United States—I mention the United States in particular because they are concerned with the Memorandum mentioned in the Question—is being conveyed on the basis of reciprocity; that is, that secret information of this kind, which is of great importance in terms of military strategy, demands a quid pro quo? Do we understand that?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the armour rather than the weapon. The point is that we have an agreement for the exchange of information with the United States and it is a reciprocal one.
Lord SHINWELL: I want to be sure about that, my Lords. Can my noble friend be more specific? We are giving information of considerable strategic importance to the United States. That country is in possession of very modern weapon devices. Can we be assured that we are provided with information about those?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: In so far as that is outside the scope of this Question, yes, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it was right inside the Question, I should have thought.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
3.16 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is shortly to make a Statement regarding the fees payable by overseas students, revising the proposals made on 5th July last, and if so whether she will, before making such a Statement, take into consideration the views of the representatives in London of the overseas countries concerned.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): Yes,
1462
my Lords, it is true that my right honourable friend hopes to make a Statement shortly on the fees recommended for home and overseas students in 1977–78, in the light of the consultations which have followed her predecessor's statement of 5th July in another place. The noble Lord will not expect me to anticipate the substance of that Statement. My right honourable friend has already received through various channels a wide range of views from representatives of overseas countries in London, and she will of course weigh these against the many other considerations which have to be taken into account in reaching a decision.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I nevertheless inquire whether the Government do not take the view that any substantial increase over and above to increase suggested the other day, which was substantial enough, would not only have a deplorable effect on our relations with many of the poorer countries, who are considerable friends of ours, but would also deprive us of a much-needed source of foreign exchange?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the answer the question which the noble Lord just asked will doubtless be included in the Statement which my right honourable friend will make. I repeat that he will not expect me to anticipate that Statement; if he does, I am afraid he will be disappointed.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, having regard to the difficulty in which overseas students are necessarily placed by not knowing what their financial future will be in the current year, may I ask the noble Lord to say how soon "shortly" is likely to be?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord is that I cannot give a date, but I can say that the consultations are in their last stages.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, further to my noble friend's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, may I ask whether he is aware that some of us believe that the scientific, political and engineering education that has been given to students of all races from overseas and from places of

1463
every kind has been one of Britain's great assets overseas, in that money spent in this way is money well spent for the future of Britain?
Lord ROBBINS: And for the world, my Lords.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I in no way differ from that. I would only point out that quite a lot of money is being spent in this way.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the previous Statement about an increase in fees, may I as, the Minister whether there has been a fall in the number of applications from students?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, there was a fear that the number of applications from home students might fall, but as I am not fully briefed on the matter I had better write to the noble Baroness about it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in considering this matter, would the Government bear in mind that a number of these overseas students, when they return to their countries, have high influence both politically and economically, and that it is very desirable that their good will should be maintained?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, of course this is one of the things that is taken into consideration in the very difficult decisions which the predecessor of my right honourable friend and my right honourable friend herself are having to make.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
3.21 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Health Services Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 13. [Authorisations to construct or extend controlled premises]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 16, line 11, at end insert—
("(5) With the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) an applicant may at any time transfer an authorisation to another person.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am moving the Amendment as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull is unfortunately unable to be present this afternoon. I do not think that there is anything further that I need say about the points raised in debate last night. The essential point is that when a planning application is before a local authority planning committee, the merits of the case shall be entirely decided for planning reasons and that no other outside points shall be raised.
In this case, the point is that the authorisation from the Board that has been given to one particular person should be able to be transferred to another person, because there would be a number of cases when another person might be taking on the building company or whatever it was. It would be very difficult for such a person to apply to the Board for authorisation when authorisation had already been received. Of course, it would also be much less efficient. I believe that it would be very helpful to hear what the noble Baroness has to say in answer to the points that were raised in the debate rather late last night. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, when we discussed the Amendment yesterday, I thought that the noble Earl was satisfied with the reply that I gave him. I am therefore a little unsure what is now troubling noble Lords opposite about the issue. It might perhaps be helpful to your Lordships if I repeat the remarks that I made yesterday.

1465
When we were discussing the Bill earlier at the Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked whether it would be possible for a developer, having been granted an authorisation, to sell his company and, by that means, transfer the authorisation among the assets of the company. I said then that I thought this would be possible and I wanted to take the opportunity yesterday evening to confirm what I had said. I realise that this could be used purely as a device for transferring authorisations, but I submit that it would be a rather cumbrous procedure for a developer to adopt. The Board, as I said in Committee, would have no reason to refuse to transfer an authorisation in respect of the same development if none of the circumstances had changed.
I should also remind noble Lords that, if an authorisation is part of the assets of a company and passed with that company's assets to a new owner, it would remain subject to the terms on which it was originally issued, which could include a time limit after which the authorisation would expire if the controlled development in question had not begun. It would then be up to a new developer to reapply for authorisation to build in the way that had been agreed earlier on.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I do not want to go on at length about the difficulty of not having a print of Hansard after 10 o'clock last night so that we have not had an opportunity to read what the noble Baroness said, but I am grateful for the trouble that she has taken. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 2:
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 Baroness said: My Lords, here again, the point that was raised was that when the Board gives an authorisation for the building of a private hospital the authorisation shall run for not less than three years. Again, this is a matter that was debated last night and it would
1466
bring the provision more in line with common planning procedure, where an approved planning application does not lapse until five years have passed. I believe that it is important that there should be some time limit in the Bill so that when somebody receives an authorisation from the Board he knows that it cannot be revoked within a given period of time. Again, if the noble Baroness has anything further that she can say on the point I should be glad to hear it. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have, as promised, looked again at this Amendment and I am still certain that the matter cannot be dealt with appropriately in Statute. Accordingly, I give this firm assurance to the noble Baroness. We will draw this debate and the concern of noble Lords to the attention of the Board once it is set up. I am certain that the Board will take account of it and it will, I expect, want to have discussions with those concerned in the private sector before coming to a decision on their procedure and on the manner of setting the conditions on which the authorisations are issued. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied and will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, this is a fundamental change from normal procedure. I accept absolutely what the noble Baroness has just said in offering to draw the attention of the Board to what had been said. But I do not think that it has been the practice in the past—nor ought it to have been, nor ought it to be the practice in the future—for the words in the Bill to be disregarded as a result of having substituted for them what has been said in this House by way of unauthorised exchanges in debate. I feel that this is a matter that ought to have been included in the Bill. I believe that it ought to have statutory weight behind it. I do not think it right that any Board or planning authority or anybody who administers the Acts that we have passed in this House should have to take into account what is said across the Floor of the House.
While I know that the noble Baroness has said what she said in good faith, I doubt whether it would be a good thing,

1467
or even whether it would be accepted, that the mere indication of what has been said in this House alters the meaning of the words in the Act itself. I should have thought that, in order to give some sort of confidence to people to do things which we clearly want them to do, they ought to be certain that they have a three-year certainty irrespective of what they do.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, of course I am not satisfied with the reply of the noble Baroness because, like my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I think that this matter ought to be written into the Bill. However, I appreciate the trouble that the noble Baroness has taken over this. I believe that it is a very important matter and I hope that, if, as I imagine they will, the Government issue a circular explaining the Bill, they will indicate these various planning points to the Board on general lines. All that is being asked is that the Board should bring itself into line with what is common practice and is, indeed, the law governing planning applications. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Planning permission for works requiring authorisation]:
3.29 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 3:
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 Baroness said: My Lords, of all the three Amendments concerned with planning, this, in my view, is the most important because it is essential to get the assurance that the matters that will concern the planning committee when a planning application for a private hospital is made will be only those that are rightfully the concern of a planning committee and not other matters that could be extraneous to that. There have been most unfortunate cases in which an application to build a private hospital has been refused by a planning authority for a variety of
1468
reasons, one of which was that the people on the committee did not like private medicine.
Whatever one's view about that, this is not a planning consideration and it ought not to be allowed to be a planning consideration in law, not simply because it affects this Bill but because, once it could ever be thought that planning committees were concerning themselves with matters outside the rightful concern of the planning authorities, the country would get itself into very great difficulties and planning applications would be subject to the prejudices of committees up and down the country. The matter is therefore wider than this Bill, and it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could give us any further assurances since we last debated the matter, because I think that the Government appreciate this point just as we do on this side of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as promised we have given further consideration to this Amendment this morning. The effect of the Amendment would be to state in the Bill that the fact of an authorisation having been given for a project ought to be conclusive when the planning authority considers the planning application for that project with respect to the matters in Clause 13(2) and (3). These are: whether or not the project would cause detriment to the National Health Service by virtue of the amount of its accommodation; the facilities which it will provide; and the staff which it will require. With the greatest respect, the Amendment is completely unnecessary. The planning authority must have regard only to planning considerations, and planning considerations most definitely do not include questions about detriment to the National Health Service or disadvantage to National Health Service patients. They would be going outside the scope of the matters to which the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 requires them to have regard if they took any account at all of the matters dealt with in Clause 13(2) and (3).
Indeed, to my certain knowledge the Secretary of State for the Environment has reversed the decision of a planning authority that planning permission should be refused for a private hospital because in its view there was over-provision of

1469
hospital accommodation in its area. On appeal my Secretary of State took the view that in refusing the permission the authority was exceeding its powers. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful to have that statement on the record. Can the noble Baroness say to which authority this applied?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my understanding is that it was Westminster.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Although I should have preferred to have had this written into the Bill, nevertheless it is useful to have it on the record, and I hope that on this matter it will be taken by planning authorities as guidance. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Schedule 1, page 25, line 9, at end insert ("who holds or has held high judicial office")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have reflected on this matter and I do not wish to move this Amendment.
3.34 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not believe that anybody who has taken part in the proceedings on the Bill over the past fortnight, and who has considered all the very many detailed matters that have been raised, can fail to realise that a Bill which is entitled the Health Services Bill in fact has nothing to do with patients at all, either patients in the National Health Service or private patients. So far as I can see, it has very little to do with medicine. As we have now discovered it is a narrow minded document, the result of the Government's promise to the doctors to legislate on what have come to be called the Goodman Proposals, and the guarantee of legislation was given in return for a
1470
promise from the doctors that they would stop working to contract.
It is a narrow Bill, and we have been constantly told by both the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the Government are implementing the Goodman Proposals; and they have appeared like a religious tract from which no one can move at all, and in which every single word must be enacted, and indeed was enacted, precisely as the document was drawn up. It is a Bill with a sting in its tail. Part III is outside the Goodman Proposals; it is outside the Government Manifesto; and it is outside what was written into the Queen's Speech. I shall comment on that later, but it is I think a very unpleasant Part of the Bill, with sinister overtones.
Therefore, it is not surprising that we have had what has seemed to myself and my colleagues to be rather a curious stand on the Bill by the Government. With the notable exception of the Amendment on the question of right of appeal, moved by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for which we are very grateful, there have been no Amendments from the Government at all. Allowing for that one notable and very good exception, the Government clearly believe that they have produced a perfect Bill. At times we have been criticised for putting down Amendments to the Bill, yet surely the principal function of the House of Lords is to amend legislation. It has a particular function in this case, as when this Bill was being debated in another place there were tied votes on 52 occasions in Standing Committee, the Bill was guillotined at the Report stage, and proceedings from this House will be guillotined when they return for consideration in the House of Commons.
This Bill is, in truth, a Government Bill. With the notable exception of the time when it was debated on Second Reading in another place, the only times it has been debated in either House of Parliament have been in your Lordships' House at the Committee stage, at the Report stage, and at the two other stages—the Second Reading and the Third Reading. It seems to me that if we have fulfilled no other function we have given an opportunity for some detailed discussion on many of the very important points that will arise.
I speak this afternoon conscious that

1471
almost everything we have said will be guillotined without discussion in another place. I am tempted to feel that perhaps I should just state our principles without giving our reasons. But, unlike the Health Services Board, I am not somebody suitably independent, suitably well qualified, whose word can be taken as law and as perfection, and somebody for whom there is no reason at all why reasons for our Amendments should be given. I am inclined to think that if one is making a case one should give one's reasons and then ask others to comment upon them having seen the way that one's thought is going. This will not be open to the Health Services Board, which of course will not be required to give its reasons. But then, as the Government have told us, the members of the Board will be very exceptional people.
However, even if I am only one of those curious, what might be called hybrid Members of your Lordships' House—a Life Peer—not of course of the excellence of the members of the Board, I should like to give the reasons for the Amendments that we have put down and which we think are at least worthy of consideration by another place. There are five of them. None of them goes against the principle of the Bill, but all of them are designed to help patients in hospital. I would single out as the first and most important of those the fact that the first 1,000 beds to be phased out ought to be given over to National Health Service patients. It seems to me incredible that a Bill, the purpose of which was to shorten the National Health Service queue, to improve the lot of National Health Service patients, and for which therefore 1,000 beds in the private sector in National Health Service hospitals are to be phased out, is not at the same time to require that those beds should be used by National Health Service patients. The accommodation arising from phasing out those beds could be used for offices; it could be used for a whole variety of reasons. That is why the Government will not accept this. But it is not true for them to say that it is going to shorten the queue in any way, if the beds are not to be used for patients.
The second Amendment, to which we would attach great importance, relates to the question of medical confidentiality.
1472
I know that there have been great discussions on Clause 6, as to whether or not there should be common waiting lists between patients in the National Health Service and private patients. Personally, I am very happy to abide by the decision that there should be a common waiting list, and I would never quarrel with that. But I think it is essential that the fundamental belief of doctors in the confidentiality of medical information between a doctor and his patient should be kept, and it is very difficult to see how this will be done under the Bill. Furthermore, we believe that patients ought to be given the maximum freedom, whether they are in the National Health Service or outside, to have a consultant of their choice: whether this involves a Roman Catholic patient and a Roman Catholic consultant, a woman patient who would like a woman consultant, or a Pakistani patient who would like a Pakistani consultant. I cannot see that that goes against the principle of the Bill, or does anything other than provoke the kind of thing that most people would like but unfortunately are not always able to achieve.
There are two other points about the staff. I believe that one ought to consider the needs of the staff in the best and widest meaning, both those who work in any of the ancillary services of the hospitals and the consultants. I find it quite extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can say that there will be no detriment to anybody, nobody will lose their jobs, nobody will be worse off as a result of this reorganisation. It is stretching belief too far to think that we can accept that statement at its face value. It is even more disturbing that the letter he wrote to me on the subject is not the same as the statement made by his honourable friend Dr. David Owen in another place, and it is very difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the Government are not very concerned about this point. As far as the consultants are concerned, it is no use saying that a part-time consultant can automatically become a full-time consultant in the National Health Service following upon this Bill if, when he wishes to do so, there is no job for a full-time consultant and the Area Health Authority has not the money to pay a full-time consultant. He will inevitably suffer financial detriment and this will be one of the consequences of this Bill.

1473
Part III was not in the Manifesto, and in our view it sets a dangerous precedent. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said during the Report stage; Why have a limit on private hospitals? Why should it be necessary to authorise certain numbers of beds? If there is a demand, why should it not be met? The reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was that nothing must be done to damage the National Health Service. What is sinister about this is the implication that the National Health Service standards might fall so that it could be damaged by private practice. If the National Health Service is as good as it is made out to be people should choose it freely rather than something else which would be implied by an enormous expansion of private medicine at whatever the cost of that might be. So it seems to me that the doctors are right to be frightened of this Bill because there is an implied threat to their professional freedom.
The fact that private medicine is ultimately going to be limited, as Part III suggests, would indicate that not only are the doctors right to be frightened but also all those who wish for nothing more than the right to ask for a private room when they are ill. I believe that the number of people who would like that and would choose it is far greater than the very narrow group of people referred to. I think there are hundreds of trade unionists who would subscribe and who would choose to go to their own private hospital and private convalescent homes—and why not? There are a great many people who, of all the things they would wish to spend their money on, would choose to do it on a private room when they are ill.
I once read that a lot of people would not like to share a room when they are well, let alone doing so when they are ill, and I cannot see that there is anything morally wrong in choosing to spend your money in that way. The Bill is not for them; in fact it is not for the sick and distressed, it is the official stamp of the Government on the Goodman Proposals. We indicated at Second Reading that we were opposed to it on principle and I reiterate that now, not because I do not want to see anything done to improve certain things in the Health Service. There are many things
1474
that are wrong with the Health Service and those are the matters to which we should be addressing ourselves, not to creating a medical apartheid which will help neither patients in the National Health Service nor as private patients. That is the ultimate tragedy of this Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, it has always struck me as rather sad that so many of us have to make mistakes in order to learn sense. Children have to be permitted to do unwise things in order to acquire wisdom. It seems to me that the same principle applies to politicians as well, and in this Bill we see that it certainly applies to Governments. I would suggest that nothing illustrates this principle more vividly than this misconceived and misguided measure. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that your Lordships' House has improved the Bill in many respects, though neither she nor I would suggest that what your Lordships have done to the Bill has made it wholly acceptable. Far from it. It seems to me that at a stroke this Bill reverses the principle upon which 30 years of growth in the National Health Service has taken place. I think that takes us back to the beginnings of the Bill and the beginnings of the Health Service by Mr. Bevan in 1946.
Perhaps I could briefly remind your Lordships of what Mr. Bevan said in 1946 at Second Reading. Let us be quite clear: Mr. Bevan held no brief for private practice. In talks I had with him he told me that when the Health Service was functioning effectively, private practice would disappear because there would cease to be a demand for it—and I agree with him. But he decided that it was preferable to allow private practice within the National Health Service rather than have a separate private service developing outside, as a threat and almost in opposition to the Health Service. Lest it should be thought that he did this as a sop in order to induce the profession to come in, one should look at his Second Reading speech in which he made it utterly clear. May I quote his Second Reading speech on 30th April 1946, column 57:
"Specialists in hospitals will be allowed to have fee-paying patients. I know this is criticised and I sympathise with some of the reasons for

1475
the criticism, but we are driven inevitably to this fact, that unless we permit some fee-paying patients in the public hospitals, there will be a rash of nursing homes all over the country."
He went on:
"We want to keep our specialists attached to our hospitals and not send them into nursing homes."—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/46; col. 57.]
He elaborated this point and went further into it in Standing Committee, when he said:
"What he must try to secure, is that the specialist is induced, as far as possible, to spend all his time at the hospital, both for his own sake and for the sake of the patients in the hospital and—in the case of the teaching hospitals—for the sake of the students, and indeed, the whole atmosphere of the hospital. The more he spends his time in the hospital, the better for everyone concerned. I would encourage the specialist to have as much consultation in the hospital as possible. I do not want him to go to his surgery; I want him to be there on the spot and to see the people in the hospital. It would be disastrous if as a consequence of not accepting this principle, there grew up in Great Britain a rash of nursing homes, where the specialist would be intelectually isolating himself."—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee, 21/5/46; col. 1155.]
It seems to me that this Bill puts that principle precisely in reverse and at a stroke we are embarking on the creation of a separate private service outside the National Health Service. It is my belief that once that develops it will in the end bleed the National Health Service white. I believe that it will increase the view of some people—a regrettable view, I would suggest—that somehow they can get better treatment by paying for it. If they see a separate service outside, I think more people rather than less will opt for private treatment, particularly in those areas in which they see the National Health Service having certain difficulties. In addition, by setting up this separate service outside, we are diverting all sorts of resources in an unfortunate way to an undesirable development.
So far as the building industry is concerned, they will be encouraged to invest and to use their energy in building nursing homes and private hospitals rather than in concentrating their efforts on more socially acceptable work. So far as investment is concerned, this will encourage investment in an area which, while it may create wealth, will not create wealth of the kind that I think the Government, and indeed all of us, would like to see this country now creating.
1476
The Bill will in the end, of course, cost money—a lot of money—in administration and in bureaucracy; and it will lose money, since it will forfeit the money which private practice at present earns for the National Health Service; and this is at a time when our National Health Service is starved of resources and is, indeed, very short of money. I think it will encourage many people—doctors, perhaps—to feel that they will have better opportunities, more freedom, outside rather than inside the National Health Service. I think they will be mistaken, but I believe many will think that. I think even those who leave money in bequests for research will begin to think that they will leave it to a private institution rather than to one of the National Health Service hospitals. Indeed, as time goes on I think we shall see a threat to the National Health Service growing up outside the Service which will not assist the Service but which, as I say, could in the end bleed it white.
My Lords, for once I hope that I am proved wrong. I do not think that is likely to be the case. Indeed, I think that as time goes on we shall see the kind of developments of which I have great fears. But I have a ray of hope, my Lords, and that, I think, comes from the Goodman Proposals. I welcomed the Goodman Proposals, not only because they secured a compromise of a kind, and a kind of agreement—perhaps not complete agreement, but they did something, I think, to cool the atmosphere and to bring the two sides together—but even more because I think the Goodman Proposals now written into the Bill spread out the whole process and make it take a lot longer. Therefore, my Lords, stemming from the Goodman Proposals is time—time which will possibly give us and others in another place an opportunity for second thoughts before we pass too far down a rather dangerous and, indeed, damaging route. I hope that we shall concentrate on what really matters, which is putting the Health Service to rights; and those who want to see the end of private practice should surely realise that nothing could end it more quickly and more certainly than establishing a truly effective, humane and efficient Health Service—and once we have that we shall all look in vain for private practice.
My Lords, my noble friends and I will watch with sadness as this Bill passes,

