Sitting of 13 October 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
  CROMARTY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Bruce Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to Cromarty Harbour; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Assembly
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money the Government have now spent in adapting the Royal High School in Edinburgh for a Scottish Assembly.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): £650,000 has been spent in purchasing the former Royal High School site.
    Mr. Renton: At a time when economic pressures in the United Kingdom are so great that they are likely to cause serious trouble, is it not foolish for the Government to pursue a further element of disintegration in our society? Will Ministers pause and think again, and postpone the devolution Bill until the next General Election, when it can be discussed with the whole electorate?
    Mr. Ewing: It is not the Government's purpose to pursue any element of disintegration in our society. One of the fundamentals of the devolution proposals is the preservation of the economic and political unity of the United Kingdom. We are committed to put this Bill on to the statute book, and we will do so in the next Session.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister resist English interference in Scottish affairs and admit that the amount of money being spent on the Scottish Assembly is a mere bagatelle compared with the £2½ million coming from Scottish oil every day?
    Mr. Ewing: I always welcome interest rather than intervention in Scottish affairs from all parts of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom. This sort of interest will help to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. As far as costs are concerned, the amount spent on the Royal High School, and in particular on its conversion, is very good value for money.
    Mr. Sillars: Would it not help to get things in perspective if the Minister took

    403
    the costs involved in devolution and compared them with the cost of our joining the European Economic Community and of direct elections to Strasbourg?
    Mr. Ewing: I am not necessarily sure that both matters are related. We have studied the costs involved in devolution and we are satisfied that we will get adequate value for money.
    Mr. Galbraith: Can the Minister explain to the House why he is so sure that this expensive Assembly will stop the disintegration of the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that it will be a stepping stone to the creation of a separate Scottish State?
    Mr. Ewing: I know that that is the view which the hon. Member has held for some time and which he has expressed forcibly. However, it is not a view which is shared by many hon. Members of his own party. There is no evidence, in looking at other parts of the world where there is a devolved system of government, to show that this will lead to separation. I do not think that the hon. Member should take the threats of the Scottish National Party all that seriously.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: I hope that my hon. Friend will not listen to advice given by the Scottish National Party in relation to English interference. Will he also—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. I resent that remark. Will my hon. Friend also ask the Scottish National Party what it intends to do with the Scottish coal industry if it does not want English interference? The Scottish coal industry is dependent on English coalfields.
    Mr. Ewing: In many respects my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Hitherto, the Scottish National Party has not been in a position to talk about policies, whether in relation to the coal industry, housing, education, the health service or anything else. On the day the Scottish Assembly elections are held, politics in Scotland will be transformed and the SNP will no longer be able to campaign on slogans.

    Fisheries Policy
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that progress has been made in
    404
    renegotiation of the EEC fisheries policy which is satisfactory to the Scottish inshore fishing fleet.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): It is premature to talk of satisfactory progress. The Commission's latest proposals have only recently been tabled, and substantive discussion on them with our EEC partners begins next week.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the present economic situation and the need to produce as much food as we can ourselves, it is absolutely essential to have the widest possible fishing limits to preserve the Scottish inshore fishing industry?
    Mr. Millan: I certainly agree that it is important that we should have an economic, effective and viable fishing industry in Scotland. That is what I intend to achieve.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: For the avoidance of all doubt, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that the proposals being made by the Commission are totally unacceptable to the Government? Does he appreciate that as long as he pursues a policy of getting the maximum limits and catch potential for the British fishing fleet he will have our wholehearted support?
    Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his closing remarks. I have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals regarding limits are wholly unacceptable to the Government.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, as is sometimes alleged, the Government feel that they are in a weak bargaining position over fishing policy alone, they might broaden the negotiations to include trade and agriculture, where we have considerable bargaining power? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are going into the negotiations with the firm intention that we must have a 50-mile limit?
    Mr. Millan: The Government's position on limits was made clear on 4th May. I have nothing further to add to what was said then. We are aware that discussions about fishing must be related

    405
    to the general context of EEC discussions and negotiations as a whole.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Secretary of State aware that since 4th May his Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), said in Aberdeen on 3rd September that the United Kingdom had not a hope in hell of getting a 50-mile limit, and that this has caused considerable distress throughout the industry? Will he take this opportunity of publicly reprimanding his Under-Secretary of State for that absurd remark?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly not. I have every confidence in my hon. Friend. The statement on 4th May did not call for a 50-mile limit all round the United Kingdom. It talked abouts limits up to 50 miles. That remains the position.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the Secretary of State's firmer line this afternoon in contrast to what was said in Aberdeen last month. I assure him of support as long as he takes a firm line on this important issue for Scotland. In view of the importance of this issue to Scotland, will he be taking part in the EEC negotiations next week on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry?
    Mr. Millan: On the last point, yes. On the first point, I should listen rather more attentively to the hon. Gentleman if I did not have in mind the miserable record of the Conservative Government in the original negotiations.