1477
as it must pass for reasons unconnected with health or with the National Health Service. But I think it is a sad occasion, not for private practice but for the National Health Service.
3.53 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, in Lord Goodman's absence may I ask permission of the House to speak before he does. First I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his Front Bench supporters for their patience and for the clarity with which they have considered our many Amendments. I must enthusiastically congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on the way she has spoken in this most complicated debate, with such good will throughout. After our marathon all-night session, which started at 3.0 p.m. and went on to 7.0 a.m., we had breakfast. I sat next to her. She did not seem unduly tired. We both agreed that we had hardly ever eaten a better breakfast! I am sure your Lordships will agree that seldom in your Lordships' House has a noble Baroness spoken for so long, so well.
As your Lordships must know by now, nearly all members of the medical profession are convinced that this is a bad Bill even with the comprise proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in it. They fear that it may harm the National Health Service in the ways we have already discussed and perhaps disrupt relationships between it and the private sector of medicine in Britian. That could happen if it encouraged militant trade unions of hospital workers, and some others in the Labour Party, to pursue their declared doctrinaire policy of trying to abolish private medical practice in this country, leading to a salaried medical service and a State monopoly in medicine. This policy has been clearly put forward in recent Labour Party and certain trade union conferences. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said to me so soothingly in the Committee stage of our debate, one cannot help being worried. I am told that Labour Party Conferences differ from those of other Parties in that their resolutions are supposed to be rather more mandatory towards Party policy than the others, which are regarded as more advisory. If your Lordships obstruct this Bill, that, as the right honourable Mrs. Barbara Castle
1478
said so militantly in another place on 12th October, would reopen the gates for industrial action and we in your Lordships' House will for certain be blamed and held responsible.
On the other hand, if in spite of its deficiencies this Bill becomes law I see the possibility of infinite troubles lying ahead over its implementation. There will be arguments about how quickly private beds can be phased out of NHS hospitals. And there will be a pile of difficulties for consultants to face in trying to obtain, outside the NHS, the private accommodation, facilities and equipment for their work of reasonably the same standards and availability (for them and for their patients) as those of which they have been deprived. To find good accommodation may not be too hard; but to provide in small hospitals and nursing homes, even for quite simple and straightforward illnesses and operations, adequate medical, surgical anaesthetic, recovery-room, intensive-care, resident-medical-officer, X-ray, pathological, physiotherapeutic and other facilities may be very difficult indeed in many places. Does all this suggest that the parts of the Bill about reasonably equivalent, alternative, standards do not mean as much as they imply? Or, owing to difficulties in achieving these standards in small hospitals, will only a few pay beds be phased out until sufficient and adequate private hospitals can be built? That may take several years.
Woe betide British medicine if, when this Bill is on the Statute Book, the Goodman compromises are not strictly adhered to and if people do not co-operate in what has been agreed! If there is interference in future on doctrinaire, ideological grounds by the Government, trade unions, local authorities or by anyone else with the planning, building or running of the private hospitals referred to in this Bill, or with pay beds not yet phased out, doctors will be justified in opposing that in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, "by every means in their power". As I indicated to your Lordships on 21st October, unless some practical and effective conciliatory mechanism is evolved before then many doctors are now prepared to fight, and they have learned how to do so. They are very likely to resist firmly such a threat to their profes-

1479
sional freedoms, and they will be supported in this by many of their patients.
If that happens, the passing of this politically motivated, impractical medical Bill, of which nearly the whole of our medical profession disapproves, will do enormous harm to relationships between the public and the private sectors of medicine, just at a time when co-operation between the two is so badly needed. It may open up a running sore which will take many years to heal. The blame and full responsibility for all that disruption, unpleasantness and unhappiness will then lie squarely on the shoulders of those who gave birth to this Bill and who have forced it through Parliament with several guillotines, without even allowing Parliamentary discussion on parts of it, and who have obstinately refused against so much advice to refer to the Royal Commission this very debatable pay beds issue which involves only 1 per cent. of the beds in the National Health Service. In time, if these troubles are not avoided, I believe that those who introduced this Bill, who really do have the welfare of the National Health Service and of British medicine at heart, may well wish that they had never thought of it.
My Lords, let us hope that during the next two or three years this Government (or any other which may take their place) and the trade unions will have the good sense to ensure, with the help of the BMA and the Royal Colleges and Faculties, that the Goodman compromise proposals are given a fair chance to be implemented by all concerned. In that way the possibility of a harmful immediate conflict will be reduced. Even then, we may be in for some serious trouble later if trade unions and others do not play fair. But if this moderate and conciliatory course which we are now adopting does by chance succeed, this will encourage and help the public and the private sectors of medicine in Britain to work together amicably and peaceably in future—which is what a great many patients and a great many doctors in our country now want.
4.1 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am not sure whether your Lordships are attending a funeral or a christening and my mood of uncertainty has been confirmed by the
1480
speeches we have heard so far today. Certainly, the Bill which we are now discussing is a major change and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, it marks the end of the historic compromise achieved by Mr. Bevan over a quarter of a century ago. Whether the Health Service in its new form will succeed one cannot tell, but certainly this Bill has been very much improved by what your Lordships have done to it. Whatever we think about the Bill, your Lordships have given it a great deal of attention and, in the light of the amount of debate it did not receive in another place, I think we have fulfilled a useful Parliamentary function and I hope that it is one that will be recognised outside the House.
I should like to pay tribute to the Government Front Bench for their steadfastness under fire, and particularly I should like to pay tribute to my own noble chieftainess, Lady Young, on her unflagging energy in directing that fire from this side of the House. The funeral mood is appropriate because this Bill contributes nothing to the resources of the National Health Service. I noted in today's The Times that Mr. Albert Spanswick, General Secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, said yesterday that last summer there were 2,300 nurses unemployed and that now there are 6,500 unemployed. What is this Bill going to do for those nurses? Nothing at all. The Government would not even introduce a provision to protect nurses and others from the consequences of the Bill. They would not accept our Amendments to do with "no detriment"; yet this is the background against which we are debating this major change in the Health Service.
It would not be a proper use of a Third Reading debate to try to run through all the many arguments of principle that have come from both sides. Looking at this small, rather unpleasant Bill, if we are to see what its nature really is we must have some more information from the Government about what they think its effect is likely to be. I have sat through most stages of the Bill in this House and I have read nearly everything that passed in another place. There are still two major questions that the Government have not yet answered or, at least, I have not discovered the answer. The first question

1481
is this: what effect will this Bill have on waiting lists? It is said that this Bill has been introduced to help with the problem of waiting lists. I notice that the Labour Party programme for 1976 said this (in page 59):
"We believe that this measure together with the strengthening of primary care and other steps will help to reduce waiting lists for hospital beds."
Do the Government agree with the Labour Party? What is the Government's view? How much reduction in the waiting lists will this Bill achieve? Could we have some figures?
The second question—which may have been answered by a Parliamentary Written Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith; but I have not seen it in Hansard—is this. What loss is the National Health Service suffering in income from the withdrawal of pay beds? We have never had a firm statement about this that I have been able to discover. What price are the Government prepared to pay for this measure? Could we have it spelled out and could we hear how the Government plan to restore that loss that all patients will suffer because the amount of resources available to the National Health Service is bound to decline as a result of the passing of the Bill?
My Lords, it may be that I should not act as an evil god-father to this legislative baby and cast a bad spell on its future, but I do not think that the reasons for its birth are really all that wholesome. All that we can hope is that some of the promises and the fears that we have heard about its consequences will be belied by the facts and the Government, having freed themselves from this commitment, will now be free to devote themselves to the real problems of the Health Service and leave behind the corroded atmosphere that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, sought to remove when he introduced his proposals. In that hope, I think we should give this Bill a Third Reading.
4.8 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I am sorry to say that during the last days—or is it now weeks?—that we have been discussing this Bill I have been appalled at the apparent ignorance of the Government on a lot of the issues which we have been debating and a lot of the solutions
1482
which have been put forward in this Bill. In saying that, I do not wish to make any personal attack on the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has battled on most valiantly on an impossible brief. If I use words as strong as that I must have some reason or some standing for doing so. I think that most noble Lords know that I have perhaps a unique experience in this matter, having been in consulting practice, having been a professor of medicine without private patients and having occupied a large number of other positions which brought me into touch with research and medical education and so on.
As chairman of Distinction Awards, I visited every medical school in England and Wales regularly every year and also a lot of the smaller areas where there are important hospitals which are not teaching hospitals; areas such as, for instance, Bath, Middlesbrough and so forth. The first indication of this appalling ignorance was when the noble Lord told us what this Bill was about. The Government had no objection to private practice. He said, "All we want to see is that those who want it pay for it", as if he did not know that they already paid for it once or twice over. This shook me a great deal. When I raised that question, I received nothing but an evasive reply, I am sorry to say.
I raised a lot of other points to which there has been no reply. For instance, I raised the question of whether the hospitals which are going to sacrifice a certain number of beds in the first round of closing down the first 1,000 pay beds should be mentioned in an Act of Parliament. Who had been at the root of making these decisions? There was no reply to that. Yesterday the ignorance of the Government spokesman was revealed once again over the question of the hospitals which had very few pay beds. We were told—and no doubt the figures are correct—that in a large number of cases there are no more than five pay beds in a hospital. These are areas in which there is no great demand for private practice, but some physicians and surgeons like to carry out some private practice. Maybe it increases their income; maybe it is because the patients want to attend a private consultation.
Some of those patients need to come into hospital for further investigation or an operation; these few beds allow

1483
these people to do this practice. The Government argument was that, as there were so few beds, it did not really matter whether or not they were closed. That was the impression that was given; no doubt it will be denied. Those surely are the very beds which you should not close because those physicians and surgeons have every right to the private practice of medicine if they wish to pursue it. They will lose that right if those few beds are taken away. That seems to me to show very great misunderstanding of what really goes on at the present time in the practice of medicine.
Then there was further ignorance regarding research. The actual money that comes from pay beds, patients in the private wing of hospitals and so on, compared with the whole amount of money spent on research in the whole country, may be small. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, told us—and he has been on the staff of the London Postgraduate Medical School for many years—last year £83,000 came in. This is the lifeblood of research in the most important postgraduate medical school in this country, if not in the world. I am repeating what I said yesterday, and I will repeat it tomorrow if necessary. This is absolutely disastrous.
We are told that it can be supported from other funds. What other funds? No doubt it is the Medical Research Council, of which I was a member for seven years. Do the Government think that the Treasury would welcome an application for an extra grant of £83,000 because of the closing down of pay beds at the London Postgraduate Medical School? I would not have thought so in the present state of the country. Arguments were brought up about the educational value of private beds. We were told that this is of no importance, and the whole argument seemed to be on the question of whether this brought the subject of rare diseases into postgraduate and undergraduate education. It does to some extent, but I point out that we medical educators (I speak of myself in the past tense of course) were not concerned just to teach about rare diseases which anybody can look up in a book. We were out to teach the handling of patients and the general conduct of consultation. Private practice is very good
1484
postgraduate education for consultants, and it is very good education for nurses. I only cite those as examples of how little the Government seem to know of what goes on.
I asked more than once: who is going to monitor what goes on in this rash of private hospitals to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred? Yes, they are to be inspected to see whether they have the requisite facilities for carrying on medicine and surgery. But who is to monitor the people who work in them? Is there to be some entrance examination or is it to be confined to people who are already consultants in the National Health Service? We do not know anything of this, neither is it laid down in the Bill and neither has my question been answered.
One of the great advantages of doing private practice within your own hospital is that you are under the scrutiny of your colleagues and nursing staff the whole time. People cannot get away with what they do, I may say, in the United States of America. The ethical standards of people are known at the moment, whereas we know nothing about who is going to work in these private hospitals. However, I received no reply to that at all. There was no mention of it in the noble Lord's various speeches.
How will the private hospitals keep up with new advances which are often extremely expensive ones? Is the country in its present state really going to duplicate a lot of new and extremely expensive apparatus so that it can be used either privately or in National Health hospitals? Is not the present system much more sensible, where the NHS hospitals have the apparatus and the private patients can use it under certain conditions? The private patients, do not forget, pay their share of the total cost of running a hospital.
Regarding the abuses, the only abuse which is referred to very frequently—and not without reason—is the abuse of queue-jumping. It is not a question of a person paying to go into a private bed and therefore jumping the queue, because if there are beds reserved for private patients you cannot put other people into them. A patient sees a consultant in his private consulting rooms, which he has every right to do, and the consultant says,

1485
"You must come into hospital". This may be for investigation or treatment. The patient replies, "How much is it going to cost me?" to which the consultant says, "It may cost £300 or £400." If the patient replies, "I cannot afford it", does the consultant put the patient higher up in the queue because the patient has paid him a fee? I know this happens.
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the point I was making was not that these abuses do not exist but that this Bill would do absolutely nothing whatever to correct them. Your Lordships know what his reply was: it is to be found in col. 1583 of Hansard of 21st October:
"that remains to be seen."
My Lords, are we going through all this—are we making changes in the National Health Service which will possibly be even as disastrous as the reorganisation of 1973—to see whether it works? I have never heard such an answer in my life. As others have already pointed out today, the Bill will do nothing to reduce the queues and, indeed, it may increase them. The question of a common waiting-list and the criteria of only medical need are fine in theory but absolutely impossible in practice. Of course, that is not to say that we should not work towards that end.
Finally, I want to raise again several points. Whom does the Bill benefit? My answer is: Nobody. National Health Service patients will be worse off for various reasons. For example, their consultants will not be so often on the premises but driving their cars across London in the middle of the day and so on. The private patients in their new nursing homes will not be better off, either. They would be much better off under the present system in a private bed in a National Health Service hospital.
The second question is: Who wants this Bill? I think I am right in saying that not a single speech from the Government Benches has been in favour of it. In fact, there have not been any speeches from those Benches, except an intervention from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. The Liberals have spoken against it, the Conservatives have spoken against it, and people from these Benches have spoken against it. In addition, Members of the Government Party whom I know well enough to address rather
1486
wicked remarks to and to ask: "If you had a free vote, would you vote for this Bill?" have all said, "No". Of course, I admit that is a highly selective sample because these people are my pals; but they do not want it and I do not not know who does.
A good many consultants are not enthusiastc one way or the other. I am told that in fact half the consultants are working full-time at present in the National Health Service and not doing any private practice work. I think that is right; but do not let us forget that the half who are not doing private practice includes a good many pathologists and biochemists who work in laboratories and never come face to face with the patient at all. Also, it would include anaesthetists who face the patient for only a few fleeting moments before the patient loses consciousness. It also includes a large number of university staff and research workers in places such as the famous postgraduate medical schools. They work part-time because, apart from their duty to the patients, their first duty is to research: that is what they are primarily interested in. Therefore, that particular statistic does not really interest me at all.
I have been a supporter of the National Health Service ever since its inception in the very early days and when the BMA was trying to persuade doctors not to join it I was on this side of Bevan and Lord Moran. We wanted this Service because we thought it would do good to millions of people. It has turned out that way, and so it is now very sad to me to see the Party who brought it in under such opposition now taking a course which may very well wreck it.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, while not in any way questioning the content of his speech I want to put to him that I am directly in touch with a number of young women anaesthetists and they have great care for their patients and great concern for the National Health Service. I think it was a little unfortunate that the noble Lord rather suggested that they saw the patient only for a few seconds and had not any great interest. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to correct that, because they do care as much as other people.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I entirely accept that correction, but of course they do not have the lasting care of the patients that physicians and others have. But I accept what the noble Baroness says.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I should like, first, to add my compliments and congratulations on the way the noble Baroness has led the debate on this Bill, together with her colleagues. All day and all night the noble Baroness has kept her temper and her cool and has led us in a way that I think few others could have done. My Lords, I do not like this Bill. I do not like any part of it, and that is mainly for two reasons. I think, first, it is a mean Bill because the phasing out of the pay beds means that three and a quarter million people who are members of BUPA and other private schemes will not now be able to have the private beds that they have up to now been paying for. I do not accept the contention put forward by the Government that there will still be sufficient private beds. I do not believe that that will be so. Nor do I believe that BUPA or any of the other schemes will be able to provide the hospitals and nursing homes that are needed in time to compensate, first of all, for the 1,000 beds to be phased out in the early stages, and then for the full complement of 4,000 beds to be phased out within the next two years.
That figure of 3¼ million people does not represent just the white-collar workers, and they are not people with a lot of money. They are the people who have chosen, perhaps instead of buying a car or even new clothes, to put money aside year by year in the hope and expectation that through these organisations they will be able to have some privacy when they are ill. We do not all want privacy, but in this day and age those of us who are getting older may not like the clatter and banging that is a normal occurrence in a big ward.
I was a member of the Magistrates' Association, which had thousands of members of all shades of creed, denomination and political belief who were members of BUPA (I happen to know more about that organisation than the others) and willing to pay for the benefits they wanted. There is the very large trade union called NALGO. They, too, have an enormous
1488
membership in BUPA, and I suggest that in the very near future those people who have been paying not inconsiderable amounts of money for many years will not be able to get the privacy for which they have been paying. That is why I think this Bill is particularly mean in its effect on those people. I believe it is about time that the Government got their priorities right as regards the allocation of funds. Surely, the most important people—almost the paramount people on the list of priorities—should be those who are in ill health in our country. I would put it second only to education.
Secondly, I dislike this Bill because of the Socialist political philosophy of bringing everyone down—and I emphasise the word "down"—to being equal. But when we are told by the Secretary of the National Union of Public Employees that half a million people are waiting to enter hospital, and that because of the lack of finances, and finances only, nurses are finding that having finished their training there are no jobs for them—as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan told us—surely something has gone very radically wrong with the planning of the financial priorities of this Government.
Despite the fact that during our many debates here we have managed to make a few amendments to this Bill—for instance, making sure by our votes that X number of pay beds will be used as beds by National Health patients and will not be turned into offices; that the membership of this Board, which we have heard so much about and with which I have absolutely no sympathy at all (I doubt very much whether it will be of a high enough calibre) should be composed of seven members; and that the chairman should be a man of very high stature and calibre—I feel that nothing has been done to increase the welfare of the patients, nothing has been done to increase the welfare of the staff and nothing has been done to shorten the waiting lists. This is what we understood this Bill was intended to achieve, but if ever it is put into operation—and I hope it will not be—I do not think that any of the Government's priorities, or any of the promises which they have made as a result of the Goodman Proposals, will be fulfilled, and therefore I deplore this Bill.
Lord MESTON: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly tell us what is the cost of a pay bed? Secondly, and much more important, can she tell us whether BUPA are prepared to pay the full cost or merely a fraction?
4.33 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, it is a great joy to me to follow my noble friend Lady Macleod. It is also a coincidence, because many years ago I followed with pride her husband Iain Macleod as Minister of Health. During that short period when I was Minister of Health, I developed an immense respect and affection for the National Health Service and those who worked in it. But I also had a determination, so far as it was in my power, to keep the National Health Service out of Party politics. I felt that it had enough battles of its own, without being involved in the political battle. There was the constant fight of successive Ministers with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get adequate finance. There was the problem in the war against disease that you found in one sector that you were winning a victory, only to find a strong attack in another sector. Then there was the whole problem—which is probably the most difficult of all—of trying to humanise the Health Service and to attract to it the voluntary help, the local patriotism and the generosity of people, without which I do not believe any Health Service can survive. It is for those reasons, and because I felt that I wanted to keep the Health Service out of Party politics, that I have carefully abstained during all these debates from making any contribution at all. But I want this evening, as the Bill passes, just to say how much I deplore it.
Before 1948, we had two standards of hospital care. We had the voluntary hospitals which were desperately short of money and relying on charitable gifts, local patriotism and schemes such as the penny-a-week scheme, but they were good hospitals. Then we had the local authority hospitals which had the aura and atmosphere of the Poor Law. During the war, it was the unanimous view of the Coalition Government that that system should be swept away, and that there should be a comprehensive Health Service. With the war over, the Coalition Government disappeared and Labour came to
1490
power. Let it be said to his honour, that Aneurin Bevan loyally accepted the decision of the Coalition Government. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has robbed me of my best quotation and I am grateful to him for it, but let me just go on with what Aneurin Bevan said later on that same day. He said:
"But while we have inadequate hospital facilities, and while rebuilding is postponed, it inevitably happens that some people will want to buy something more than the general health service is providing. If we do not permit fees in hospitals, we will lose many specialists from the public hospitals for they will go to nursing homes"[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/46; col. 57.],
and I would add—these are my words and not Aneurin Bevan's—and abroad.
I must say that when I was Minister I found that there was a good deal wrong with the National Health Service. There was a tripartite division, which meant that medical time and valuable medical brain power were wasted far too much in committees, and I am afraid that even under the new dispensation it still is. I found, as we have all found, that somehow the nation is not paying enough for health. I remember going up to Aneurin Bevan, when I was Minister, and saying "You have given me a very defective machine", and I remember his reply. He said "Yes. I only got halfway through my work. I wanted to make a really unified service and bring in all the medical services". I do not agree with his view, but I want the House to realise that what Aneurin Bevan was trying for was a unified Health Service, because he believed that that was right. No doubt, he wanted to have enough money from his Chancellor to make that possible.
I fear that this Bill will gravely weaken the National Health Service, because once pay beds are removed from National Health Service hospitals consultants will be attracted more and more away from the National Health Service and towards private hospitals and nursing homes. If those are affected by Part III of this Bill, then let this noble House realise that the result will be to draw consultants, and indeed patients, abroad to Eire and other countries, rather than here. That is the warning to me.
If perhaps I may make one further point, I have attended a good many of the debates—although I am afraid that because of my age I escaped the all-night sitting—and I do not believe that this

1491
House realises the difference between the problem of London and the large cities, where a great many private hospitals, clinics and nursing homes are available, and that of rural England where there are large distances to be covered, with a much lighter population per mile, or shall I say hectare? As a result a different system exists. In each National Health Service hospital a certain number of private beds are set aside because there is no other alternative accommodation. Let me make the position quite clear because I know what happens in rural England. Emergencies go into either a private or a public bed, because they have complete priority. However, the private bed enables those people to whom time is a factor in their business to buy earlier treatment, and when this facility disappears great hardship will be created for very many people. I hope that the Health Services Board will take that point further into consideration.
Finally, I believe that this is a very sad day for those who take pride in the National Health Service, for there was another course open. This Bill is so untimely. Hospital beds are being closed. There are long waiting lists because hospitals cannot be staffed as a result of financial stringency in the National Health Service. This additional wound is grievous to the National Health Service, especially since there was such an easy way out that would have avoided all Party political controversy. The solution would have been to put this matter before the Royal Commission and let them make a considered judgment. That solution the Government have declined. For that this country will never forgive them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for correcting what he said at col. 1433 yesterday afternoon when I questioned him about the 75 and the 100 beds. I feel, as must all your Lordships, that there is a spirit of sadness about the Chamber this afternoon, a spirit so thick that it could almost be cut with a knife. That is because we are doing something today which we know we shall regret most profoundly if we do not have an opportunity, in good enough time, to correct the mistakes which we are making. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Hill of
1492
Luton, stated so well the position regarding the disclaimed or private hospitals that it would be superfluous of me to try to improve upon it. Therefore noble Lords understand their position in relation to this Bill.
If your Lordships will forgive me for speaking of my own experience, I have spent 20 years in the administration of just such a hospital, either as chairman of the board of management, or as trustee, or in some capacity of that kind. I am simply horrified that Part III of the Bill seeks in the long run—if we accept, as most of us do, that the Bill does not further the cause of national health but is a Socialistic measure—to scrub out the private practice of consultants in this country. It is in this rather mean and underhanded way that the Government have gone about it. It was not contained in the Manifesto; it was not even recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
The smallest alteration, and I really mean small—not the addition of a new operating theatre but quite tiny alterations to any private hospital which is over the specified number of 100 beds in London and 75 beds in the country—must be notified to the Board and permission must be obtained. The Board can refuse its permission if it thinks that a National Health Service hospital is going to suffer as a result, thus taking away the last chance the private person and also the consultant have of doing what they were told should be their right by the father of the National Health Service. That is what I most deeply regret about the whole of the Bill. It is a bad Bill and I hope that things will so work out that one day, before it is too late, we shall have the opportunity to correct it.
4.47 p.m.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, if I were to cite one area of the Bill which gives me particular cause for concern it is its potential to affect our great teaching hospitals. However, it is not to make a speech of a general character that I rise this afternoon. I am very conscious, in the wake of so many significant contributions, that when I speak to a detailed and narrow point I am going to strike a somewhat thinner and less interesting note than has been struck in the speeches which we have already heard.

1493
It is not unusual during the course of the passage of a Bill through this House that points arise or are brought to notice during its later stages. Last evening I raised verbally with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, a point that concerned me in Clause 12. Subsequently during the course of last evening I wrote to the noble Lord on another point connected with the same clause. The first point, that which I raised verbally, is potentially a point of considerable importance. The other is of less importance and more of a purely drafting nature. In the last two days I have fallen victim, and perhaps I am not the only victim, to the concertinaed timetable for the Bill in this House. I have fallen victim in part, perhaps, through a lack of aggression on my own part and because I did not wish wantonly to bring before your Lordships Amendments for debate when the Government before this afternoon could perhaps have reassured me that my fears were groundless. I intervene now lest perchance one part of the Bill should fall victim by default.
The points which I raised last night and to which I wish to return this afternoon concern Clause 12 of the Bill and are to be found on pages 14 and 15. The point of significance—that is, the point that I mentioned last night—relates to the use of the word "premises" which occurs some nine times in Clause 12 (2) and which occurs once or twice elsewhere in the Bill. As I read and understand the word, it could be interpreted as referring not merely to a single premises within one self-contained boundary, albeit that there might be different buildings going to make up the premises, but it could equally be interpreted as referring to a multiplicity of premises within separate boundaries geographically separate one from another.
If that interpretation, which I am certain—and I have been assured—is contrary to the Government's intention, is possible, then it would have a most unfortunate bearing upon words which my noble friends have sought on previous occasions to amend within this clause; namely, those words which cite the number of beds which are to be the criteria then we are faced with questions of authorisation concerning controlled works and controlled extensions. If the interpretation could be wider than I believe is intended, I think it is self-evident that the effect
1494
would be considerable and disastrous.
When the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replied to me last evening, I thought then, and on reading Hansard I still feel, that his answer—and I intend no discourtesy—was not directed precisely to the point which I was making. There are obviously two separate instances where my concern could arise. One would concern the group of hospitals under one management which are geographically separately situated in different parts of the metropolis or in different parts of an area outwith the metropolis. Or, if a computation is to be based upon a number of premises when considering the number of beds to be provided, it could relate to separate, unrelated, individual establishments.
I think I have said enough to make my fears clear—perhaps too much—but before sitting down I should like to bring forward the point which I raised in writing with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. It related to line 8 on page 15, where we find paragraph (b). It strikes me that this paragraph is miswritten. I intend no disrespect to the draftsman, but I believe he has left out certain words. At present it reads:
"To extend or adapt works used in conjunction with the controlled premises".
I fail to see how "works"—that is, works of construction—can be used in conjunction with operative controlled premises. I should have thought—and I realise that I should not draft on my feet—that someone has accidentally omitted the words, "designed to be". That is a very small point and I hope it has not detracted from the major, and I think considerable, question of concern which I have placed before your Lordships.
Before I sit down, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the help and courtesy which I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, during the last few hours. I want also to express my thanks to his team in that direction. Having done that, it would be singularly inappropriate not to acknowledge my thanks to my noble friend Lady Young and her colleagues, not only for the way in which they have conducted the Bill from this side of the House but for the help which they have given me.
4.55 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, if the House with its customary indulgence will forgive a personal note, I should like to say that in the greater part of a lifetime, now over more than 50 years, during which I have been a member of the Labour Party, I have always been accorded the greatest degree of toleration and understanding on certain issues where I have found myself slightly at variance with Party policy. In my opinion it is symbolical of the greatness of our Party that it is able to embrace within its ranks members of all shades of opinion who do not always necessarily toe the line in accord with Party policy, and I rise with the very greatest reluctance during the closing stages of this Bill to express, perhaps as one lone voice from these Benches, my own sadness at its passing. I have refrained from participating in any of the stages until now. I abstained on the Divisions because I have always felt that a cast-iron majority has no need of one extra vote to carry its weight, nor of one extra voice to add to the expert body of opinion which has been able to express itself on medical lines and, as I firmly believe, entirely in the interests of the patients.
May I then, with the greatest possible reluctance, say that I deplore perhaps more than anything else about this Bill the Government's intention to separate private medicine from National Health medicine. To me the two ought to be inseparable. I regard them—I have not always done so, but of late years I have come to regard them—as a case of Siamese twins, almost a perfect example of symbiosis. In my view, to effect their separation is to perform an operation which is fraught with the gravest dangers to both sides. I would always like to hold the view that the Government might have been wiser to bend their efforts towards bringing them closer together, so that they could not only share their common circulation, but be able to nourish, feed and sustain each other, rather than submit them to this enforced surgical separation which might run the risk of leaving them gravely enfeebled and in a more precarious state of health than if they were left alone. I feel that the Government are embarking on a course where dangers that we are afraid of now may even become intensified as the years go on.
It is on record, as a matter of interest, that the survival incidence of Siamese twins has lasted in one instance for as
1496
long as 62 years, which, according to my impression, is probably longer than the lifetime of this Bill. I can only express the hope that my own fears of the harm that this Bill may cause, not only to the medical profession, not only to the workers in our magnificent hospitals, but also the harm which it may cause in the last resort to the patient himself may be unrealised, and that in the long run the wisdom, the common sense, the understanding and the dedication of all the parties involved in the working of the National Health Service will combine to triumph in the end.
5 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I hope that it will not be any embarrassment, however small, to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, when I say that I think that he has just exemplified the highest level of public life in this country. He has just shown that we still have that high attribute which I always thought was the strength of our system, of being able to be a loyal Party man and, at the same time, retain one's individualism and one's honest convictions even when temporarily they may be in conflict with the leaders of one's own Party. I congratulate him upon it, and I think he has set an example that people who follow, and those of us who are here now, ought to take up on many occasions. I hope that that is no embarrassment to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, who is a friend of mine outside this House. What he has just said from those Benches is in keeping with the sort of character he has shown to me in his private capacity.
I apologise for trying to jump the gun an hour ago. I did not know there was a list of speakers on the Bill passing. In this House sometimes there is a list and sometimes not; you do not know where you are. In the other place—and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will know this—unless you jump up at the earliest stage you do not get called at a later stage, and so one is perhaps still remembering that sort of experience. I apologise to noble Lords if I inadvertently conflicted with what is a very excellent convention of knowing where you are.
I merely want to say what has already been so well said by my noble friend Lord

1497
Tranmire. This is a bad Bill, and it is a bad Bill because it brings the National Health Service into the cockpit of Party politics. This is bad. I believe that Defence, foreign policy, education, and the Health Service should be matters which are outside the normal conflict of Party politics. They are matters which cover everything and all attitudes, and they ought not to be there at all. To some extent the National Health Service has been outside it for a good number of years. This Bill brings it back again into Party politics, and that is bad.
I do not mean that in a general sense. What I mean about bringing it back into Party politics is that this Bill which I have in my hand, and which will obviously become an Act, has left so much in the hands of the Secretary of State that people who want to do things within what is permitted within this Bill know that at the end of the day they will be dependent on the views of the Secretary of State. My noble friend congratulated the Government on accepting a certain Amendment which has given more power to the Secretary of State, and that was better than not having that appeal court there at all. But noble Lords will recognise that that brings an important part of the application of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, within the orbit and the views of some individual. Could they deny that if one wanted to do something on the private side of this Bill, they would get different treatment from the right honourable lady Mrs. Barbara Castle, if she were Secretary of State, than from my noble friend Lady Young, if she were Secretary of State? It is clear from the honestly held convictions of both of those ladies that their views, as a final court of appeal, would be quite different.
The uncertainty at a very important time when you are trying to organise a new hospital, which has cost a lot of money, time and energy in getting it properly equipped, is dependent upon the will of the person. So in legislating that the Secretary of State, whoever it is, has the final word brings the matter within the cockpit of Party politics, because the Secretary of State happens to be a Party politician. I believe that the uncertainty as to whether sympathy will be with you will injure the implementation of an important section of this Bill because of the uncertainty of Party politics. I hope
1498
that the situation will not develop on those vicious lines, but my fear is that it might.
Your Lordships may remember that I intervened for one minute when one of the Amendments was being discussed just prior to this debate. We could not get from the Government an undertaking that a temporary approval for the extension of one of these matters would have certainty for even three years. They will not guarantee even three years of a scheme that is to cost money and a lot of thought to put into operation. We were told by the noble Baroness in the exchanges in this House that the Government would like any future Secretary of State to be generous in giving at least three years or more. But those of us who have been in politics long enough—and I speak only as a Parliamentarian in this sense and not from a business context—know that what we say in debates in this House does not matter at all. What matters, when it is implemented, is what is in the Act.
It is not right that what is said in the course of debate should be taken into account. It is our duty to put words in the Bill which are clear and cannot be contested and which will put into effect what we want done. Time and time again the courts have made it perfectly clear that they cannot be responsible for interpreting an Act other than on the words that are in the Act. To allow ourselves to be fobbed off, if I may use that term, by saying that what has been said here may well be taken into account, means nothing at all. The only words in this Bill are words which make it very discouraging for anybody who may want a private hospital or private health service running alongside the National Health Service.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, was absolutely right in his normal common sense approach to this question. Why should there be any restriction at all as to what private hospital or health service should run alongside the National Health Service? Why should any fear be put in the mind of anybody who may want to extend that second tier of health by having the Bill say that there might be some doubt as to whether one can get it or, having got it, as to how long one can pursue it. I

1499
believe that for all of those reasons this Bill brings something back into the cockpit of Party politics that ought not to be there.
I did not altogether agree with the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, although what he said was absolutely right. I do not think the fear is that this will prevent people from entering into the private health service part of this Bill. My fear is that it may well drive them out of the country completely. This was a point made by my noble friend Lord Tranmire. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of it, but when there was a suggestion in another field that a similar Bill to this would be brought in which would end the public school system in this country, it did not mean that the public school system would end. It was made known in many quarters that if that Bill to end the public school system had been operated in the same way as this Bill would be operated, plans were afoot for those public schools to go to Ireland. You would not have stopped parents who wanted their children to go to that sort of school from sending them there because the school was not domiciled in this country any more but was in Ireland. The only effect of that would have been, not that you were ending the public school system; you would be driving that service, which has so much to offer to the country, to another country, which would have all the benefits.
That is what I fear, as a consequence of this Bill, may well happen to our private hospital service. Those who want to be a member of BUPA, as my noble friend Lady Macleod said, and who truly want to spend their money on preserving their health, and that of their family rather than on other things, will go elsewhere if they cannot get the sort of hospital services they want in this country, and the services are set up in another country, be it Ireland or anywhere else, they will go there. The only effect will be that, instead of this country being one of the leading centres for health and hospital services generally, that drive and that impetus will be in another country altogether.
Nor should your Lordships be bamboozled by all this talk about the Goodman Proposals. They are very good; the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is one of the best ambassadors in the world
1500
at trying to arrive at a consensus. Nevertheless, his proposals are only proposals and once the Bill becomes an Act they will remain merely words, no matter what has been said about them and what half-promises have been given. This measure will be enacted and in five or 10 years from now the Goodman Proposals will be history. The provisions will be operated according to the Act and the noble Lord's proposals are not written into it. Therefore, let us not persuade ourselves that simply because sensible points have been made by Lord Goodman and sensible answers have been given by he noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that automatically means that they can replace what is in the Bill. In other words, do not let us be side-tracked by what has been said about the Goodman Proposals. What is in the Bill is what matters.
In my view, the Bill can only result in what was an all-embracing National Health Service centred in this country becoming not so all-embracing because a good part of it will be driven abroad. In this connection, I want to kill a myth, one accepted by my noble friends as much as by noble Lords opposite. Mr. Aneurin Bevan and the Labour Party did not invent a free National Health Service. It is a myth to think that the Service, which we all praise today, began in 1946 when the Labour Government came to power. My father was a miner, for what that is worth; to me it was worth a lot because he was a great father; and the whole of my life I lived in the industrial Midlands of England. The Nicholls family never paid a doctor's bill. When my brothers and I were young my parents paid one penny a week to the Free Gardeners Friendly Society and that society operated precisely in the way the NHS operates today; it gave us a free health service and, later on, we paid threepence a month to one of the local works and that gave us free hospital service. One had to get a certificate but that was invariably given and that service worked in the way the NHS works today. The Nicholls family was typical of most families in the country and for our one penny to the Free Gardeners Society and threepence to a local works we received health and hospital services equivalent to those now offered in the NHS, and in some instances better because the system was not surrounded by bureaucracy.

1501
As my noble friend Lord Tranmire said, those of us who fought the 1945 Election know only too well that the introduction of the NHS was a coalition idea accepted by us all, underwritten in a broadcast by Mr. Winston Churchill as he then was. It so happened that the Labour Party were elected to government and implemented the idea. Those who fought the 1945 Election worked hard to try to get it implemented, not by setting up this nationalised bureaucracy but by having it implemented through the various friendly societies which had the equipment and organisation to do it, and I believe they would have done it more cheaply and efficiently. I want to kill the idea that those of us who criticise the Bill because it comes from a Labour Government are criticising those who invented and brought about the free Health Service. They did not invent it. It was a logical next step from a free Health Service that already existed and from which my family and millions of others throughout the country benefited.
I have spoken for rather longer than I had expected. I feel strongly about these matters and I am anxious to point out that the Bill will undermine something which is very precious to this country. It involves something much more dangerous than the aspects that have been raised in the debates we have had in your Lordships' House. Those debates have been interesting, but they do not matter. What matters more is the fact that the health and facilities offered to our children will be much weakened as a consequence of the Bill. I hope that future Secretaries of State, who are given powers under the Bill and on whom much of the authority will rest as a result of it, will take into account the general propositions I have been putting. I want them to realise that they are not carrying on as the inventors of an idea but are merely the trustees of a Health Service which grew and evolved and which was in existence before the 1946 Labour Government and before the 1935 Tory Government. To break away from that on the Party political partisan grounds embodied in the Bill is a sad thing to be doing. If the power of the Secretary of State can mitigate those dangers, that will be all to the good. I may have taken a few minutes longer over my speech than noble Lords would have wished, but I
1502
trust that my remarks will have served their purpose.
5.16 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if I make a brief intervention. The need to attend a funeral this afternoon prevented me from being here for the whole of the debate and was the reason why I did not put my name down to speak. However, I have attended the whole of the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. It must be said that the debates have been conducted at an exceedingly high level; by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with astonishing clarity, courtesy and persistence and by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with his customary courtesy and tremedous care and thought. I am particularly grateful to him, although he may not regard it as true gratitude, for never pretending that the Bill was anything but a political exercise to serve a particular non-medical purpose.
Confronted with a Bill of this kind, it is reasonable to ask; what does it do for the National Health Service? That is a fair question. Does it make more easily available the skilled services of consultants? It does nothing of the kind. In fact, it may do the opposite. It will certainly involve more time being spent journeying between hospitals and nursing homes. Let us bear in mind that from next month under the EEC provisions it will be possible for doctors in this country, without re-qualification, as of right to move within the Community and set up in practice in other countries. I hope they will not do that. Like most noble Lords, I would not leave this country for another, whatever happened. Nevertheless, it might encourage a drain which would have a damaging effect on the quality of the consultant and specialist services.
Secondly, will the Bill ensure that pay beds are not closed before alternative private provision is available? Lord Wells-Pestell has said time and again that this is not an exercise to destroy private practice, and I believe him to mean that. But if private beds are closed before alternative accommodation has been established, that will reduce the quantity of bed service available. If one looks at the small print of the Bill one sees that

1503
12 months after it comes into operation the Board must produce proposals for the closure of private facilities in part or in whole. It takes into account the alternative provision, but 12 months after it comes into operation there must be a reduction, even though there has been no time to establish alternative facilities. Thirdly, one would have thought, bearing in mind the shortage of hosiptal beds in so many parts of the country, that at least there would have been an assurance that the beds and bedrooms that are closed will be available automatically for NHS patients.
There may be some weakness in the Amendment in using the word "resident", but one would have expected at least as a gain from an otherwise unfortunate Bill that the beds freed from private patients would automatically be made available for public patients. Not a bit of it. It is not so provided, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, did not feel able to do other than give us a debating reply about the wording of the Amendment. This is a political exercise and nothing else. It is making it less likely that the people who want to buy privacy will be able to get it. Is it a wicked thing for a man whose wife is going into hospital to want to buy privacy for her either directly or through insurance? It is aimed at that kind of thing. People can spend their money in scores of other ways but not in this way. I regard this as a rather shabby, narrow Bill with a wholly political purpose, with no benefit whatsoever for the National Health Service and reasonable potential for damage to the National Health Service, not only to private patients but for patients in the general wards of the National Health Service.
5.22 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we have had a long and, I hope, fruitful debate. The first thing I should like to do is to thank my noble friends on this side of the House—and I know that my noble friend Lady Young will wish to join me in this—and all those who have participated throughout the long course of the debates. Your Lordships will be aware that the Bill was introduced on 21st October. It is something of an achievement that we have reached the end of this very substantial Bill in such a short time in the face of a
1504
Parliamentary programme of almost unique difficulty and conflict. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that in their speeches and replies, in handling a number of questions which were directed to them outside this Chamber, they have done as much as they possibly could in the circumstances. We are most grateful to them fortheir courtesy, knowing full well that both of them have laboured under disabilities of colds and toothache and other things in the course of these past weeks.
My Lords, this does not in any way affect our views on the Bill, but it is a fact that the way in which we conduct our business in your Lordships' House by the use of the usual channels in enabling affairs to progress is a very important factor. It is certainly not our role, as Her Majesty's Opposition, to enable the Government to achieve one clause in this Bill, but I should like to stand back for a moment and look at the Bill in the context of the scene as it is this afternoon. I entered the Library this morning and looked at a paper, and a most alarming headline confronted me. It read:
"Big London Hospital Cut-back"—
and it went on:
"A London health region is planning to axe 4,600 beds in an attempt to save nearly £50 million."
Quite rightly, my noble friend Lord O'Hagan suggested to your Lordships that in listening to this debate this afternoon, he was attending a funeral.
This is a particularly sad day for the National Health Service, not only in the context of the Government's Third Reading of the Bill but on the background of cuts in a service which we all wish to prosper. How right my noble friend was when he referred to the situation of nurses. I think he quoted the figure of 2,300 nurses unemployed last year, which has risen to no less than 6,500 this year. This is an alarming situation, a background against which the Government are pursuing relentlessly their intention to phase out a further 1,000 beds in the private sector. There is no doubt that the question of staff is most intimately tied up with the proposals under the Bill, and I totally disagree with what the Government have said on the matter of no detriment, which we have dealt with in great detail.

1505
My Lords, I shall make my remarks very brief. Many of your Lordships have addressed yourselves to important speeches, and this will be among the briefest, but I should like to make a few remarks. I believe that in quoting the debates held in 1946, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, did the House a great service. It was very important, too, to hear from another doctor, the noble Lord, Lord Segal, about the situation as he saw it in the separation of the private sector from the National Health Service. As a doctor, he would speak with great professional knowledge on a subject about which I know nothing; that is, symbiosis. This word has been used once or twice in your Lordships' House and I understand it means "one feeding upon another".
Two medical practitioners of great eminence were followed by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, whose experience in the particular field of medical education is unrivalled in this House. He brought forward one very important factor on which I addressed your Lordships, both on Committee and on Report; that is, the question of medical education and also research. I quoted the Todd Report and went into great detail. I believe that this is of the first importance, and further, that the damage being done to medical education in this country through the bringing into force of this Bill will be very substantial. We have been accused of exaggeration; we totally deny it. We have behind us many experts in the medical profession. The very important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, this afternoon bore this out to a great extent.
There is one further factor, and that is the matter of research, on which he addressed your Lordships, and I feel that it would be unnecessarily repetitious to return to the matter of the gains brought to research through the very important postgraduate school at Hammersmith. In my researches I went back to 29th July 1975, when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may remember that he answered a Question set down by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe. My noble friend sought from the Government information on the rebuilding of that very important hospital, and at that time, July 1975, the Government were unable to give any encouragement. What can we hope today, after a period of 14 or 15 months has
1506
elapsed with the further economic ills which beset this country?
I believe also that my noble friend Lord Tranmire brought in a very important element. If I may be allowed to say so, as a former Minister he brings unique experience to your Lordships' House as, indeed, he did to another place. He contrasted the needs of rural areas with the needs of London, and I am certain that as the Bill makes progress over the coming months it will certainly do rural hospitals a great deal of damage.
I will not detain your Lordships very long except to remind you of one final matter—the question of public accountability. I regret particularly that the Government, having enforced a closure of a number of beds, would not agree that the Board should give its reasons. This is absolutely crucial. The present Government have shown a tendency to pass public affairs over to a public board and a chairman. They disqualify or disallow the possibility of the Secretary of State of the Department concerned being answerable for the Board in the House of Commons. This is a matter of the greatest public importance as a principle. It relates particularly to the present Bill, but it follows a very wide coverage in other areas, notably the Post Office and other public Corporations. This is a black day, my Lords. I should be wearing a black tie on this occasion. However, I feel that, in giving this Bill a Third Reading, your Lordships have expressed their particular sorrow over what the Government have done.
5.31 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is a very long time since I have listened to so much pessimism coming from a group of people who are blessed with a great deal more intelligence than have a good many people one meets outside your Lordships' House.
A Noble Lord: Is it hereditary, my Lords?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord really wants me to answer that, I will, but intelligence, like knowledge, is not the monopoly of any one particular group in our society, although, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I thought that the monopoly of