    Edinburgh
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to pay an official visit to Edinburgh.
    Mr. Millan: I am normally in Edinburgh every week on official business.
    Mr. Rifkind: Has the Secretary of State considered the transcript of evidence of the recent Tartan Army trial in Edinburgh? Is he aware that, as a result of that trial, the Scottish National Party has announced an internal inquiry to determine the amount of infiltration into that party of men of violence? Will the right hon. Gentleman call upon the SNP to make its findings public? Will he also indicate the Government's view on the
    406
    likelihood of further acts of political violence in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: Some of those questions are not for me. It is up to the Scottish National Party to put its own house in order.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the SNP has always puts its house in order regarding anything of that kind, just as the other political parties in Scotland have done in relation to criminal charges which may arise in connection with any of their members? Furthermore, does he accept that the implication made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is the kind of thing which does not do any good to politics? Finally, is there to be any inquiry into the handling of the case by the Crown Office?
    Mr. Millan: That is not a matter for me. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is sensitive to criticism when it is directed to his party but that he is free with abuse of others.
    Mr. Monro: When the Secretary of State next comes to Edinburgh, will he call a meeting of those involved in maintaining discipline at football grounds? Will he tell the House why the guidelines laid down by the Government have not been fulfilled in either England or Scotland? Is he satisfied that the magistrates and district courts have sufficient powers to deal with anything which may happen at a football ground?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that this has much to do with a visit to Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am arranging to meet the SFA. I have also arranged a meeting with chief constables on Friday. I shall be discussing with them some of the matters that he has mentioned. I am extremely concerned about what happened last Saturday. Concerning penalties, the answer is that adequate penalties are available. It is for the courts to use these penalties, as I hope they will in suitable cases, in a very severe way.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): My right hon. Friend and I are meeting representatives of the industry later this afternoon and tomorrow.
    Mr. Sproat: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry regards his proposals on limits as totally inadequate and spineless? Will he tell the fishing industry this afternoon that when his right hon. Friend goes to Brussels he will stick out for a 50-mile limit, no less, and that if he does not get it we shall apply a direct or an indirect veto?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend has already made the Government's position clear. A 50-mile exclusive limit or, indeed, a 50-mile protected zone, whatever that means—that was the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—would mean that our fishermen would be fishing in the plains of Normandy or the bogs of Donegal. I wish that the Conservative Party would get off this simplistic 50-mile exclusive zone all round the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anger and frustration felt by Scottish fishermen at the financial and other implications of the Government's new safety regulations, as was shown at a meeting recently held at Arbroath? Will he ensure that his English ministerial colleague fulfils his promise of a review of these regulations after they have been in operation for one year?
    Mr. Brown: I should prefer it if the hon. Gentleman would write giving me the details of what was said at the meeting to which he referred. We have assured the fishing industry that we will deal with the question of safety in as sympathetic a way as possible.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no reduction in standards in the safety regulations for fishing vessels sailing from any British port, since the lives and safety of those who go to sea are of first importance and are to be considered as more important than the cost of such regulations? Will he also give the latest figures regarding the viability of the Scottish fishing fleets?
    Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no reduction in the safety requirements for the fishing industry. Earnings of white fish trawlers over 80 ft. in the first eight months of 1976 were 28 per cent. up on 1975. Average earnings per day at sea were 48 per cent. up on 1975. The earnings of the industry as a whole were 42 per cent. up on 1975. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question that was put to me. All I can say in the short term is that the industry is in a healthy state.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Appreciating as I do that the Under-Secretary of State, as a Socialist, is entitled to speak with authority about hell, may I ask why he sold his negotiating pass by announcing to those with whom we have to negotiate that we had not a hope in hell of getting what we were looking for?
    Mr. Brown: That is too sophisticated for me. I suggest that it is high time that Tory leaders injected a degree of realism and showed some courage and honesty in facing the difficult negotiations that lie ahead of us.