1507
intelligence rested only with the medical profession.
It has been unusual until these last few weeks to have so many speakers on Third Reading or, to be more precise, on the Question That this Bill do now pass. It has become a habit since September 27th. May I give due warning that it has not passed unnoticed by Members of my Party? No doubt there will come a day when we shall change places
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Oh yes, my Lords! I should like to see the Party opposite try to cope with the difficulties that we are in today.
A Noble Lord: Who made them, my Lords?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord really wants to know who made them, we can choose a time and I will tell him. However, let me go on. This device has not passed unnoticed and I think I can promise that we shall use it to great advantage if we are ever in a position to do so. Having said that, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her conduct of the Bill from her side of the Chamber. There were times when, like me, she got a bit warm under the collar and it is only right that she should do so. However—and I have said this many times before, and I think that the noble Baroness knows that I mean it—I always find it a joy to be opposite her. She always presents a challenge and a test. She knows. She has done her homework and, in consequence, when I find myself up against her, I have to do mine as well. Perhaps I cannot pay her any greater compliment than that. I can take a chance on some others.
I should also like on behalf of myself and my colleague Lady Stedman, who is associated with me in my remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I am probably doing a very dangerous thing because I am missing people out and I shall probably fall foul of somebody, but the noble
1508
Lords have made a tremendous contribution and we are grateful for it.
There have been 13 speakers who have been totally—and I feel that that is the right phrase—against this Bill. I cannot hope to answer all their questions, nor would I if I could, because nothing has been said by any speaker this afternoon that was not said time and again on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. There is no point in my trying to answer because the bulk of the minds of noble Lords opposite are closed to anything I may say. I realise that there is no possibility of my being able to give them a satisfactory answer or of convincing them that some of their arguments are wrong.
I have been thinking of a suitable way to comment on something said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I thought of the word "audacious". I thought of the phrase, "the biggest piece of cheek I have come across for some con-desirable time". He had the audacity to stand tip in your Lordships' House and say that what the Bill has done is to bring the National Health Service into the cockpit of politics. Had there been no Labour Government just after the war, there would have been no National Health Service. The noble Lord's Party voted against it time and again and, if the noble Lord does not accept that, let him look at Hansard for the period in question. I accept that during the war there was a Coalition Government and a Beveridge Committee and that a good many things came from both. However, from 1945 onwards, when the blueprint of the National Health Service was drawn up and presented to Parliament, the Conservative Party voted against it. As I said some time ago in your Lordships House—
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will allow the noble Lord to intervene, but I shall not give way to anybody else.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill the Conservatives opposed merely the taking of the private money

1509
from the voluntary hospitals and that the Amendment was limited to that? That was the vote that was taken.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that we might perhaps both do well to read Hansard for that particular period. I gave way to the noble Lord because we on this side of the House pay tribute to the way in which the noble Lord fought hard when he was a Minister to get money for the National Health Service. I believe that he may have antagonised his own side to his own ultimate disadvantage by doing so. I want to go on record as paying tribute to the way that the noble Lord fought for the National Health Service.
As I said, however, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, having had very grave reservations about the National Health Service when it came into being, has the further cheek to appear in this House today as its champion. The two do not go together.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I did not interrupt anybody while they were speaking and I ask noble Lords to afford me the same courtesy. The object of the Bill is to separate the private sector from the National Health Service. The divide between us is so deep that there is no meeting point at all. Therefore, as I said, it is problematical whether it is worth while making any serious comments. The noble Baroness referred to the intransigence of the Government. I do not think that she used that word, but that was precisely what she meant. We have been intransigent.
We think that this Bill is a good Bill. We examined it in great detail and it presented in terms of clauses precisely what we wanted. If we believe in something which we think is right and it is worded in the way we want it, why should we give way on matters to which we are totally opposed? We know that the Conservative Party in this House, with its built-in majority, can play ducks and drakes with any Labour Government, and it does not hesitate to do so. What chance did this Party have with the Industrial Relations Act? We knew that we could not win a single Amendment. What
1510
chance did this Party—now in Government—have with the Local Government Act? None at all! What chance did this Party—now the Government—have with the legislation relating to the National Health Service reorganisation? So I say to noble Lords opposite, do not appear righteous today about the intransigence of the Government. The Party opposite, with its built-in majority, can always defeat the Labour Party in your Lordships' House, when the Labour Party is in Government, and it never hesitates to do so.
I do not want to say what I have said so many times about the Goodman proposals and the purpose of those proposals. As I said, the purpose was to try to heal a growing breach between the medical profession and the Government, and those proposals, whether or not noble Lords opposite like it, will, we believe, achieve something, and achieve something that is really worth while. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, as well as others, asked, what will it achieve? We believe that it will achieve a good deal. We believe that it will get rid of some of the abuses in the National Health Service today. We have no quarrel at all with people who want privacy and who want to buy that privacy. None whatever. But we say that they must do it outside the National Health Service, in the private sector.
Do not let us shut our eyes to the fact that there is a good deal of abuse; and I am referring not only to queue-jumping, but also to privilege generally. Noble Lords opposite know better than anybody that money will buy anything and everything, and this is something that we are pledged, and have been pledged for years, to stop in the National Health Service. We believe—we may be mistaken, but time will tell—that the gloom of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will be dispelled within the foreseeable future. I say this because I think that members of the medical profession will come to see that the private sector will turn out to be a very good thing for them and that the National Health Service, under its new régime, will also prove to be very beneficial to the people of this country.
I believe that one noble Lord asked what support is there for this measure. There is no support at all from the other side of this Chamber, nor from the supporters of the Conservative Party.

1511
I believe that there may be some support for it among the several millions of people who vote Liberal in this country. But there are millions of people in this country, in the Labour Party and in the trade union movement—and they do number millions—who attach considerable importance to it.
Here I wish to address my remarks particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley—I had a go at him once before on this—and to the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I do not think that I have to do it quite so much to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, whom I think is a little ambivalent towards me. I think he likes only half of me because he uses only half my name. I do not know what the "Wells" side has done to him. But I want to say to noble Lords who are members of the medical profession that they could do much to improve the relationship between the Government and the medical profession if they were not so aggressive in their outlook, and if they would work towards looking at this matter in a positive way, rather than talking about difficulties, taking action, and so on. I would urge—I say this very sincerely—members of the medical profession who are Members of your Lordships' House to take a much more positive view.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that this is the end of an historic compromise. He is absolutely right—but he often is. It is his emphasis that is so often wrong. He asked, how will this Bill help? He wanted to know about loss of income from private beds. I have said before, and I say again, that there will be very little loss so far as the 1,000 beds are concerned because they are so grossly underused that they produce little or nothing. No doubt there will be a loss on the remainder when they are finally phased out. But many times I have tried to remind your Lordships of Clause 8, and there is some reason to believe that under this clause we shall recoup a great deal of what Members opposite describe as loss. At least the losses will be cut down because eventually we shall not have paying patients who bilk the National Health Service, as so many of them do; who come into private beds, pay their physician, pay their surgeon and undertake to pay whatever the private bed costs, but then
1512
leave without doing so. We are involved in a very considerable expense every year trying to recover this money. Let me say, if it has never been said publicly before, that we have to write off quite substantial sums because we cannot recover them.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to the appalling ignorance of the Government. He talked about what he regarded as unsatisfactory replies. I am sure that he is absolutely right on this matter of unsatisfactory replies, because if I do not get the kind of reply I want I always regard it as being very unsatisfactory, and in politics it is found more than ever that when a person asks a question, if he does not then get the answer he wants he regards it as unsatisfactory. My very good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, is a classic example of this. It is only recently, after about two and a half years, that I have been able to get her to say, "I thank the noble Lord for his most satisfactory reply", and I look forward to the next occasion when I hear her say that.
One must bear in mind that people who do not get the kind of reply they want will always dismiss it as being unsatisfactory. It may well be that some of us on this side have fallen short of our responsibilities. It may well be that we have not always come up with what noble Lords opposite think is the fullest possible answer. I can only say that my noble friend Lady Stedman and I have given an awful lot of time to this matter, as I know people on the Bench opposite me have done, and we have tried to deal frankly and honestly with your Lordships' questions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who said at least that I made no bones about what the Bill is about. As a Socialist, it is something I have been looking forward to for years and, let me say, working for; and it gives me very great pleasure to feel that we are at last going to achieve this. I do not say that with any maliciousness at all but because I think it is right that the National Health Service should be able to provide a comprehensive service—and I know there are financial difficulties—to people in this country who want it, and that our waiting lists and our admissions into hospital should have one test and one test only, and that is of need and urgency, which is not the case today. I do not want to give examples of how one

1513
can by-pass this by going to a consultant and paying a fee. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, has admitted, as he admitted once before, that this is so in some instances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, made some reference to 3¼ million BUPA payers who will be denied the National Health Service pay beds. It is perfectly true that ultimately they will. This is what the Bill is all about: that if they want private medicine, with a private consultant and with a private bed, they must go into a private hospital. This is the whole point of BUPA. BUPA owns hospitals into which people go; and pay beds will be made available by such organisations as BUPA. When the noble Baroness expresses some anxiety as to whether BUPA and such organisations will be able to meet their responsibility, let me say here and now that there seems to be no evidence—no evidence at all—that the private sector is short of money. Many hospitals have been built and are used; many others are in the process of being built; and there are many others for which plans have been accepted by the responsible planning authorities. There is no evidence at the moment that they will not be able to meet the demand. I think that, again, it was the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who said that the size of the private sector will depend on demand. I think that is roughly what he said on one occasion. We have no quarrel with that at all, but we want to know what is going on. If they want to build hospitals of a particular size, they must be authorised. Below that size they can build what they like, but they have got to notify.
The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, raised the question of the Royal Commission. He will forgive me if I do not go into that deeply again except to say this: we feel—and I have said this before—that the decisions to take away pay beds is a political one, and, as a political decision we accepted it and made it. Your Lordships may say that we are wrong about this, but we regard it as a political decision, and everyone listening to me now, on both sides of the Chamber, would accept that it is a political decision. It is one that we on this side, with certain exceptions, welcome, and it is one that noble Lords on the other side do not welcome; but it is a political decision. Why ask a Royal Commission to make what is, after all, a political decision?
1514
That is why we decided that we could not refer it to a Royal Commission.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who wrote me a brief note last night about matters, at the bottom of page 14 and the top of page 15, on the meaning of "premises". I saw him, I admit for a brief moment, with my advisers, and we came up today with an answer—an answer in which we said that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, were not necessary, that in our view there was no justification for his apprehension. We have had a further talk, and we have decided—because we, too, want to be absolutely right—that we shall take further advice of a legal nature on this, and before we met today I undertook to write to the noble Lord.
My Lords, I have spoken for 24 minutes, which is much longer than I wanted to, but your Lordships will understand that when one is trying to reply, however inadequately and superficially, to 13 speakers, that is less than two minutes per speaker. I believe—and I believe this most sincerely—that this Bill is right; that it is right that we should separate the private sector from the public sector. There has been a great deal of criticism of Part III but if you look at Part III dispassionately you will see that what we have done is to lay down certain conditions for notifications and authorisations. When you look at them I think you will see, if you can look at them dispassionately, that they are not such terrible things after all. In every community every local authority wants to know what is happening in the planning field and to give authorisation or not, as the case may be; and one really must know what is going on. It is nothing more than an extension of that: of giving liberties to do certain things below a certain bed occupancy, and saying that there must be authorisations if you want to go above it and notification if you keep below it. It is, I believe, perfectly reasonable.
As I say, my Lords, I suppose certainly more than half the noble Lords present today do not like this Bill. I hope to see it on the Statute Book, and I hope—because I think most of us, if not all of us, in your Lordships' Chamber consider that our outlook is democratic—that once it gets on the Statute Book we shall see what

1515
we can do to make it work. There is no reason why the private sector should be any worse off than it is at the present time—and I do not think it is badly off at the moment. I am expressing a personal opinion, but I think it may well be better off in the future. Once it is on the Statute Book, let us concentrate what resources we have, both in manpower and in time, and in money, on equipping the National Health Service so that it becomes the kind of Service which I believe certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her noble friends want to see, because as far as that is concerned I do not think there is anything between us at all.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION BILL
5.58 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons and Motion be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons and Motion be now considered.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS AND MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (300) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert:
"Without prejudice to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents as provided for in section 76 of the Education Act 1944 and subject to the duty of local education authorities to secure provision of secondary schools sufficient in number, character and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education, offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes as provided for in section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because the Commons consider that the words added by the Amendment are without operative effect.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. This Amendment has been discussed at great length both here and in another place. Only last week the House of Commons spent 2½ hours on it, and then rejected it by a majority (large as things go now) of 16 votes. Up to date, we have rejected this Amendment on grounds which I shall come to in a moment, but we have now reached the last stage of consideration, and I must point out something I think noble Lords opposite have never denied, that the drafting will not do at all. What it says, in a most confusing way, is that local authorities, in carrying out their duties under Section 8, must have regard to Section 8. This is not very helpful, and we really cannot allow this sort of thing to get on to the Statute Book.
The Opposition's next step is not clear. Noble Lords will not wish to put nonsense on the Statute Book, and if I am asked to redraft the Amendment they can hardly expect me to accept because we reject the whole of the Amendment. Like the Commons, we consider it to be without operative effect. Secondly, in so far as the Amendment has any meaning, it adds nothing to the Bill which is to be construed, through the last clause, with the Education Acts. The reference to Section 8 is, as I have shown, tautological; the reference to Section 76 is not likely to make any difference to the way in which local authorities discharge their functions. In these debates we have heard much, and rightly about the rights of parents. This Amendment will in no way strengthen them since Section 76 is not affected by the Bill. I ask your Lordships not to insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 2.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
6.1 p.m.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, I rise with a certain amount of diffidence to intervene at this stage of the Bill but I have become increasingly concerned as this week has progressed upon how this

1517
House has been considering the Amendments in each of the Bills which have been returned to us by the other place. I should like, if I may, to pass a few observations directly related to this and to every Amendment now before us. I have become concerned because I have been reading the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and setting these against the pretty strong allegations made upon those of us who have not been happy about the Bills and who have displayed our unhappiness, when we thought it right (I certainly have voted with the Government and against the Government) by voting for Amendments in the Division Lobby. I have in mind such allegations against this House as "wrecking the Bill" which I think was an allegation made by the Secretary of State in the Commons, "mutilating Bills" and "challenging the elected Government".
This House has not the power, even if it had the intention, to do these things. The Parliament Acts simply do not permit us. All that the Parliament Acts—and it was a Labour Government who passed the last Parliament Act—allow us to do is to impose a minimum period of delay to enable the Commons to have more reflection. This delay is not for a year, not for six months or for any other general fixed period. Let us test it, if we may, upon this Bill. Let us see exactly where we stand on this Amendment upon this Bill.
If we insist on this Amendment and return the Bill with the Amendment still incorporated, we shall be deemed to have rejected the Bill within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Parliament Act 1911. Then two critical dates come into play: the date when this Bill was sent in this Session to us by the Commons, which I am told by the Public Bill Office was July 22nd of this year; and the date when the Second Reading took place in the Commons, which I am told was on 4th February this year. It is not complicated. It becomes easy because the first date complies with the requirement that the Bill should be sent to us one month before the end of the Session. Indeed my calculation (if the date on my watch, of 18th November, is correct) is that the Bill was sent to us nearly four months ago.
Then we have only to turn to the second
1518
date—4th February 1976—and we know by turning to that date that the Commons are entitled to begin to invoke the Parliament Act on the next day, namely, 5th February, after the year has passed which, in fact, is a Saturday, so that they will have a frustrated wait until the following Monday, the 7th February, 1977. Having invoked the Parliament Act the Commons are entitled to process the whole Bill on one day and then to send it straight back here. It must be noted that this is precisely the procedure that the Commons followed on this Bill when they considered it earlier this week. Then, if it is a straight issue between the two Houses of Parliament, this House rejects it again and on its rejection it becomes law. Alternatively, we come to some agreement. The point is: either way the Commons without disruption of their legislation can have this Bill on the Statute Book on their own terms before March, as the old saying goes, "comes in like a lion" or certainly before it "goes out like a lamb".
Some may see this in terms of drama. It is not a drama. It is not dramatic, and it is not the stuff which should create a constitutional crisis. Anyway, how can the House of Lords be creating a constitutional crisis when it is acting within the Constitution? It seems to me that this House should not let any of these Amendments be withdrawn if we believe it right that they should be in the Bill. A great deal more could be said but the important thing is now to settle down; listen to the arguments and vote according to the merits. That is what I ask your Lordships to do now.
6.6 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who has just spoken will not expect me to continue with the lecture on the Constitutional position. It would be better for the House if I returned to the Amendment itself. It is a very curious thing that the Government say that the Amendment is without operative effect; yet we pressed it and they resisted it stubbornly. There must be something in it beyond what is put on our Marshalled List. I agree that from the aspect of law it does not add anything new, because whether or not they are put into Clause 1 of the Bill, Sections 8 and 76

1519
would still be lurking in the recesses of the 1944 Act.
That is a fact. But life is rather different and this Amendment would, I think, in a broader sense have a salutary effect. Feeling is running high among parents that they should have a greater say in how their children are educated. Are their children well taught, or are they taught at all, the subjects which the parents think they should be taught? What effect will the reorganisation of secondary education have on the standards of teaching? Those are legitimate questions. Parents are entitled to ask them and, within the comprehensive system, to find the best school for their child. In my belief, this Amendment could be a definite help in making the comprehensive system more widely acceptable to parents and more easily workable by local education authorities. That is a view I venture to ask your Lordships to look at with some care.
My Lords, I begin by referring to what the Ministers themselves have said about this Amendment. The Government have not claimed that it would destroy the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on 6th October said, in col. 1303 of the Official Report:
"this is not a wrecking Amendment".
In similar style, the Secretary of State began her speech against the Amendment by saying that it was unnecessary. Sections 8 and 76 were kept alive by Clause 12 of this Bill. In other words, whether those sections are left in the background or are brought forward into Clause 1, parents will not have any new rights to opt out of the comprehensive system.
Therefore what was the problem? What is it that the Government consider the Amendment might do to upset their policy? In both Houses when it became clear that the Opposition were going to press this Amendment to a Division, Ministers changed their ground. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson (at column 1322 of the Official Report) told us this:
"of course, the meaning in Sections 8 and 76 will be different after the passing of this Bill because something has been added to it".
What has been added to the meaning of these sections is the principle of non-selection as defined in Clause 1. We accept that because we did not vote
1520
against the Second Reading. It means that after the Bill becomes law, the scope for parents to make sure that their wishes are effective will be changed. It will be reduced in one direction—no more grammar schools, for instance—but it could be much increased in another, and used to make the comprehensive system work better. It is this latter possibility which gives the Amendment an important meaning.
Parents know and care more about education than they did. They will search out the comprehensives which teach well and offer courses in which their child is interested—not just at 6th form level, but all the way to the 6th form. Would they be wrong to believe that unless Section 76 is reaffirmed in the Bill, it will be more difficult to make known and respected their preference for one comprehensive school rather than another? We have to be clear about this. Whatever the Department or LEAs may do, parents are going to express their preference on educational grounds between comprehensive schools just as much as they will express their preference on grounds of religion or sex.
Parents, as well as the Secretary of State, have their suspicions and both need to be set at rest if this new system is to have a chance. Parents think that Clause 1 can be interpreted to deny them any right to express a preference between comprehensive schools. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, ended her case in another place against the Amendment with these words:
"…we are bound to conclude that the Opposition are supporting this Amendment not on the ground that they have suggested—namely, their concern for comprehensive education—but on the ground that they would do everything possible to water it down."
That is at column 270 of Hansard of the other place for 9th November.
So there you have it. Mrs. Williams abandons her original position that the Amendment has no effect or meaning and comes out with a different and, I hope to show, mistaken argument. She opposes it because she believes that it may have a practical effect and be used to undermine the basic principle of non-selection. After that admission, it is extremely difficult to see how the Government could say that that Amendment would have no operative effect.

1521
Be that as it may, there remains a very difficult problem in the solution of which the Amendment could be useful. That is the concept of neighbourhood schools. It is true that in Clause 2 (6) the Government have already made a grudging exception to neighbourhood schools in favour of intake by banding. This method will certainly be in direct conflict with many parents' wishes. Banding is a form of selection by ability carried out against the spirit of Section 76 in order to achieve a balanced intake in schools with different backgrounds. Children will be directed away from their neighbourhood comprehensive because the area in which they live contains too many or too few able boys and girls. Quite a number of parents are going to be furious when the comprehensive in their area is closed to them in order that their child shall be drafted to another comprehensive school which they have every reason to think is inferior. They will ask: what has happened to Section 76? Supposing they are told that the Labour Government refused to reaffirm it in this Bill, is that going to help to make the new schools a success?
That is one reason for putting our Amendment in the Bill; but the case is just as strong if the Government's original intention is insisted upon and all comprehensives become strictly neighbourhood schools. The essence of the neighbourhood school is that parents' choice counts for nothing. The place where you live decides where your child is to go to school. If you consider your neighbourhood school unsatisfactory, your only escape is to move house to an area in which the school meets your wishes. Somehow the Government must come to terms with the educational problems raised by neighbourhood schools, or they will face a row with parents that will do great damage to their comprehensive system. One sensible step to head off this row is to reaffirm Section 76 in the body of the Bill and then have an open debate on how to organise medium-sized comprehensive schools to give the best possible education to children and the greatest satisfaction to parents.
In most areas LEAs will want to develop a group of medium-sized comprehensive schools within which there will be considerable specialisation, one school making a reputation in some subjects and another in other subjects. There is no other way of offering children as good, let alone
1522
better, teaching than they get now. The Secretary of State says the comprehensive system can teach as well as when the grammar schools existed. It does not now. If she intends that to come about—and we are all with her on that—then the necessary arrangements must be made for the intake into comprehensives which can only offer a few special subjects and features. Under these arrangements, parents can be given a real chance to express a preference between the schools. I beg leave to doubt whether, unless this Amendment is put into the Bill, parents will be able to get their choice.
I turn now to the other aspect of the Amendment which has a great and urgent social significance. During the Committee stage of the Bill the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, at col. 1320, of the Official Report of 6th October, reminded us that Section 76 does not talk about the choice of schools but simply says that parents' wishes must be respected where resources and conditions make it reasonable to do so. This reminder is extremely important.
No one can understand the tensions in the education system today who does not realise that the area in which parents' wishes cry out to be respected has grown enormously since 1944. In 1976 parents want to have much more information about and more influence on what happens in the school which their child is attending. What matters to the thoughtful parent is whether the values they believe in are taught in the school and how successfully the curriculum and the standards of teaching fit the child for the career he or she hopes to follow—not in the fantasy do-as-you-please world, but in the real world of holding down a good job. Mrs. Williams recognises this. She has said so plainly in speeches and on television.
Her words are sympathetic and reasonable but words alone will not calm the parents who are now on the warpath. How can they be reassured and be persuaded to give the schools the considerable time needed to put their house in order? When the 1944 Act was planned, the management of the maintained schools was organised as a partnership between the Government, the LEAs, and the teachers. Society has greatly changed since then.

1523
Parents have emerged as a big factor in education. It is high time they were formally taken in as the fourth partner. The Prime Minister spoke in this sense; the Secretary of State agrees. In this atmosphere of understanding and good will, not to put this Amendment into the Bill would be construed as a slap in the face for parents. They would see it as a repudiation in an Act of Parliament of the fair words which Ministers have recently used about them.
I say with all the emphasis I can that to reject the Amendment would make Section 76 an ongoing subject of acute controversy. That would be bad for the schools. The schools are in deep trouble and, for the sake of the children, the two sides of the House should come together and in this modest gesture show that we are equally mindful of parents' wishes. The difference between the Government and this side, after all, is not great. They think we may be trying to put parents against the comprehensive system. I hope I have shown that such a suspicion is without foundation. We think they underrate the justifiable anxiety of many parents and therefore it would be wise to give this symbolically important sign that in this Bill parents' wishes are not forgotten. That would help to make a system of medium-sized comprehensives workable.
I very much hope that the Government will change their minds and accept the Amendment in the constructive spirit in which I am putting it forward. If they cannot see their way to do this, my noble friends will have to make a choice either to vote on it this evening or to let the Government take the odium—which I think would be extremely bad for their system of education—and then on this side of the House I feel sure we shall have to prepare to repeal a large proportion of this Bill. That, my Lords, would be a pity. It does not do our schools any good to change the nature of the ogranisation every time there is a change of Party in Office.
6.22 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount raised a magnificent edifice on a rather minor Amendment, and although I agree to a certain extent with a lot of what he said—and he produced a lot of wisdom on the
1524
subject of comprehensive schools, their size and what they are going to have to do about selection and about specialisation in certain subjects—I hardly think this Amendment really bears the weight of a threat to repeal quite a lot of the Bill at a later stage.
I shall confine myself to two short points which arise merely from this particular stage. First of all, I do not know what gremlin at the last moment persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to raise the point about drafting, but my noble friend beside me and I have looked through his speech two or three times and we fail to see any substance whatever in the point. We fail to see that it is badly drafted or tautological. But that is by the way, because I do want to make one point before advising your Lordships' House not to insist on this Amendment, which is that I think it is a very great pity that the Government have not been more eirenic about it.
I think the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the public relations effect of putting in Section 76 and re-emphasising it could well have been met by the Secretary of State—particularly since the argument being put forward by another place is that it is without operative effect—with a little more good will. That would have done nothing but good. Perhaps it may well be that we had a change of Secretary of State a little too late in the proceedings of this Bill for that to happen. I see no reason why they should not have assisted the House in its evident wish to have a reference to Section 76 put in. I think it is a great pity and I fear they will regret it. However, I agree with another place that this Amendment is without operative effect. I do not believe it would be a suitable Amendment to send back to another place, and therefore I shall be advising my noble friends—and I would also advise your Lordships—not to insist on this Amendment but to agree with the Commons Reason.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I find great difficulty on this Amendment. I think we have to recognise the problem which will face the local education authority in the operation of this Bill. To say that it denies selection is really meaningless

1525
because selection is inevitable. They can select territorially by having neighbourhood schools: that is still selection. They can select on other grounds. My worry is that, while I wholly support the principle of parental choice within the limits provided by Section 76, I recognise the difficulty of 500 parents choosing one school where there are only 100 places, because that could drive the authority into deciding which were the 100 to be admitted and which were the 400 who could not be admitted. In other words, they would be driven to selection of some kind.
I am also worried because the concept of neighbourhood schools has no status in law, so far as I can see. I have suffered for 30 years from the inevitable parent who refused to accept the definition of catchment areas which a local authority had found it necessary to operate; and indeed, if there is a place in another school the parent must win. The only grounds on which an authority could win was if there was no available place in that school. I would have been happier myself if Amendment No. 9 has been praised not as a duty but as a power, because I believe that it is probably the most effective solution to the problem. It would retain section 1, which would in fact enable the local authority to have regard to the wishes of parents, so far as practicable, as to the admission of pupils with particular needs, without having to ascertain the particular needs of all the pupils. In other words, if a pupil would normally have been allocated to the neighbourhood school but if the authority had said: "This child has a need which we do not think this school could adequately meet", they could say "Here is another school which could meet that need and they could go there" That would not offend Section 1 in any way as regards meeting the needs of a particular pupil. I can think of many cases where it would be effective. Unfortunately, as I said on an earlier point, it raises an entirely different issue, because it would place an obligation on an authority to ascertain the particular needs of all the children.
I do not think the issue of the first Amendment is one that necessarily solves the problem. The authority would still have problems if too many parents chose a particular school. On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge which takes precedence: is Section 1 overriding Sec
1526
tions 8 and 76? It is true they still remain in the 1944 Act, but do they take precedence or does Section 1 take precedence? It seems to me that by accepting this Amendment a balanced picture would be provided in which we should be saying in effect: "We accept Section 8; we are concerned to meet the individual needs of children, and we accept that those needs vary very substantially". Certainly that is accepted by the Government. The concept that all children are the same is not accepted by any of us. They differ very greatly. They differ in the colour of their hair, in the colour of their eyes, in their height, in their weight and in every human attribute. This is fact.
The Government are saying, "We believe that these variations can be met within the school, rather than by having to send them to different schools." This is the basic principle. I do not reject that, and I accept it. But I also have to accept, having administered at local authority level, that in the nature of things there will be children, who would normally on a territorial basis attend a certain school, who would be much better served by another school, and I want the means of doing that. The Minister may say that this could be done without this Amendment. I think it would be easier with this Amendment. There would be a basis for doing it.
I think, also—and this is not unimportant—that banding as a solution of this problem will not work. This is a certainty. If I, as a parent, feel that the neighbourhood school which my child would attend is not what I would wish for, and I take the trouble to buy a house in another area, can your Lordships imagine how I would feel if I were to be told that my child was to be bussed back to the area from which I had come, and would be forced to go to that school which I had been trying desperately to avoid? This is a very difficult situation. I doubt, therefore, whether banding can succeed. Inevitably, we are moving, and will move, in general, towards the concept of the neighbourhood school, and I merely seek a measure of flexibility which will enable the operation of the principle that the reasonable wishes of parents could be met, if they were practical, within the provision which an authority can make.
6.32 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may comment on the observations which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has just made and follow, however inadequately, the speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has made. I wonder whether I can do that in a rather odd way, by considering my own education. I was born in a very small village populated almost entirely by colliers and by railwaymen, and I wonder what would have happened if I had gone to a neighbourhood comprehensive school which was appropriate to a place like that, instead of being fortunate, as I was, to pass the 11-plus examination and go to a grammar school, from which I was able to get to Cambridge. I do not believe, in the circumstances, that I would have had any chance at all of getting to one of the greater universities, had I been restricted to a small neighbourhood comprehensive school in a village some distance from a town. So the principle for which I plead, which has already been made by the other speakers, is that there should be flexibility in moving children from place to place, so that when there are facilities in a school which are better than those elsewhere, and when they are needed by individual children, those children should be able to travel from one school to the other.
How far this point is covered in this Amendment, I cannot be sure. But it is extremely important because I believe that it does great harm to children not to allow them to exploit their abilities to the full, and we risk great dangers if we gear our whole educational system to the slow developer and fail to give the young, precocious, hard-working little swot the opportunities which, in the old days, he had.
I was extraordinarily fortunate. My parents never had to spend a penny on my education and I was able to get to Cambridge. I spoke this week to a dozen academics, whose names I must not mention but all of whom are well-known in this House. I asked them "If you as a child had had to go to your neighbourhood comprehensive school, would your career have been as distinguished as it has been? Would you have gone to London, Cambridge or wherever it was?" They all said "No". They all came from very
1528
small schools in remote districts, in which it is inconceivable that the opportunities could have been as good as they were in the grammar schools to which they were able to go.
It is my belief that the best of the comprehensive schools will be able to give to the brighter children the opportunities which they seek, but it is also my belief that small ones in isolated districts, and in the centres of cities, too, will become intellectual ghettos, as some neighbourhood comprehensives have become in the United States. It is a terrible prospect that able children will in future be denied opportunities which they have today, and this will happen unless there is a fair mobility as between schools which will enable children to move to where opportunities exist.
I make one more point before I sit down. At this moment in time, we have a three-year university course, and the final degree standard is as high as is to be found anywhere else in the world after a four-year course. The reason why other countries need a four-year course is that, almost invariably, they have neighbourhood comprehensive schools. May I warn the Government that, unless something is done to make it possible for the brighter children to be taught by the ablest teachers, they, too, will have to introduce a four-year course if the standard of the honours degree is not to fall. Nowhere else in the world do they achieve the standards that we achieve in three years. I think it true to say that in most other countries the first year, and sometimes even the second year, of the university course is devoted to teaching subjects which are taught in schools here. Once we lose this, we have to insist on a four-year course if our degrees are to remain as they now are—acceptable in all countries of the world.
The problems of negotiations with the French, who have a very much more elaborate system that we have, have been difficult hitherto. They will become impossible in future. They have the most highly selective system of education anywhere in the world. They glory in it, and it works extremely well. The Americans have neighbourhood comprehensives schools, some of which are good and some of which are very bad, and they have a four-year course. But many

1529
students have no hope at all of getting to the university of their choice.
We are faced today with a very real problem, and it is this. How are we to retain our acedemic standards? How are our universities to continue giving a good honours degree in three years, unless the students are better taught than they are likely to be in the average neighbourhood comprehensive school? How far this first Amendment covers this point, I do not know. But I believe very strongly indeed that there should be an opportunity for children to migrate to those schools which are accessible to them in the district, and, if necessary, away from what has made the neighbourhood comprehensive school into a term of abuse, in many countries. I cannot understand how far this Amendment will cover that problem, but I pose it to the Government, and I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply how this problem will be resolved.
6.38 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think it is fair of me to claim that while this Bill has been going through the House noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, on these Benches and on the Cross-Benches have all been trying to bring home to the Government that what is objectionable about it is its insistence on a totally uniform system of education. I assure noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we on these Benches want to see comprehensive schools established and flourishing. But the Government—and it is the Government alone who are guilty in this respect—do not appear to realise that, if they insist on forcing non-selective education down everyone's throats, they will be rendering a disservice to the cause of comprehensive schools. Local authorities must have some discretion about how and when they will reorganise; there must be sufficient resources to do the job properly, and there must be a right for parents to have some say in how their children are to be brought up and educated. Yet the fact of the matter is that, through all the stages of this Bill, Amendments directed to these points—indeed, Amendments directed to the principle of comprehensive education—have all been resisted by the Government.
1530
If I may call in aid the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, this Amendment is not confusing; it is a simple re-statement of two of the most important sections of the Education Act 1944; Section 76, which provides that, when possible, the hopes and wishes of parents for their children shall be taken into account, and Section 8 which lays a duty on authorities to match their schools and the education given to the different ages, abilities and aptitudes of the pupils.
As we understand it from the Marshalled List, the Government are resisting their case on the ground that the Amendment is unnecessary. In effect, in another place the Secretary of State has said that within a system of totally non-selective schools each comprehensive school should be suitable to all children and, therefore, acceptable to all parents. How right my noble friend Lord Eccles was to point out that this is not what happens in reality. Indeed, it is probably not what local education authorities are going to want to happen as the years go by.
Today, increasingly, parents want the very best start in life for their sons and daughters, and in many cases they are just not prepared to be directed to the nearest neighbourhood school. After all, has not the Prime Minister himself said that today our country needs, as never before, boys and girls whose education fits them to make their way in the world? Parents have listened to that Oxford speech and have taken it very much to heart.
What I am putting to the Government is that in the real world parents will want their children to go to the school which they believe is best for them. It may be because the school has a very strong science department, or because the language teaching is good, or because it has a very good remedial teacher, since their son or daughter is rather backward, or because the school is small, or because it is a single-sex school, or because the parents happen to like the headmaster or the headmistress, or just because, in a free society, the parents happen to like the school. They will want to choose in this way between different comprehensive schools. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, said that he was not certain that the Amendment would cover what he wished to see; namely, the opportunities that he had to

1531
go to a school which gave him the opportunity to reach his academic position in. life.
As I understand it, under the law as it stands parents have no absolute right of choice. What Section 8 (which is included in this Amendment) of the 1944 Education Act does is to lay a duty on authorities to provide a variety of education. Although the school which is then chosen by parents may be full, unsuitable or too far away, nevertheless the duty on authorities to try to match provision to needs is provided for in Section 8. This is the practical application of the principle of parental choice which is contained in Section 76. The Government may protest when the noble Lord replies—as, indeed, the Secretary of State protested in another place—that comprehensive education is its own Section 8; that each comprehensive school must provide all the necessary variety. In a system of totally comprehensive schools, particularly at a time of scarce resources, I believe that nothing could be further from the truth.
Yet what do we find? At the moment, the Department of Education and Science is busy preparing a new circular which I assume it would like to send out as an accompanying document to the passage of this Bill. I have quoted before paragraph 8 of that circular as it stands in draft form, and I make no apology for quoting it again. Paragraph 8 says this:
"Questions of a school's suitability to the aptitude and ability of a child are not expected to remain of practical significance for much longer, as they should not normally arise in the case of admissions to a comprehensive school".
Those words run directly counter to the wise and moderate advice which has been given to the House this evening by my noble friend Lord Eccles. Freedom of choice in a comprehensive system is going to be increasingly important to parents.
Those words also run counter to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, in his speech, when he pointed out that it is the law of the land that a parent can always choose another school under Section 76, provided, of course, that it is suitable and provided also that there is room in the school. I must say that if those words in the draft circular of the Department of Education and Science represent the way in which the
1532
Government intend to interpret Clause 1 of the Bill, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that Section 76 and Section 8 remain operative.
When the noble Lord in his few remarks explained why the Government are standing against the Amendment he said that, if written into the Bill, Section 8 would be tautological and Section 76 would not be of much effect. I should like to ask the noble Lord when he replies for the Government to give an assurance that the House may take it that the Government are absolutely genuine in their view that to write Section 76 and Section 8 into the Bill would be unnecessary because those two sections continue to stand, whatever other things this Bill may say. That is the way in which I interpret the words which are on our Marshalled List.
May I refer to one other matter. My noble friend Lord Eccles pointed out that when the Secretary of State was speaking in another place on the consideration of these Amndments she appeared suddenly to change her ground and to give it as her opinion that this is also intended in some way to be a wrecking Amendment. That suggestion was made in col. 269. Let us remember that in a debate on parental rights in this House two years ago no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, told your Lordships that it was he personally who drafted Section 76. I remember that the noble Lord admitted that Section 76 is only a general principle because it is impossible to assure every single parent of absolute choice of school. The noble Lord came back to this House a year later for a debate on direct grant schools in which he returned to the same subject and said this:
"Section 76 has, alas, been forgotten not only by many of your Lordships but by the country as a whole, and the sooner we get back to remembering that that was the original idea, backed by a Coalition Government, by myself, by Mr. Chuter Ede, by noble Lords I have mentioned and by others in the Labour movement, the better".
I put it to the Government that if they really do believe that Section 76 would wreck the intentions of the Bill they should reflect very seriously on the wisdom of the Bill itself. But of course the Amendment is not a wrecking Amendment. It simply states, in the simple words which were used by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and Mr. Chuter Ede over 30 years ago, one of the oldest principles in the

1533
world, that parents really count for something and that no major Education Bill ought to be allowed to omit mention of them. The Amendment adds one of the most firmly based principles of our education service, that the service is a partnership between local and central Government, involving teachers, governors and parents, a partnership which needs every ounce of mutual understanding in these very difficult times.
At a time when local government expenditure is again bound to come under such heavy pressure it is unrealistic of the Government to lay down that each comprehensive school is going to be all things to all pupils. Only today the newspapers carry reports of the Secretary of State's consideration of a new examination which there may be for school leavers. In the reports I have read, constantly one finds a reference to the shortage of teachers in mathematics, in languages and in English.
Individual comprehensive schools are going to have their strength and their weaknesses and this Amendment would write into the Bill, alongside the comprehensive principle, recognition of the simple, human and educational factor which my noble friend Lord Eccles explained so clearly, that in a comprehensive system parents will go on wanting, and wanting more and more, their children to go to one school but perhaps not to another. Therefore I hope that the Secretary of State will at least alter her mind that this Amendment would, to use her words, "bury the comprehensive principle under Section 76 and Section 8 of the Education Act". It was an expression of opinion, I thought, which would bring dismay to many people—people who believe in comprehensive education but who realise that unless local education authorities and parents feel really committed to the schools in their area those schools will never really be a success.
For this reason, we on these Benches believe in the rights of parents and the responsibilities of local education authorities. Because the Bill, taken as a whole reduces those rights in many ways and diminishes those responsibilities, I should like to repeat the undertaking which was given on Second Reading in another place by Mr. St. John-Stevas, that when the moment comes, a future Conservative
1534
Government will feel impelled to repeal the objectionable clauses in what we feel is in so many ways an irrelevant Bill.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I should like to begin by making three things very clear which have not been clear in the widespread but extremely interesting speeches we have had. What we are discussing is not whether Section 8 and Section 76 are good things or bad things—and a number of speeches have suggested that the Government, by not accepting this Amendment, are undermining those principles. Let it be perfectly clear that the reason why the Government are rejecting this Amendment is because those principles are firmly established in the Bill.
The second thing the noble Lord asked me was to give him an assurance that those two sections from the 1944 Act are firmly established in the Bill. I give that assurance and I give it readily. Thirdly, we had such an interesting discussion that I think even though it is really not my business to reply to a Second Reading debate—which is largely what we have had—I should like to make one or two comments.
I agree with most of the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said about the importance of giving confidence to parents. This is not a view which is held only on one side of the House; it is held by everybody who has the faintest interest in education. But the way it was put suggested that the noble Viscount and his colleagues are interested in it and we are not. I simply cannot let that pass, because it is not the case. The noble Viscount knows very well that it is not the case. It will not do. Our position is just the same as that held by others: there are very difficult problems connected with neighbourhood schools, of course, and although I think the experience of my noble friend Lord Bowden is interesting, I would point out to him—because I think it is worth saying—that at the present moment comprehensive schools in catchment areas of the kind he was speaking about, where there are no grammar schools taking from the same catchment area, are producing high level results. I could go into this at greater detail or, if the noble Lord wanted me to, I could write to him about it. If the

1535
grammar school was not there, the comprehensive school would be different and would include the wider talents, and I think that is an entirely separate situation.
I think it is important in discussing an Amendment such as this, and having had a good "run around", that we should stick to the Amendment. The Amendment is that two sections which the Government believe in implicitly should be written into the Bill. The Government say that they are already fully covered by the Bill, particularly in Clause 12, and that to write them in would be a possible source of confusion for the future. I will not argue the case of drafting because if the Opposition press this Motion it will be their problem and not mine, but I hope the Opposition will not find it necessary to press it. The argument has been on the Bill as a whole and not on this Amendment, but at this stage we must return to the Amendment. I ask your Lordships not to persist in this because basically there is nothing between us on this Amendment and I think I have said all I need to make that clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 1, line 11, leave out "or partly"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
4 Because the Commons do not consider that the provision of secondary education in schools where the admission arrangements are partly based on selection can be justified.
6.45 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. The other place spent two hours in discussion on this Amendment last Tuesday, having previously considered the Amendment for one and a half hours in Committee. The Commons as a whole have now disagreed to it because they do not consider that the provision of secondary education in schools where the admission arrangements are based partly on selection can be justified.
Moved, that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the intention of this Amendment, of course, was not to wreck the principle of the Bill but to try to open the door to some flexibility in putting comprehensive education into effect. I should just like to say one thing on the Amendment. Since the Amendment was passed by your Lordships, the Government have remained inactive in the matter. They have apparently been content to wait and then to disagree with this Amendment in the other place. But the difficulty that this will put the education service into is that there will be very little flexibility about admission arrangements in the Bill. I would go so far as to assert that there will be no opportunity to send a backward child to a school with particularly good remedial teaching or to enter a very gifted child for a school which would seem to meet their needs better than another one, or to allow a boy or girl to go to a particular school because the maths or the science or the language teaching suit the pupil.
My own apprehension is that in fact these sensible admission arrangements will continue—I heard the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, saying that this is the sort of thing that is sensible—and the Bill will be breached until the time comes when a parent takes the case to appeal under Section 68 because he is suddenly denied admission for a child on the same grounds as other people have been able to gain admission. Finally he may even take it to law. I think it is a pity because in essence it leaves the drafting of the Bill obscure and we shall have to await the outcome of events to see the exact meaning of Clause 1. With that regret, I would not stand in the way of the Commons insistence in regard to this particular Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, never having taken part in an education debate of this kind, I am not really in a position to make good observations, but what rather worries me with regard to parental interest in children's education in future is this. I want to know from somebody how children with parents who have not really got a knowledge of what school their children ought to go to or what their children's capacity is, are to be advised. In other words, children with parents who are not quite qualified to give advice because they

1537
have no real knowledge of the educational opportunities for their children, need to be protected. Where parental advice is given to local education authorities or to head teachers, there will then be parental control. The parents will have the knowledge and can keep on asking for their children to go to special schools where they will receive specialist teaching in relation to their capacity.
I know only too well from the time when I was in the House of Commons that if one went on and on sometimes one won a battle which perhaps one should not have won. But on the other hand, what is going to happen to children who are in a position where the parents cannot go on and on, or do not know how to go on and on? I can see that some children will then miss their opportunity. Where parents do not know how to make representations, and cannot go on arguing and do not know how to argue, I should like to know how those children are going to be protected so that they will not miss the opportunity of getting the benefit of whatever school they want to go to.
I am very worried about that, because those children need protection from somebody or other. I am afraid I have not put it very well because, as I say, I am not really very knowledgeable about all this, but I want to be quite sure that all children are going to have the same opportunity of going forward in whatever school they attend, even if they do not have parents who can argue with the local authorities, or argue with head teachers, or whoever they have to argue with.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to relate the noble Baroness's remarks to the Amendment, but I shall try to answer her. The normal recourse of a parent worried about where the child shall go is the head of the primary school. This, as a general rule, is fully observed. I think that the advice—of course there may be bad advice occasionally—is very good, and I think that the primary school head consults individual teachers, matrons, and everybody else. In the present state of society, I think this is about as far as you can go, and is not really half bad.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert "or such other ability or aptitude as the Secretary of State may from time to time by order designate."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
8 Because the Amendment extends the exceptions to the comprehensive principle beyond what the Commons consider justifiable.
7.2 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8. It may be to the convenience of the House if we are able at the same time to discuss Lords Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12. The other place debated these Amendments last week, having previously considered the general question of exceptions to the comprehensive principle for no less than six and a half hours in Committee. They have not agreed to the Amendments because they consider that their acceptance would lead to an unacceptable breach of the comprehensive principle. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said at column 317:
"If the Amendment were to be retained in its present form a future Secretary of State could, in effect, repeal the Bill without the unpleasant necessity of arguing in any detail for its repeal before Parliament or the country."
I hope noble Lords will accept the verdict of another place and not press these two Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, of course the Reason numbered 8 has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment No. 5. It is a reason, possibly a good one, for rejecting Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. But what the Commons say is that the Amendments extend the exceptions to the comprehensive principle beyond what the Commons consider justifiable. Of course this Amendment does nothing of the sort; it merely allows the Secretary of State in future to bring proposals for that to come before

1539
Parliament. I think that we were entitled to a better Reason than that for the rejection of this particular Amendment.
When we put forward this Amendment in the first place it was in a completely and absolutely genuine desire to be helpful. We still think that the Government would save themselves a great deal of trouble in the future if they accepted this ability to widen the exceptions when and where it should become necessary. I do not accept the argument given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that somehow a future Secretary of State could completely de-comprehensivise the school system without anyone noticing. It is not at all likely to happen.
However, since the Government do not see that it would help them particularly to have that ability when, as I am sure will happen, future research and study over the whole educational field isolates and points out certain possibilities where it may be a good thing to have more exceptions to the Bill than what has sometimes been described as the rather frivolous ones of music and dancing (and exceptions have already been granted), far be it for me to force such exceptions on them. I am merely trying to be helpful.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I think this Amendment is an addition to the exceptions already made in the Bill for music and dancing. Naturally, I am only too pleased about the exception so far as music is concerned, and I presume dancing means ballet dancing, but I am not certain. Of course both of those are very specialised subjects, but they are not the only ones. What about maths? What about science? What about history, which really needs a teacher of genius if he is going to make it interesting? All these subjects are specialised subjects, and it is a great pity if the average child, or one which has a particular talent or interest in that direction, will not be able to get the teaching he deserves.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, we have spoken on this question of precocity of mathematicians before. It is as notorious as the precocity of chess players, the precocity of dancers, and the precocity of musicians. Gauss is just as precocious and Mozart, if one can take a particular case. I think it is hardly worth objecting
1540
to this, because I believe that sooner or later selection will come back because it will be demanded in the interests of national efficiency, and if it does not after all what a wonderful play some future Gibbon might make in writing of the decline of Great Britain, to say that the only subjects they took seriously in their schools were music and dancing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert
"; or
(c) the provision of education in any school where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are based partly on selection to ensure the most effective use of qualified teachers of mathematics"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
8 Because the Amendment extends the exceptions to the comprehensive principle beyond what the Commons consider justifiable.
7.8 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I should like to ask a question or two of the noble Lord. He knows perfectly well that there are nothing like enough qualified mathematics teachers. Those teachers will be grouped more strongly in some schools than others. In fact, there are schools—and I fear for some time there will continue to be schools—where really there are no teachers qualified to teach mathematics to A-level.
Since we have just agreed with the Commons that the words "wholly or partly" are restored in subsection (1) it means that no local authority has the legal right to send pupils to the schools where there are qualified mathematics teachers if there are no qualified ones in a comprehensive to which the child has originally been allocated. This is very serious. There is no disagreement between

1541
the Government and those on these Benches that the standards of mathematics have fallen, that the standards which we need under modern conditions should have risen and that industry and many other employers looking for young people with the basic mathematic skills are highly dissatisfied.
What can we do about it if we pass a Bill which legally prohibits any local authority from matching the pupils who would get the most benefit from the qualified mathematics teachers from doing so? In view of the rigidity of the Government on this question, the only thing they will be able to do about it is, roughly speaking, to disregard Clause 1, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Belstead that as soon as the Bill is passed local authorities will say, "We will not pay any attention to it; it makes absolute nonsense of our education system if we are not able to use to the full the qualified teachers we have." And there is no subject so important as mathematics in relation to the deficiencies of teachers today. Therefore, although I quite see that if one is wholly sold on the comprehensive principle and one does not want any form of selection by ability or aptitude, which is what Clause 1 says, one pushes it through, one does it to the damage of the children and against the national interest.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, we should not avoid facing this problem. The only solution which seems practicable if the Bill goes through is to recognise that it would be quite impracticable in comprehensive schools—even if they are of a considerable size, and one does not want them to be too large—to provide A-level mathematics teaching in all such schools (indeed, to provide sixth form teaching in all such schools) without having either sixth form colleges or tertiary colleges; in other words, bringing toegther those who wish to pursue these courses. The problem which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, faces, and it is a difficult one, is whether this means that the teaching below that age, say 16, will be adequate. As I said earlier, I believe the problem starts earlier than that; in the primary school. We must face up to the issue that as soon as one takes a concentration of probably the best qualified teachers in mathematics and proposes to disperse them over all second-
1542
ary schools, there is no prospect of providing adequately for sixth form teaching in all schools.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, there are serious problems over mathematics. We all know that and we have spent hours here and in another place discussing it, so I will not go over the ground again. We have said that one solution would be for a boy with a particular aptitude where a teacher was not available in a comprehensive school to go to a course at another school. This may sometimes be possible and at other times not, but there is no rigid exclusion of trying to get the best teaching here and it is wrong to suggest that there is. The Commons in their Reason are accurate in saying that the Amendment goes too far and allows children to be selected not for courses but for schools on aptitude, something against the entire comprehensive system which the Bill is here to try to enforce. Although, therefore, I have never—I think I have shown this to be the case in our discussions—taken less than very seriously the mathematics problem we have in the schools (and particularly it is a question of teachers, which is really nothing to do with the point before us) I hope noble Lords will not find it necessary to insist on the Amendment which the Commons have asked us to remove.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert
"; or
(c) the provision of education at any non-maintained school which can afford opportunities for education to a particular pupil which cannot be afforded at a maintained school in that area."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
8 Because the Amendment extends the exceptions to the comprehensive principle beyond what the Commons consider ustifiable.
7.15 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8. When this was discussed by your Lordships on Report, the noble Lord who moved it made clear that his main concern was that the Bill should not prevent a local education authority from providing

1543
education in non-maintained schools for children who could not otherwise be satisfactorily educated. Boarding education was mentioned frequently in the debate on this and related Amendments, which were discussed at considerable length in Committee, in total for over seven and a quarter hours. I assured the House that the Government's intentions were to operate flexibly the provisions of the Bill relating to support for education in non-maintained schools, their sole object being to prevent children being chosen for support from public funds on the ground of ability. There are a number of other grounds on which support will be allowed, and the character of the school will not in itself be a barrier to such support. Any other approach would be unrealistic.
This Amendment, however, would introduce such wide freedom as to put into doubt the possibility of the Government having any control over public support for education in non-maintained schools. There must be few, if any, such schools which, at a pinch, could not point to something that only they, as distinct from the local maintained schools, could offer to any particular pupil. It is much to broad, ill-defined and subjective a basis to be acceptable and is certainly likely to add to public expenditure. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will agree not to insist on it.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for that explanation. I find the whole situation in regard to pupils with particular needs getting the help they need in the way the noble Lord outlined difficult to envisage unless this Amendment is implemented, and I referred to this subject some time ago. I speak particularly of children with social problems who come from families which are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. I speak of the children of widows, widowers, divorced parents and children where one or perhaps both parents suffer from a physical or mental disability within the home.
1544
Such children react in different ways, though it would be presumptuous of me to speak to the House on the ways in which such children react. I am not, so to speak, a biological parent, but I have been responsible down the years for I should not like to say how many disturbed children. However, they have been children who have not fallen within the part of the measure which deals with special schools. They have been parents and children who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune who have needed a particular setting in which to develop, in which to counterbalance the difficulties of their backgrounds and in which to stabilise their emotional difficulties in order that they may gain and learn intellectually.
Many of these children, I have found, have needed small schools, small day schools and small boarding schools, but all these schools have not fallen within the comprehensive system, and could not do so by virtue of the fact that they are small schools. I quite understand what Lord Donaldson said about there being flexibility; he said it would be possible for education departments to give grants to pupils in special circumstances and with special home difficulties. But will this be understood broadly by local authorities throughout the country, where there is a shortage of money? Is this not likely to be something that they will cut?
If a disadvantaged family is suffering in the way I have outlined, it will almost certainly be short of finance. It will find that it has two options. The parents know and feel that their children need something special which is not available in their neighbourhood. They cannot afford it and they can go to the local authority and, if the authority is generous, it may accept—although the school does not fall within the comprehensive principle—or they can go to a voluntary organisation or a voluntary trust. I have made inquiries from a number of voluntary trusts. I have found that, in anticipation of this Bill, they have trebled their applications for grants for their children to go to particular schools to meet the individual emotional needs of those children.
Parents who are in this very difficult position do not wish to be placed in further difficulty by having to go to the Social Services Department. They want to

1545
prevent their children from falling into further difficulties. They want to counterbalance the difficulties that the children are in. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that there could be counselling in the local comprehensive school and I would absolutely agree that, where it is possible for teachers, education welfare officers and social workers to help children from families where there are difficulties to attend a local school and be supported locally, that is outstandingly good. But reality compels me to say that there are children who need a counterbalancing influence in the form of a very special type of school. Without that counterbalancing influence of a very special type of small school which does not fall within the comprehensive system, those children may, can and do fall into delinquency or into mental trouble later, or they become the frozen and hardened children who have no feeling for anybody and who become the social problens of the future. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, can help me on this matter.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words after the very moving speech that we have just heard. For many years there has been a system in this country by which perfectly ordinary children who passed or did not pass the 11-plus examination could be sent away to a similar school in another district on the understanding that the parents paid the boarding charges and that the transfer was arranged as between local authorities. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Donaldson whether this system, too, will be put in jeopardy by the Bill.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I have had exactly the same experience of trying to organise, either as the chairman of the education committee or chairman of the social work committee, the kind of care and education that these deprived children—or whatever phrase one likes to use for the children whom my noble friend has so accurately described—need. It is extremely important because, in the end, if nothing has been done, they will turn up at the age of 14, 15 or 16 either as delinquents or as so mentally retarded that they cannot get a job. It all depends
1546
on being able to do something for them as they grow up. The rigidity that the Government have put into the Bill, so that everything is excluded that does not fit into the exact pattern of what they think comprehensive education should be, inevitably leaves out quite a large proportion —larger than your Lordships would like to know about—of children who need this special care. It seems to me to be most wrong and, what is more, it is storing up many problems and a great deal of difficulty for the community as the children get older.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, this Amendment brings a third class of exception to Clause 1. What the Commons have said is that it is much too wide. If noble Lords will accept that—which seems clearly to be right—let me reply to the two noble Baronesses who were talking about the realities of need, delinquency and the first of it. There is nothing that we have yet come across that refers to this at all. There is a later clause on which we shall discuss it and which makes it clear that local authorities have the right to send people to non-maintained schools for certain reasons. One of the reasons is need. Clearly, if someone is a cripple or is educationally subnormal or anything similar, nothing has changed. There are places in most local authority areas which deal with such people and, in so far as they belong to these categories, they will still go there. In so far as they do not, this Bill has nothing to do with it. There should be more, but this Bill is not attempting to deal with that. I assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing in the Bill, as introduced, to prevent local authorities from helping parents with fees at boarding or day schools or special schools if that is desirable. The only point is that the children should not be admitted on ability and aptitude. This is not the same as not being admitted on need. I hope that that makes it clear.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, it makes it very clear. Nevertheless, when one is dealing with a child, it does not work. Take, for example, Finchden Manor, which was run by the late Mr. George Lyward. It accepted 45 boys who did not fall within the terms of reference of special schools but, at the same time, Mr. Lyward found that he could not deal

1547
with the type of boy he was offering help to if the boys were below a certain IQ. He took the bright boys and it was selected and it depended on the parents' choice. In very many cases, it met the boys' needs. Many of Mr. Lyward's boys are now leading people in the country.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we must not have an argument. This is not the moment for it. Of course, I know about Mr. Lyward's answer. What I am saying is that there is nothing in the Amendment which the Commons have rejected to make things better or worse for such a school.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
"() Subject to subsection (1) above, local education authorities shall have a duty to arrange as far as is practicable for the admission of pupils with particular needs to the schools most suitable for them."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
10 Because the Amendment is unnecessary.
7.28 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10. In a sense, this is nearer what the noble Baroness was talking about on the last Amendment. When we discussed this Amendment at Report and again at Third reading, I said on both occasions that the Amendment was quite unnecessary. I explained that it would be permissible for a pupil to be admitted to a school in order to benefit from special facilities if his admission was not governed by his general academic ability. I went on to emphasise that it would remain a duty of the local authority to ensure that each child was provided with an education suitable to his or her needs. In essence, then, Clause 1 is dealing with general arrangements; the needs of individual pupils will still fall to be considered as at present.
At Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, described the difficulties which would arise if such a duty were to be placed on local authorities. He persuaded me—and no doubt your Lordships
1548
too—of the impracticability of establishing the particular needs of each pupil without some selection procedure. This Amendment was rejected without debate by another place, but in fact the subject had been debated at some length during their Committee stage. The Commons Reason is that the Amendment is unnecessary—a view, as I have just reminded your Lordships, put forward by the Government in this House also. I hope that the House will not feel the need to press this Amendment further.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, here again I find myself caught between the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. I do not see how the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, can in fact agree with the Commons Reason and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. If Lord Alexander is right in saying that to have a duty to do this would put an unconscionable burden on local education authorities, then surely it cannot be said that that duty exists already. If the Commons Reason means anything, it presumably means that that duty exists already. I do not want to press this point, but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to reply to two short questions. Does the local education authority already have power to arrange these matters—to which I imagine the answer is, Yes—and does it, or does it not, at the moment have the duty to arrange these matters?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I will answer those points and I will check my answer. My answer is, Yes to both questions; but I should like to verify this, although I am fairly sure that I am right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
"() No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
12 Because the Amendment is consequential upon the first Amendment made by the Lords, in page 1, line 21, to which the Commons have disagreed.
7.32 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12. We discussed this with Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after "specify" insert "not being less than 18 months,"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
14 Because the Amendment would delay the submission of proposals for secondary reorganisation to a degree which the Commons do not consider justifiable.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14. When this Amendment was discussed earlier in Committee, I explained that it is settled law that the Secretary of State should stipulate a reasonable time-limit; any time-limit considered unreasonable could be challenged in the courts. But I assured the House that my honourable friend would have nothing to gain by seeking to give authorities too little time to submit proposals, and I gave assurances that she would not do so. However, in the majority of cases, 18 months is a substantially longer period of time than should be necessary.
The other place rejected this Amendment without debate, but they had in fact spent two and a half hours on a general debate on timing during their Committee stage. The Commons Reason for rejection was that the Amendment would delay the submission of proposals for secondary reorganisation to a degree which they did not consider justifiable. This is the view of the Government, as I explained in
1550
Committee, and I therefore hope that the House will not press this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is settled law that there is a period of time for consultation on reorganisation proposals. I do not like to cross swords with him, but I should have thought that rather than it being settled law it is a part of the Section 13 procedure that there shall be provision for objections from local government electors. The difference between that and what we are discussing here is that Clause 2 of the Bill has no provision written into it for objections to be made, unlike the Section 13 procedure. Apart from the consideration of this, I do not think it is a very desirable way to promote democratic procedures. The practical effect is that it could mean that proposals under Clause 2 will eventually reach the Secretary of State without the Secretary of State having a clear indication of whether or not the proposals are accepted locally. I am sure that the noble Lord will protest that the Government have no intention of preventing proper consultation under Clause 2, and I have very little doubt that usually there will be proper consultation.
But the fact of the matter is that under Clause 2 the Secretary of State can dictate exactly what a local education authority or a voluntary school is to propose, so that by the time the Section 13 procedure is reached under Clause 3, the issues will have been virtually decided. This is the reason why it was felt so important on these Benches that during the procedures under Clause 2 it should be possible for proper consultation to be absolutely assured, and it was for that reason that this Amendment was agreed at the Committee stage.
Without this Amendment the only statutory guarantee of consultations will be the assurance which was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. But normally at least six months will be specified by the Secretary of State, and possibly 12 months in cases where no contingency planning has already been

1551
undertaken by the local education authority. I should very much have preferred to have seen some time limit written into the Bill.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the position is very simple. If a local authority is asked to submit plans and it submits plans, and is then asked under Section 13 to submit detailed plans and go through the Section 13 procedure, it will agree with the Department and ultimately with the Secretary of State the time that it is going to take. There will be a timetable, and this is a matter for mutual discussion. If the very unlikely situation should arise that there is a Secretary of State who is totally unsympathetic, or that there is a local authority that is totally unwilling to play, and if the Secretary of State insisted on a minimum timetable, in the end the local authority has recourse to the courts. But to insist on 18 months when many of the cases can perfectly well be done in three months would be foolish. I should have thought that this is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement so long as we are dealing with human beings and not idiots.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out from "unsatisfactory" to end of line 38.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
16 Because the Amendment would deprive the Secretary of State of powers which the Commons consider are required for the effective exercise of his functions under the clause.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16. It may be for the convenience of the House if we were also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18, but to which the Government have tabled an Amendment in lieu thereof, No. 18A. Amendment No. 15 would leave out from "unsatisfactory" on page 2, line 35 to the end of line 38. If the original wording of this subsection is not kept, any local education authority reluctant to reorganise would be able, because of the inability
1552
of my right honourable friend to require that fresh proposals deal with the defects she has discerned in the earlier ones, to resubmit proposals which did not attempt to remove the unsatisfactory elements of the initial proposals. Thus the Bill's intention would be undermined.
I gave assurances in Committee that this power would not enable my right honourable friend covertly to dictate to local education authorities the form of organisation that they should adopt. This is not the Government's intention; we hold firmly to the view that decisions on how best to reorganise rest at the local level. This Amendment was rejected by the Commons for the Reason that it would deprive the Secretary of State of powers which they consider are necessary for the effective use of her functions under the clause. Although this particular Amendment was not debated, a similar Amendment had been fully discussed in their Committee stage. The Government could not then, and cannot now, accept this Amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will not press it further.
I have asked leave to consider Amendment No. 17 with this one because it also bears on the same subsection of the Bill. It was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, at Report stage and would require the Secretary of State to give reasons for finding proposals unsatisfactory. Owing to the fact that the Opposition took two and a half hours discussing Amendment No. 1, there was not time within the six hours allowed for discussion in another place for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to move the Amendment which she had intended to propose.
The Government are prepared to accept the principle underlying this Amendment but the present wording is, unfortunately, unacceptable. It has three defects: it refers to "local authorities" rather than to "local education authorities"; to "detailed reasons" rather than to "reasons"; and would, in its present form, bear only on proposals submitted by local education authorities and not on those submitted by the managers or governors of voluntary schools. I am sure that the intention of the noble Lord was that whenever the Secretary of State rejected proposals submitted to her under this section, whether put forward by local

1553
education authorities or the managers or governors of voluntary schools, she should give reasons for doing so. The Amendment which now stands in my name on the Marshalled List may have a rather unfamiliar look to the noble Lord. Nevertheless I can assure him that the substance of his original Amendment is contained in (a) of the one now before the House. Part (b) reinstates the words which your Lordships Amendment No. 15 omitted.
My Lords, the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 15 and I hope that your Lordships will not insist upon it. If your Lordships allow Amendment No. 15 to fall it will be in order for me to move the Government's Amendment to No. 17 at the appropriate time. If however your Lordships insist on retaining Amendment No. 15 it will not be possible, for technical legal reasons, for me to move the Government Amendment to No. 17. In that case the Government will be obliged to resist Amendment No. 17 because in its present form it is unsatisfactory for the reasons I have given. I hope your Lordships will not press Amendment No. 15 further.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16—[Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.]
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, this was a genuinely difficult part of the Bill, in that whereas we obviously could not leave the Bill without any teeth whatsoever, it was necessary to ensure that local education authorities and, of course, governors and managers, had the greatest possible choice themselves as to how they would solve problems set for them. I still see that there is a point in the Conservative arguments at an earlier stage that this, if the Government had their way, still gives the Government, the Secretary of State, a little too fierce power in dealing with this. On the other hand, if we are to pass this Bill, and we are, there has to be an end to delay at some time.
The Amendment which the Government are bringing forward is one which will improve matters because it will enable people much more easily to produce their own arguments, to get on to the telephone to which we referred often at an earlier
1554
stage, and produce their own solutions if they do not like the one put forward by the Secretary of State. I am grateful to the Government for accepting the burden of my Amendment. I am delighted that they have made it viable in two respects. I am extremely sorry that they have removed the word, "detailed", but I can hardly cavil at that because I think they have gone a long way to meet our point.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I spoke on this Amendment at the Report stage. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, knows, I am exceedingly suspicious of what I call dictatorial powers in Bills which the Government are putting forward, whether in the case of education, health or tied houses. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, coming into the House. This is an authoritarian approach to what, in the case of any local government matter, I believe should be dealt with by the people who are engaged in local government; by education committees who are responsible for children in their area. I do not believe this Government have got firmly in their heads that this is the right way to organise a democratic system.
Having said that, and having listened to the noble Lord, I think this is an improvement on what we had before. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the redraft of No. 18A is better than the original proposal. However, I still urge upon the Government, in all the legislation that is being put through both Houses of Parliament, that they must believe in local government, in the responsibilities of local authorities as they are elected, in education committees and many others, and not always hand everything over to the Secretary of State or to boards or to some other authoritarian body. This is my grave suspicion. However, I think this is better than it was, and I am not prepared to oppose it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, may I just say that even the smallest approval from the noble Baroness is very welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end insert "and if the Secretary of State does so require, he

1555
shall inform the local authority of his detailed reasons for finding the proposals unsatisfactory."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
18 Because the Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords to page 2, line 35, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18, and I propose Amendment No. 18A in lieu thereof:
18A Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("unsatisfactory") to end of line 38 and insert ("and any such requirement—

(a) shall be accompanied by a statement of the matters in relation to which the previous proposals are in his opinion unsatisfactory and of the reasons for his opinion; and

(b) may specify conditions to be fulfilled by the further proposals with respect to any of those matters.")

I have already spoken to this.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 18, and propose Amendment No. 18A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 3, page 3, line 25, at end insert:
"() Where proposals submitted under section 13 in conformity with the requirements of section 2 above include proposals to cease to maintain a voluntry school, the local education authority which has made such a proposal shall provide education at the school under the powers conferred upon them by section 6 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 for every pupil registered at that school on the day immediately preceding the day on which that proposal comes into effect until such pupils cease to he registered at that school."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
20 Because the Amendment involves a charge on public funds and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 20.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 20.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am genuinely surprised that the Government have rejected this Amendment. I thought that my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte made an unanswerable case when she spoke on this Amendment at the Committee stage. Your Lordships may remember she spoke of being the chairman of the governors of a voluntary aided school subject to a cease-to-maintain order. The maintaining authorities, the Inner London Education Authority and one other authority, were prepared to see pupils through, but four other local education authorities with pupils at the school were going to cease to pay for those pupils after next September. As I listened to the noble Baroness on that occasion I thought that that really is not good enough, and it is the sort of situation that this Amendment would prevent. The Amendment would protect the education of a very small number of pupils attending a voluntary school which an authority ceases to maintain, and to that extent this Amendment would be a minimal charge on public funds. I would have hoped that the Government could accept an Amendment which deals only with the education and welfare of boys and girls. Although, with regard to voting, I am not going to disagree with the Government in their view on this, I am disappointed that the Government could not have found it in their hearts to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
". The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the passing of this Act and after consulting such persons as he shall deem to be representative of the interests of local education authorities, of parents and of governors, make regulations specifying the information which local education authoriities shall publish about the schools in their area and the means by which and the time within which such information shall be made available to the parents of children to whom places at such schools may be allocated and to such other persons as he may direct."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment ment for the following Reason:
22 Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the publication of information about schools should be the subject of subordinate legislation.
7.50 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 22. This Amendment was moved at the Report stage. Its predecessor at the Committee stage was, I think, generally accepted to be inappropriate in that it would have introduced into the Bill itself a long list of specific items about which local education authorities would have been required to provide information to parents in respect of local schools. The Government's view was, and remains, that this modified approach, by way of statutory regulations, is also inappropriate because there are better ways of ensuring that the necessary information is made available; but I must make it clear that the Government accept the principle underlying the Amendment, and my right honourable friend intends to consult all the interests concerned and to provide guidance in a more flexible and appropriate way in a circular. If that were to fail, she could resort to statutory regulations if necessary: she already has power to do so under Section 5(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Amendment is therefore unnecessary, and it is undesirable in that it would require statutory regulations to be made even if, as the Government expect, they turned out not to be necessary. I hope noble Lords will note that my right honourable friend has conceded the substance of the Amendment, though not its insertion into the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 22.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear that the Secretary of State accepts the principle of this Amendment, which was an Amendment moved by my noble
1558
friend Lord Elton; and I am also grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that the Secretary of State will consider what guidance on this subject can be given by way of circular. I should like to take this opportunity to make one point. The importance of my noble friend's Amendment, to my mind, is that it is in line with the wishes of parents. By that I mean that increasingly parents want to know what a particular school has to offer. I therefore hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said on Report stage of this Bill that the Secretary of State intends to consult with all those concerned—and he repeated those words this evening—somehow his right honourable friend will consult with parents. There is, after all, the Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations, and of course there are the individual PTAs of schools. I believe that it is a priority in this matter to discover, among those consulted, what it is that parents will wish to know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Insert the following new clause:
".—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent Committee of Inquiry into the operation and results of secondary schools having particular regard to—

(a) the experience so far gained of the effect of the size of schools upon the quality of education, the turnover of staff and the discipline within them; and

(b) the effect of classes of mixed ability on the quality of education.

(2) The said Committee of Inquiry shall lay the report of its findings before both Houses of Parliament within two years of the passing of this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
24 Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that statutory provision should be made for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the operation and results of secondary schools.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 24. The Commons do not consider it appropriate that statutory provision he made for the appointment of a committee of inquiry. Successive Secretaries of State have always been prepared to establish committees of

1559
inquiry, with outside chairmen and members, into various aspects of the education service, without statutory compulsion. Noble Lords on all sides will acknowledge, I am sure, the valuable contribution their reports and recommendations have made in formulating educational policy. Provision in this Bill for a statutory committee of inquiry into secondary education is therefore unnecessary: if the Secretary of State considers one is appropriate, she is free to establish one. I hope your Lordships will not insist on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 24.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord that I was out of the House when this Amendment was called on, but I was caught by the speed at which the previous Amendment was disposed of by your Lordships. I want to say just a word on this. I suppose it is partly because we have had this Bill dragging through both Houses for so long that the public's view about our educational system and the possible fall in standards has, I think, been inflated to a very considerable extent. It is not good for the schools that there should be so many particular instances quoted—whether they are all true in every case we do not know, but there they are—about defects in the system. I am the first to say that what has gone wrong—and quite a lot has gone wrong—is also balanced by a very considerable amount which has gone very well; but I think that the state of public opinion which has now been reached is such that it needs some calming process; that it needs some independent inquiry that would, as it were, take the heat out of this.
The reasons why we are in this difficulty, as we have said on previous occasions on this Bill, are by no means all connected with the principle of non-selection, though some are. Probably the major factor has been the curious forms of teaching that have been introduced and practised by, particularly, the younger teachers, who have not had the skill to make a success of these methods. I think we ought to know what has hap-
1560
pened more accurately than we do now. In my time, there were fewer than half the teachers in post who are in post in the maintained schools now. It is impossible to increase a force of teachers at that rate without getting it out of balance between the older and experienced teachers and the new ones coming in at the bottom. One is bound to add that the competition for sixth-form leavers who opt for teaching and go, in the old days, to a teacher training college has grown more severe all the time; so the increased numbers and the lower quality have really produced a very serious situation.
I do not think the public will give up what I would call the evening newspaper scandal sheet business, which does not do the schools much good, unless the Government take some much more definite step towards reviewing the present situation. Could there be a better moment to do it than now, when there is to be a considerable reorganisation of secondary education? This seems to me to be exactly the time when this inquiry ought to be made. I am of course not going to press this to a Division, but, again, it is one of those failures in public relations which seems to be characteristic of the Department and of the education system today. So I would hope that the noble Lord would be able to say that the Secretary of State is not content with these internal inquiries and that she really will do something on a scale which will set at rest this great volume of anxiety. Much of it, I would agree, is being stoked up on very flimsy evidence, but that does not destroy the fact that it is there, and it ought to be dealt with if this Bill is to have a fair chance.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, nothing that I have heard in this House this evening makes me think other than that this is an important Amendment. It is, I believe, relevant still to recall briefly, and repeat, the circumstances in which this Amendment was in due course accepted by your Lordships and subsequently rejected by the Commons. First, in Committee of the House it was proposed that the committee of inquiry should investigate only non-selective schools. The Conservatives wished this to be linked with another Amendment, delaying the implementation of the Bill until the required report had been received

1561
and found satisfactory. In some confusion, both Amendments were withdrawn, but not until after the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, had said, at col. 1614 [Official Report, 7th October 1976]:
"I would have absolutely no objection, and would certainly recommend to my Secretary of State that we bring in something in the form of your first Amendment. I see no objection to it at all".
It should be added, in fairness, that the noble Lord covered himself by adding:
"There may be difficulties; I do not know what they are".
So far, so good.
Then, secondly, on Report the original Amendment was reintroduced, but with an important change in that the committee was to be asked to investigate secondary education as a whole, and not just comprehensive schools. It was in no way an attack on the comprehensive system but a request for information so that our system of education could be made the best possible and help all dedicated teachers to give of their best. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said of the inquiry into aspects of the education service (in col. 835):
"We welcome it provided that it is not based on blind prejudice or on a nostalgic or often mistaken view of past practices."
I think that the implication that his Party alone is free from blind prejudice is totally unacceptable. I think he made an excellent case for an independent committee of inquiry. In the same column, the noble Lord continued:
"May I add also that we understand teachers' resentment at uninformed attacks on the professional interests and judgment of educational needs."
I should say that I have spoken since then to teachers in the independant sector who say that they would welcome such an inquiry. They are quite prepared to stand up and be counted. I have also spoken to teachers in comprehensive schools and I have found none who would oppose the setting up of such a committee. The dedicated head of a comprehensive school told me that she would wholeheartedly welcome it. She has the humility to admit that she is learning all the time and considers that such an independent inquiry would help her and her staff to give of their best.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, went on to give a number of reasons why this inquiry was unecessary. Conservatives,
1562
Liberals and Cross-Benchers were unconvinced by his case. He clearly had been instructed to resist and resist he did; but the Government were defeated. At Third Reading an attempt from these Benches to offer a further practical alteration to the Amendment was barely considered. We suggested, first, that three years rather than two should be allowed for the committee to prepare the report; secondly, that careful consideration should be paid to the experience of comprehensive schools gained in other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seemed to think that if you had to have such a committee of inquiry, the longer the report was delayed the better. The Commons, it was stated, would be throwing out the whole Amendment anyway and that, under the guillotine, without further consideration, is what happened.
The other day I heard the right honourable lady the Secretary of State speaking in an educational debate in the other place. I was moved by her obvious dedication to her task and by her sense of idealism. One cannot but respect her for it. It is therefore all the more disappointing that she has not seen fit to accept an Amendment such as this. Her idealism does not seem to go further than along strictly Party lines. There seems, alas! little point in asking the Government to think again on this Amendment; but we feel that the Record must be put straight. We do not question the value of what Her Majesty's Inspectorate are doing. We are sceptical about proposals for a massive conference. We remain unconvinced that this committee of inquiry would not be the most practical answer, at what has been called a time of crisis in secondary education.
This Amendment cannot be considered an attack on the comprehenisve system any more than it is an attack on the independent sector which would also have been under review. It is a search for facts and for the truth. It is an attempt to ensure that in the long run we are giving our children and their children the best education possible. The Government remain adamant in their resistance. So be it. But let the public know that we have tried and let them know how negative we on these Benches think is the Government's response. Let the public judge for themselves.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if I may make a final remark on this, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is deeply concerned with the monitoring of what is going on. I gave on three occasions a good many instances of what is being done. It may be that in due course she will think it a good plan to have a major inquiry of the kind noble Lords are talking about; but if she does she will do it in her own good time and in her own good way and, in my opinion, it should not be part of an Act of Parliament.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, if the right honourable lady does so, the Liberal and Conservative Parties will undoubtedly claim all the credit for it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
25 Clause 4, page 4, line 5, at end insert:
""provided that the necessary resources for building and equipment have been made available to give full effect to the Secretary of State's approval of the proposals." "
26 Clause 4, page 4, line 12, at end insert—
""provided that the necessary resources for building and equipment have been made available to give full effect to the Secretary of State's approval of the proposals.""
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
27 Because the Amendments are unnecessary.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 27. These Amendments were disagreed to without debate in another place, but the whole question of resources had been fully debated for four hours earlier during their Committee stage. On that occasion, Ministers gave various assurances which I have repeated in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. I hope that three times is enough.
I will not go over the same ground again. I will merely remind the House that the Government recognise that resources are limited, that in certain areas it must be quite a number of years before reorganisation can be satisfactorily completed. Obviously we do not start with a clean slate. Authorities do not have unlimited resources to give effect to
1564
their ideal reorganisation plans but neither does the combination of resources and existing provision totally preclude substantial and reasonable progress towards reorganisation at this time.
The school building programme is announced to authorities in the form of a lump sum allocation. It does not differentiate between sums for primary and secondary schools and it is open to authorities to deploy their allocation according to their own assessments of their priorities. While the Secretary of State may prefer that these resources should be used to facilitate reorganisation, the authority could well have a different order of priorities. Unless therefore a separate building allocation were made for reorganisation it would be impossible to say, in the terms of these Amendments, when the necessary resources for building and equipment had been made available to give full effect to proposals approved by the Secretary of State.
This Bill has been introduced to ensure that the resources available in the school building programme are used in ways compatible with the development of comprehensive education. We have never expected reorganisation to outpace resources; but there are many areas where, if the will existed, progress could be made within the constraints of available resources. The Commons consider the Amendments unnecessary; they are also potentially wrecking; this remains the Government's view. I hope noble Lords will accept our assurances and not press these Amendments further.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 27.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am bound to say that I think that the Commons Reason, that they are unnecessary, and the tailpiece which the noble Lord added, that they are potentially wrecking, rather spoiled the undertaking which the noble Lord was good enough to give at Third Reading on November 3rd (in col. 1406) when he said:
"No authority or governing body of a voluntary school will be penalised by the Secretary of State

1565
for failing to implement its plans under Section 13 if it can convince the Secretary of State that resources to do so are not available."
I should like to thank the noble Lord for that assurance on that occasion.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I repeat it now.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I add that I have a concern and it is this: that a few authorities may none the less be tempted—indeed some authorities under the terms of the Bill may be forced—by the Secretary of State to produce what we call "botched up" schemes because the resources are not available for the authority to reorganise as it would wish. In addition to that, I have another concern which is that the present economic situation brings home to us the danger of resources being cut suddenly and interest rates being increased between the time when proposals have been approved by the Secretary of State and the time when those proposals are due to be implemented. If I may chide the noble Lord gently, when he said that all was splendid because this Amendment on resources had been fully debated in another place in Committee, that was five months ago. A great deal of financial water has flowed under a great number of bridges since then.
The amount of resources which local authorities have are not going to be the same in December as they were in May. Under those circumstances, the assurance which the noble Lord has given me is an important assurance. In addition, the noble Lord will remember that he also gave me an assurance about the use of Section 99 of the 1944 Education Act. I have deployed my reasons at previous stages why I dislike that procedure, and I am sure that local authorities would have been re-assured if these Amendments could have been written into the Bill. None the less, perhaps it is fair for me to concede that the difference between the Government and myself is rather more about means than about ends. I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for the assurance he gave me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.11 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 5, leave out clause 5.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
29 Because the Commons consider that the Secretary of State should have power to control the exercise by local education authorities of their functions in relation to the provisions of education in non-maintained schools.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY 29A Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY to move, This this House doth insist on Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth insist on Amendment No. 28, to which the Commons have disagreed. I am glad to see the resistance of the Government Front Bench is weakening.
Lord BELSTEAD: Good!
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, not only have they actually given us during the course of this debate an Amendment—or at least half an Amendment—but the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who earlier on in the proceedings was telling us that what he told us three times was true, is now reduced to saying that what he has told us three times is enough. That is a significant change. Let us get it clear that the object of this Bill is to establish the comprehensive principle nationally. We on these Benches believe that the Government are right to do so, and have the right to do so. In doing it, it is absolutely certain that they will take away from local authorities—using that in the widest sense of the term, any kind of devolved authority—some powers and put them into the bank of the central Government. That in itself is bad. There will probably be general agreement in your Lordships' House that there needs to be more devolution and not less, more control at local level and less by Whitehall and Westminster.
Nevertheless, we are absolutely behind the Government in saying that if they feel that they need this Bill to have a national system of comprehensive education, then they must have it. But is Clause 5 necessary for the establishment of the comprehensive principle? We on these Benches will listen with great care to the answer. But my answer is, No. I do not believe that in the foreseeable future—and by that I mean a long way ahead,

1567
20 or 25 years, which is quite long enough to be legislating in this House—anyone can imagine a local authority having enough money to send enough children to independent schools to breach the comprehensive principle. That means a large number of children. Even if they had the money, and even if their local electors did not turn them out—because I agree it is difficult to turn out councillors on a one issue point—there is a remedy. That is a remedy of the district auditor.
The district auditor was recommended as a remedy by the last Secretary of State before this Bill was brought in. If it was dubious, then, no matter whether he would have had the power to disallow the one or two authorities of this country which make a habit of sending quite a lot of children to independent schools, nevertheless I submit that, once this Bill is passed into law, it is clear what the intention of Parliament is; that is, to establish the law that there is a national comprehensive system. Then the power of the district auditor in these cases will be a satisfactory resort. I do not stand by that; I put that forward as an argument.
My main argument is that it is inconceivable that any local authority would have the money. resources and will to put so many children into independent schools to breach the comprehensive principle. The Amendment has nothing to do with independent schools; it has to do with freedom for local education authorities to do as they want to do, what they see fit for individual children in individual cases with money at their disposal.
I have said before in the debates in your Lordships' House that there appears to be a conflict of paranoia, fears as to what local authorities may get up to on the one hand, and fears as to what an evil—or perhaps I should say a "misguided"—Secretary of State may get up to on the other hand. I think the balance here is definitely for the paranoia against the Secretary of State, because whereas I cannot believe, for the reasons I have stated, that local education authorities are likely in any way to breach this principle, it is by no means inconceivable that a future Secretary of State—not the present one—would use this as a weapon to cut all the links between local
1568
education authorities and independent schools. Under Clause 5 that could be done.
Your Lordships have spent a great number of hours discussing whether private practice in the National Health Service should be separated from public practice. It is right that you should have spent a lot of time discussing this extremely important matter. It would not be right that this should be dealt with by a back door entry. It would be extremely wrong for that to happen. That is, as I say, the effect of Clause 5.
It may be right or it may be wrong that we should have this partnership between the local education authority and the independent sector. I happen to think that so long as we have the independent sector it is certainly right. What is absolutely certain is that it must not be decided as a subordinate part of a Bill dealing with something else. I believe that Clause 5 is harmful in that it takes powers away from local education authorities and gives them to Whitehall. I believe that it is dangerous because it opens up the door to the dangers which I have outlined. I believe that it is unnecessary because I do not believe its absence will leave any loophole which can break open the comprehensive principle. I believe that this is the one Amendment upon which we should insist. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth insist on their Amendment No. 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 29.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
8.19 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said. I believe that the Government's insistence on keeping Clause 5 in the Bill stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons which prompt local authorities to take up places outside the maintained sector. This is something on which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has spoken. In essence, authorities take up places in non-maintained schools because they need them: they want boarding places or they have children such as my noble friend Lady Faithfull talked about, bordering on mal-adjustment, children from broken homes or who want to study shortage subjects.

1569
It is true that one finds authorities taking up places in schools which have had a hand in educating the children of the area for many years—for centuries even—and everybody is very proud of that link between the authority and the school.
Having said that, I must join the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in doubting whether, in these days of very scarce resources, you would find an authority leaving places empty in its own schools—certainly not sixth-form places—in order to take up places at independent schools. To that extent I think the Government are labouring under a misconception if they think authorities are going to drive a coach and horses through the Bill by the taking up of these places. Anyway, it strikes me it has escaped the notice of the Government that the operation of the first four clauses of this Bill will ensure that authorities will not avoid providing comprehensive education because, of course, Clause 4 requires authorities to implement the proposals. I draw the conclusion that it is inconceivable that a local authority forced to reorganise its schools would then pay out unnecessary recurrent expenditure on fees at independent schools in order to educate children in places which they could already have been providing in the schools they have been asked to reorganise. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made a very valid point at a previous stage when he said that this clause has no criteria in it. It certainly leaves a blank cheque to the Secretary of State in this most important field of local authority discretion.
I have one other point, which is this: I am surprised that a Government which have signed the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which expressly requires the signatories to undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents to choose for their children schools other than those established by public authorities, can be bringing a clause of this sort into the Bill. The Liberal Party intend to vote on this Motion and, if I may say so, they have every right to do so, particularly on the strong case made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Speaking on behalf of my noble friends and myself on these Benches, I have this worry: I believe that to insist on this Amendment alone out of all the Amendments put forward, when so many others may not be so important but have a
1570
wider effect, could be interpreted as not being as responsible as perhaps one ought to be in looking at the Bill as a whole. Although I believe that the case put forward by the noble Lord is absolutely watertight, with very great regret I shall content myself this evening with reiterating my hope that before long this Bill and all it stands for is going to be repealed.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain what he means by "responsible"?
Lord BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, I do not think we should be as responsible as we ought to be in picking out an Amendment which, important though it is, does not have such a wide effect as many other Amendments. I could give the noble Lord as an example Amendment No. 1, which affects really all children who go to school. This Amendment affects about 20,000 children who are in places taken up by local authorities at independent schools.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, when this Bill was first tabled, Clause 5 was included so that, in order to ensure that local education authorities proceeded as quickly as possible towards full comprehensive education, the Secretary of State could use certain powers which Parliament intended her to have under previous legislation but which, for various reasons we have discussed earlier, could not at present be exercised effectively. They were powers intended to enable her to control the circumstances in which local education authorities provide or support the provision of education in non-maintained schools in three different ways: by giving grants to a school, by taking places at full cost without regard to a parent's means, or by giving income-related help to a parent to pay the fees.
The point was simply and solely that this could be used by a local education authority as a way of avoiding their duty to work as quickly as possible towards the provision of education without reference to ability or aptitude. It has been suggested that such a thing is most unlikely to happen, but there have been instances of acute disagreements in the past—I need not give names—and as a matter of interest the number of places taken up by some LEAs at independent

1571
schools is quite high. For example, Tameside is planning to take up about 300 per annum; Lancashire, 320; Bexley, 150; Bolton, 500; Brent, 200.
These are not negligible figures. Whether they are legitimate or not is not the point. It was never our intention to suggest there would be any widespread attempt by local education authorities to evade their duties in this way, but we think some might be tempted to do so and we have had experience which reinforces that fear. Much reassurance has been given both here and in another place that the powers reinstated by the clause would be used flexibly and sympathetically. We have repeatedly made clear that all applications to make arrangements relating to the non-maintained sector would be considered on their merits. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord in Committee described my account of how the Secretary of State would use her powers as "positively moving". Additionally, without the restraints this clause could be used to impose, it would be possible for a misguided local authority to take up places at independent selective schools and to incur extra public expenditure unnecessarily at a time when numbers at secondary schools will be falling substantially. Admittedly, there might be a partial solution, as the noble Lord suggested, through the district auditor, but I do not think that would completely resolve the matter. Tameside and perhaps one or two other authorities are contemplating just such action.
Before I end, it is only right to refer to the important constitutional issue which arises on this Amendment. The Education Bill had a majority of 41 on Second Reading in another place and relatively comfortable majorities at every subsequent stage, usually with the support of the Liberal Party. The Government have not been adamant in this House on points of detail. We have agreed to the deletion of Clause 10 and to the insertion of what is now Clause 11 concerning the education of handicapped children. We have accepted the substance of the Liberal Amendment to Clause 2, Amendment No. 17 on today's Marshalled List. We have undertaken to issue a Circular giving guidance to local authorities about the information they should make available to parents, thus meeting the spirit of
1572
Amendment No. 21. All these are concessions to views expressed in this House. Let nobody suggest that these things have not been fully discussed here or that no notice has been taken of the views expressed. Is it not time for some reciprocity and some regard for the views of another place, which has so recently rejected this Amendment without even voting on it? I believe it is. I appreciate the intentions of the noble Lord and his friends not to force this issue and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will not feel obliged to do so.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that this was, of them all, a narrow point to choose. I think that is, in a way, one of its forces, because whereas we on these Benches agree with the Government, as we have said so often, about the purposes of their Bill and have not been prepared to see it modified out of existence, and although we have supported the Government in the Lobbies on a number of occasions, we think that this is an individual occasion where a completely different and very important principle is at stake. That is the principle—and I do not put it any lower than that—of devolution, of whether power is to flow unnecessarily to Whitehall and Westminster or whether, on the other hand, it must be stopped and eventually, we hope, turned back. It is for that reason that my noble friends and I have chosen this point on which we say that the Government should give way. I entirely agree with the Government that they have helped us on a number of points. But one or two of those which they quoted were not quite so full-blooded as they made out. They never liked Clause 10, anyway, and to make a virtue of that necessity seems to me a little unfair.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised a constitutional point. He said that there is a constitutional issue involved, and so there is. We sent this Amendment, fully argued, back to another place and they did not discuss it. But to say that that is the fault of people who spent two and a half hours discussing a Timetable Motion, or that too much time was spent on Amendment No. 1 on which, I may say, we spent considerable time ourselves, is to beg the issue. The reason why it was not discussed at all when it went back to another place was that the

1573
Government had so mucked-up their legislative programme with totally unnecessary and objectionable Bills that they did not have the time to consider our proposals as they should. We are a revising Chamber and we are entitled to expect our Amendments to be considered by another place. There is no constitutional point in this except that,

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
8.40 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Oram.)
and I hope that noble Lords will follow me into the Lobby.
8.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monson, L.

Amherst, E.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

Norwich, V.

Avebury, L.

Hacking, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Barrington, V.

Hanworth, V.

Somers, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thurso, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hale, L.

McCluskey, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peddie, L.

Darwen, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Janner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Kagan, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Segal, L.

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

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (193) as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, and on this Motion I will also speak to Amendment No. 22. These Amendments remove from the Bill all reference to the redefinition of the litre and the gallon. These redefinitions and the consequential repeal of the Weights and Measures (International Definitions) Order 1963 are no longer necessary since they have already been effected in the Units of Measurement Regulations which came into force on 1st November.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 42, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3A) below".
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
"(3A) An order under subsection (3) above shall not remove from Schedule 1A—

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

(b) in Part IV the gallon or pint,

but this subsection is without prejudice to the power under paragraph (c) of the said subsection (3) to add vary or remove any restriction on the cases or circumstances in which, or the conditions subject to which, a unit of measurement, measure or weight may be used for trade, or possessed for use for trade."
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and on this Motion I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 16. These Amendments make two changes limiting the Secretary of State's power to amend Schedule lA which lists those units which may lawfully be used for trade. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 prevent the Secretary of State from removing certain specified units from that Schedule. However the Amendment makes it quite clear that this restriction is without prejudice to the powers contained in subsection (3) (c) to allow restrictions to be imposed on the particular use of any units of measurement. I should add, however, that any use of these restricting powers would be subject to consultation and the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 16 are intended to prevent the powers in Section 21 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963—powers which allow the Secretary of State to regulate transactions in particular goods—from being used so as to make the sale of those goods illegal in Imperial prescribed quantities before April 1978. In other words, the Government cannot outlaw the sale in Imperial quantities of those goods which include many basic shopping basket items—for example, flour, sugar, tea, salt, et cetera which are currently allowed to be sold in Imperial prescribed quantities. The Government will, however, be continuing to make orders introducing metric prescribed quantities as an alternative to the Imperial quantities.
The date of 21st April 1978 has been chosen because that is the date after which, because of our obligations under the EEC Directive on Units of Measurement, metric packs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are grateful for the explanation which has been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. We on these Benches shall not disagree with any of these Amendments. However, we do not like compulsion. Our opinion is that there is far too much legislation as a whole and we should like an opportunity to see how the Bill operates. The noble Lord has said that Statutory Instruments will be made from time to time. I cannot say that we are at all enthusiastic about the powers of compulsion which are laid down in the Bill unless an overwhelming case is made out that their use will be in the interests of the consumer—who would not believe it. That will also apply when we are in power again, which I am sure is not too far away. As I have said, we do not disagree with the Bill but we should like to see how it operates. I am most grateful for the explanation which the noble Lord has given to the House.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches will not disagree with the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, but for reasons which are slightly different from those given by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Because this is largely a non-Party matter it is very much my view, speaking as much with my hat on as President of the British Standards Institution as from these Benches, that the sooner we get on with the introduction of metrication the better. There is great exasperation in many circles, and much wider circles than is generally realised, at the delay over a matter which has been under discussion now for months and months.
While we accept the need for double marking that we are going to have for a period of time, we hope that before very long—indeed, as soon as possible and practicable—we shall all become accustomed to metric measures and that they will be used, and will be expected to be used, singly. It is quite ridiculous at the present time, when we need every possible aid to get overseas markets and when over 90 per cent. of the people to whom we sell our exports deal in metricated

1577
standards, that we should still be considering producing goods in Imperial standards. There is waste in doing it doubly.
Also, it is said frequently that consumers do not want metrication to happen. It is only three weeks ago that the British Standards Institution's Consumers' Advisory Service, which represents a large number of consumer organisations and leading women's organisations and which covers 4 million consumers, expressed the very strongest hope that metrication will come about very quickly indeed.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, may I say how much I welcome Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and, indeed, many of the later Commons Amendments. Latterly, particularly during the past few weeks, there has been little doubt that your Lordships' House has reflected public opinion far more accurately than has the Commons. At last we have an issue where the Commons are indisputably more in tune with the deepest instincts and wishes of the people than are the Lords. I wish only that the Commons had gone further in retaining Imperial units of measurement.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am glad to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Redes-dale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that they are not likely to seek to get the House to reject any of these Commons Amendments. We are returning to something akin to the spirit which we had during the various stages of the Bill here. I believe that this was not entirely the spirit in another place, which was more in line with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. But the noble Lord referred to the Commons having "held up" or some such expression—removed certain units—
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I simply expressed the wish that they had gone even further in retaining Imperial units of measurement. I was essentially praising the Commons for what they had done.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I do not object to the noble Lord doing that, but I would point out that what we are doing with these Amendments is in effect to change procedure. The power to move along the path of metrication still remains
1578
when these Amendments have been accepted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
Clause 2, page 4, line 39, at end insert—
"() in the said section 52(1) for the words '£20' there are substituted the words '£50', and the amendment of that subsection in Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by this paragraph) shall cease to have effect."
8.51 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, and I shall also speak to Amendments 8, 9, 20 and 21. This Amendment, together with the consequentials, increases the maximum fine for certain offences under Section 52 (1) of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 and the corresponding offences under the Weights and Measures Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 from £20 to £50. The sort of offences that are caught by Section 52(1) are, for example, the use of illegal measures, and the use of unstamped equipment. For most of these offences there has been, since the passage of the 1963 Act, no increase in the maximum fine and an increase would seem reasonable if only to keep in line with inflation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.]
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Dual marking and conversion charts: duty to consult about regulations
". Before making any regulations under section 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations."
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This Amendment imposes on the Secretary of State a specific requirement to consult interested parties before using his powers to make regulations under the new Clause 9B. These are regulations relating

1579
to dual marking and the display of conversion charts. The Government would in any case consult before making regulations of this type and we see no harm in such a requirement being written into the Bill.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6.]
Insert the following new clause:
Pre-packed and other goods: temporary restriction on removal of permitted imperial quantities
". —(1) The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale, which are conferred by section 21 of the 1963 Act shall not be exercised so as to make unlawful any sale of goods to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to a sale—

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

(b) which is made at any time before 21st April 1978.".

Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. I spoke on this in connection with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7.]
After clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Solid fuel
". Schedule (Solid Fuel) to this Act shall have effect."
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. On this Motion I will also speak to Amendments 10, 17, 18 and 19. Since I have mentioned Amendment No. 18, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a misprint. Unfortunately the figures "18" have not been included in the Marshalled List. Towards the
1580
end of Page 7 of the Marshalled List the figures "18" should appear in the margin against the word "Schedule". I think that puts the matter in order.
This group of Amendments introduces new provisions relating to transactions in solid fuel and amends the existing provisions contained in Schedule 6 to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. The principal changes effected by the Amendments are, first, that metric prescribed quantities of 25kg and 50kg are introduced in addition to the existing range of Imperial quantities in which solid fuel is required to be made up for sale. Secondly, the Schedule excepts metric quantities of solid fuel in open-topped sacks from the general requirement that solid fuel shall be made up for sale only if the container is marked with an indication of the net weight. The main new requirement as far as Great Britain is concerned is that when solid fuel is carried on a road vehicle for sale or for delivery after sale and it is made up for sale in metric quantities in containers which are not securely closed, an indication of those metric quantities and the name and address of the seller must be displayed on the vehicle. I should add that Northern Ireland legislation already requires that road vehicles carrying solid fuel should display an indication of the quantities carried.
These new provisions reflect the extensive consultations the Department has held with trade, consumer and enforcement interests. The fact that metric open-topped sacks of solid fuel will not be required to be quantity marked will not lead to any lessening of consumer protection. The existing requirement for sacks to carry a quantity indication (a metal tally) is ineffective since, given the robust nature of the trade, many of these tallies become detached or are frequently rendered illegible. A "quantity indication" notice displayed on a coal lorry is at least as effective a form of consumer protection and has worked well in Northern Ireland for a number of years.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8–10.]
Clause 7, page 8, line 6, at end insert "(a)".
Clause 7, page 8, line 8, at end insert—
", and
(b) for the words 'twenty pounds' there are substituted the words 'fifty pounds', and the amendment of that subsection in Part I of the Schedule to the Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (which is superseded by this paragraph) shall cease to have effect."
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Solid fuel (Northern Ireland)
". Schedule (Solid Fuel (Northern Ireland)) to this Act shall have effect.".
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments 8 to 10 en bloc. These have been referred to earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments 8 to 10 en bloc.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 11 and 12.]
Clause 11, page 11, line 9, after "Act" insert "except Schedules (Solid Fuel) and (Solid Fuel (Northern Ireland))".
Clause 11, page 11, line 12, leave out "section 6" and insert "sections (prepacked and other goods), (solid fuel) and 6 and schedules (prepacked and other goods) and (solid fuel)."
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Amendment No. 11 exempts the new provisions relating to solid fuel from the general coming into operation date of one month after the Bill is passed. The general enabling provisions contained in the Bill do not in themselves impose any new requirements and there is no reason why they should not come into operation quickly.
The provisions relating to solid fuel impose new requirements, such as that for signs on lorries, and therefore should not come into operation until the required consultation with interested parties has taken place. Amendment No. 12 provides that the new provisions relating to solid fuel and the temporary restriction on the removal of Imperial prescribed quantities shall not apply to Northern Ireland. In the case of solid fuel separate
1582
provision is made in the Bill. Since Northern Ireland follows the Great Britain practice on prescribed quantities it is not considered necessary to make any Amendments concerning these to the Northern Ireland Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 13 to 15.]
Schedule 1, page 13, line 4, at end insert—

"Hectolitre

Litre

Decilitre

Centilitre

Millilitre."

Schedule 2, page 14, line 40, at end insert:
"3. Measures of—

any multiple of 10 litres

100 millilitres

10 litres

50 millilitres

5 litres

25 millilitres

2·5 litres

20 millilitres

2 litres

10 millilitres

1 litre

5 millilitres

500 millilitres

2 millilitres

250 millilitres

1 millilitre.

200 millilitres

Page 16, line 19, column 1, at end insert "25 kilogrammes".
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 en bloc. These are technical Amendments. Amendment No. 13 adds the litre and its compounds to those units of volume which Schedule 1A lists as lawful for use for trade. Amendment No. 14 authorises the use for trade of certain specified litre measures. Amendment No. 15 adds the 25 kilogramme weight to those weights which may be used for trade. The addition of this weight has been requested by the wholesale fruit and vegetable trade and the retail solid fuel trade.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to put one question to the noble Lord, Lord Oram. The fundamental purpose of this legislation is presumably to harmonise British practice with that

1583
prevailing in other EEC countries. Why, therefore, have the centilitre and the decilitre not been included? Anybody who has spent any length of time on the Continent will know that no Frenchman, for example, would ever in everyday life use the term "two hundred millilitres", a unit of measurement listed at the bottom of the first column of Amendment No. 14. He would in practice be infinitely more likely to use "20 centilitres" or "2 decilitres".
Lord ORAM: My Lords, to start with, I would disagree with the noble Lord that a main purpose of this legislation is to conform with EEC requirements. I explained on many occasions during earlier stages that this was a programme upon Which we wished to embark because we believed that it was right for Britain, but that in consequence we would wish to see that the legislation we passed was in harmony with the EEC requirements, and that has been taken account of several times. On the more detailed points about the decilitre, and so on, I am not in a position to give the exact reason at this moment. I hope that that fact does not mean that the noble Lord would want to delay proceedings. If I may, I will write to him with an explanation.
Lord MONSON: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, before we leave this subject, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the use of centimetre would in no wise be in contradiction to the Continental system, the European system, since the centimetre is a perfectly obvious part of a metre, and incidentally a very useful one, and at present in use in the measurement of engine capacity of cars is the cubic centimetre.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 16 to 22.]
After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule:

SCHEDULE
PRE-PACKED AND OTHER GOODS
Permitted imperial quantities in Schedule 4 to the Act of 1963
1. The following provisions in Schedule 4 to the Act of 1963 so far as they permit the use of quantities expressed in the imperial system—

paragraph 3 of Part IV (bread),

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

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

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

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

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

In this paragraph references to provisions of Schedule 4 to the 1963 Act are to those provisions as amended by any order made under section 21 of the Act of 1963 before the passing of this Act.
Permitted imperial quantities in orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963
2. The following orders so far as they specify quantities in the imperial system—

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Pasta) Order 1973

S.I. 1973/1967

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973

S.I. 1973/1968

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) Order 1974

S.I. 1974/1166

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cereal Breakfast Foods and Oat Products) Order 1974

S.I. 1975/1177

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

S.I. 1975/1178

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

S.I. 1975/1179

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Biscuits and Short-bread)Order 1976

S.I. 1976/111

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

S.I. 1976/430

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

S.I. 1976/431

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Tea) Order 1976

S.I. 1976/1294

The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976.".

S.I. 1976/1297

Insert the following new Schedule:

SCHEDULE
SOLID FUEL
1. For paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1963 there are substituted the following paragraphs—
"Quantities in containers
3.—(1) Solid fuel shall be made up in a container for sale, or for delivery after sale, only if it is made up in one of the quantities by net weight specified in the following Table—

TABLE

Imperial

Metric

7 pounds

25 kilogrammes

14 pounds

50 kilogrammes

28 pounds

56 pounds

1 hundredweight

1¼ hundredweight

Any multiple of 1 hundredweight

(2) This paragraph shall not apply to any solid fuel pre-packed in a quantity not exceeding 30 kilogrammes in a securely closed container.
(3) References in this Schedule to solid fuel made up in an imperial quantity are references to solid fuel made up in one of the imperial quantities specified in the Table in subparagraph (1) above, and references to solid fuel made up in a metric quantity shall be construed in a corresponding way.
(4) This paragraph, and paragraphs 3A, 3B and 3C below, have effect subject to the exemptions in paragraph 3D.
Indication of quantity
3A.—(1) This paragraph applies to solid fuel made up in a container for sale, or for delivery after sale, except where it is made up in a metric quantity in a container which is not securely closed.
(2) The solid fuel shall be made up in a container for sale, or for delivery after sale, only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.
Loads on vehicles
3B.—(1) Solid fuel made up in containers in the quantity of 1¼cwt. shall be carried on a road vehicle on a highway for sale, or for delivery after sale, only if all solid fuel carried on the vehicle which is made up in containers is so made up in that quantity.
(2) Solid fuel made up in metric quantities in containers which are not securely closed shall be carried on a road vehicle on a highway for sale, or for delivery after sale, only if all solid fuel carried on the vehicle in containers which are not securely closed is made up in metric quantities.
(3) If this paragraph is contravened the seller shall be guilty of an offence.
Information about containers made up in metric quantities
3C.—(1) This paragraph applies where solid fuel is carried on a road vehicle on a highway for sale, or for delivery after sale, and is made up in metric quantities in containers which are not securely closed or is delivered from the vehicle in such containers in any metric quantity.
(2) There shall be displayed on the vehicle—

(a) an indication of the quantity, or quantities, by net weight of the fuel comprised in the containers (other than any securely closed containers) on, or delivered from, the vehicle, and

(b) a statement of the name and address of the seller.

(3) Regulations under section 21(4) of this Act may prescribe the manner in which the information required by sub-paragraph (2) above is to be displayed, and a person contravenes any such regulation shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) If this paragraph is contravened, the seller, and any other person who is in charge of the vehicle at the time of the contravention, shall each be guilty of an offence.
Exemptions
3D. There shall be exempted from all the requirements of paragraphs 3, 3A, 3B and 3C of this Schedule—

(a) solid fuel supplied under a arrangements made in the coal industry for the supply of solid fuel to persons who are or have been employed in that industry or to the dependants of such persons;

(b) solid fuel made up in a container only for ease of handling as part of the load of a vehicle or ship where the whole of that load so far as it consists of solid fuel is being delivered to a single buyer."

2. At the end of Part I of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1963 there are inserted the following paragraphs—
"6A.—(1) This paragraph apples to any vehicle which is used on highways for carrying solid fuel for sale, or for delivery after sale, and in this paragraph 'container' means any container in which solid fuel is carried on such a vehicle, or is delivered from suet a vehicle.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—

(a) for securing the display on any such vehicle of an indication of the quantities in which solid fuel is made up in containers;

(b) for requiring all containers carried on or delivered from any one vehicle to be made up in the same quantity or for regulating in any other way the quantities in which they are made up;

(c) for imposing any requirement as to the loading of the vehicle, or the delivery of solid fuel from the vehicle, which appears to the Secretary of State appropriate for securing that purchasers are not misled as to the quantity of fuel they purchase.

(3) An order under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph may—

(a) make provision for any of the purposes mentioned in that sub-paragraph by means of amending, or of applying with or without modifications, or of excluding the application in whole or in part of, any of the preceding paragraphs of this Schedule;

(b) contain such consequential, incidental or supplementary provision, whether of such kinds as aforesaid or otherwise, as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient;

(c) may in particular make provision, in respect of contraventions of the order for which no penalty is provided by this Act, for the imposition of penalties not exceeding those provided by section 52 of this Act for an offence under this Act.

(4) An order made under this paragraph may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made.
6B. An order under section 21 of this Act may amend or repeal any of the preceding paragraphs of this Schedule."
3. (1) In section 54(2) of the Act of 1963 (consultation on orders) for the words "paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 6" substitute the words "paragraphs 2(3) and 6A of Schedule 6",
(2) In section 54(3) of the Act of 1963 (orders subject to affirmative procedure) after paragraph (c) there is inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) paragraph 6A of Schedule 6".
4. This Schedule shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order contained in a statutory instrument appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes."

SCHEDULE
SOLID FUEL (NORTHERN IRELAND)
1. In Schedule 4 to the 1967 Act—

(a) leave out paragraph 2(2)(a);

(b) in paragraph 3(1) leave out from "and except" to "twenty-four pounds";

(c) in paragraph 3(1)(a) after "quarter hundredweight", insert "or 10 kilogrammes, 15 kilogrammes, 25 kilogrammes, 50 kilogrammes or 62.5 kilogrammes";

(d) in paragraph 3(1)(b) after "paragraph 5 or" insert "of an order under paragraph 6A(2)(a) or the provisions of";

(e) in paragraph 3(2) after "quarter hundredweight", insert "or 25 kilogrammes, or 50 kilogrammes, or 62.5 kilogrammes";

(f) in paragraph 5(1) after "less", insert "or 200 kilogrammes or less";

(g) in paragraph 5(2) at the end add "and the name and address of the seller";

(h) in paragraph 7 leave out from "except" to "twenty-four pounds";

(i) in paragraph 9(c) after "paragraph 5(2)", insert "or an indication of quantities so displayed in accordance with an order under under paragraph 6A(2)(a)".

2. At the end of Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1967 Act insert the following paragraphs: —
"6A—(1) This paragraph applies to any vehicle which is used on highways for carrying solid fuel for sale, or for delivery after sale, or on or from which any solid fuel is sold or kept or exposed for sale, and in this paragraph 'container' means any container in which solid fuel is carried on such a vehicle, or is delivered from such a vehicle.
(2) The Department may by order make provision—

(a) for securing the display on any such vehicle of an indication of the quantities in which solid fuel is made up in containers;

(b) for requiring all containers carried on or delivered from any one vehicle to be made up in the same quantity, or for regulating in any other way the quantities in which they are made up;

(c) for imposing any requirement as to the loading of the vehicle, or the delivery of solid fuel from the vehicle, which appears to the Department appropriate for securing that purchasers are not misled as to the quantity of fuel they purchase.

(3) An order under sub-paragraph (2) may—

(a) make provision for any of the purposes mentioned in that sub-paragraph by means of amending or of applying with or without modifications, or of excluding the application in whole or in part of, any of the provisions of this Part;

1588

(b) contain such consequential, incidental or supplementary provisions, whether of such kinds as aforesaid or otherwise, as appear to the Department to be expedient;

(c) make provision, in respect of contraventions of the order for which no penalty is provided by this Act, for the imposition of penalties not exceeding those provided by section 34 for an offence under this Act.

6B. An order under section 15 may amend or repeal this Part.".
3. In section 35(2) of the 1967 Act (consultation on orders) for the words "and 43(1)" substitute the words "43(1) and paragraph 6A of Schedule 4".
4.—(1) This Schedule shall come into force on such date as the Department of Commerce for Northern Ireland may by order appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958".
Schedule 4, page 19, line 21, column 3, at end insert—
"In Schedule 4, paragraph 2(2)(a), in paragraph 3(1) the words from "and except" to "twenty-four pounds", and in paragraph 7 the words from "except" to "twenty-four pounds".".
Schedule 4, page 19, line 21, column 3, at end insert—

"1967 c. 80.

Criminal Justice

In Schedule 3 the amendment of the 1963 Act."

Schedule 4, page 19, line 21, column 3, at end insert—

"1967 c. 29 (N.I.)

Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland)1967.

In Part I of the Schedule the amendment of the 1967 Act."

Schedule 4, page 19, leave out lines 23 to 25.
Lord DRAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 en bloc. These have been referred to on earlier Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL COMMON OWNERSHIP BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ENERGY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords Amendments agreed to; with certain other Lords Amendments agreed to with Amendments; with one other Lords Amendment disagreed to but with an Amendment proposed in lieu thereof; and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Amendments and Reasons to be printed.
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY SALARIES
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY SALARIES
  BULLOCK COMMITTEE'S REPORT
  BULLOCK COMMITTEE'S REPORT
  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY: PUBLIC SECTOR OF INDUSTRY
  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY: PUBLIC SECTOR OF INDUSTRY