    Unemployment
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the most recent state of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: Although there was a welcome fall of 8,700 in total unemployment in Scotland between August and September, the current level remains a matter of serious concern to the Government. Our regional and economic policies are directed towards curing the underlying causes of unemployment.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour Party has become the natural party of massive unemployment as a direct consequence of its policies? Will not the vicious increase in interest rates produce a further decrease in the confidence of British industry and probably lead to even worse unemployment figures in future?
    Mr. Millan: I cannot accept any of the hon. Gentleman's assertions. I do not believe that the recent increase in interest rates will have the serious effect

    409
    on unemployment that some hon. Members suggest.
    Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Scottish Assembly is elected it will be much more effective in dealing with unemployment if it is given more economic power than is proposed in the dissolution Bill?
    Mr. Millan: It is the devolution Bill, not the dissolution Bill, and it has not been published yet. We believe that the proposals already outlined for control of the Scottish Development Agency, for example, give an effective balance between the genuine powers of the Assembly and the maintenance of the economic unity of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Bain: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ascertain how many youngsters have gone back to school because no jobs were available for them? How many jobs does he expect to be available for youngsters leaving school at Christmas?
    Mr. Millan: There was a substantial reduction in youth unemployment in the latest figures. I cannot give the information for which the hon. Lady asks in the first part of her question. It is a matter not only of those who go back to school but also of those who decide to stay on after the leaving date. This is sometimes a desirable development and I do not consider it necessarily to be an adverse feature of the situation. It is the Government's intention to make jobs available for young people who want to leave school. They have the right to expect that employment will be available for them.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that multinational companies such as STC respect their obligations to the British taxpayer, since this is one of the causes of unemployment in Scotland? Does he intend to pursue the efforts which some of us are making to get Rolls-Royce to review its policy in Scotland, particularly in the East Kilbride constituency?
    Mr. Millan: On my hon. Friend's second point, he will be aware of the letter sent out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the other day. My hon. Friend was also at a meeting with the Secretary of State
    410
    and therefore knows the overall prospects of Rolls-Royce, not only for this year but for next year and a little further forward as well. He also knows the context in which the decision on Blantyre was taken. On my hon. Friend's first question, my experience is that multinational companies are no worse, if no better, than other companies in dealing with redundancies. I do not think that the problems in Scotland can be attributed to multinational companies or to any other source of employment in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on his earlier assertion that the increased interest rates, coupled with an increased payroll tax through national insurance contributions, will have no effect on unemployment in Scotland? Is he really so out of touch with the economy of Scotland and the economy of business there that he believes this? When will he face the fact that it is as a result of his Government's policies since 1974 that we have such long jobless queues? He is living in the same cloud-cuckoo land as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Millan: I did not say that the increased interest rates would have no effect on investment intentions. It would be absurd to claim that. I said that they would not have the serious effects which some hon. Members opposite have claimed. The July survey of industrial trends by the Scottish CBI confirmed the upward trends first indicated in January and April this year. Taken as a whole, Scottish industry now has much more confidence in the future than for a long time, and this is confirmed at my meetings with industrialists.

    School Examination Results
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish the analysis of examination results as announced in July and considered by the Scottish Examination Board, in the light of the use of calculators.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): This is a matter for the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board—but since it was raised by the right hon. Lady on 21st July we have been in touch

    411
    with the board and it is pursuing the matter.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply is wholly unsatisfactory? Is it not possible to make an analysis of recent results? Surely it must be possible to identify pupils who used calculators and those who did not. If, as I suspect, there is shown to be an inbuilt benefit to those using calculators, will the hon. Gentleman undertake either to supply them to all pupils taking examinations or to say that calculators must not be used in examinations?
    Mr. McElhone: This is a matter for the board, which is keenly aware of the need to ensure equity and fairness in examinations where some candidates are using caluculators. The board believes that its arrangements and the way in which it presents examination papers do not give a significant advantage to anyone using calculators, contrary to what the right hon. Lady said in her supplementary question on the last occasion when she raised this subject. The board is today re-examining its attitude to this matter.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Kinross and West Perthshire
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Kinross and West Perthshire.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Fairbairn: As the Secretary of State is responsible for transport in Scotland, although one might not believe it, may I ask whether he has considered the effect on the tourist industry, other industries and life in general in Perthshire of the proposed closure of Motorail in Perth by British Rail? If so, what steps is he taking to prevent it?
    Mr. MacKenzie: This is a matter for the day-to-day management of British Rail. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants helpful answers on matters of this
    412
    kind, he ought to put down the Question which he wants answered.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that I welcome the rather belated interest shown in this matter by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)? Will he personally intervene with British Rail to ensure that this piece of economic lunacy is not perpetrated?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will have noted the comments made today.
    Mr. Budgen: If the Secretary of State does visit Kinross and West Perthshire, will he do what all his fellow Ministers have so far failed to do and tell the people of Scotland exactly how many extra people will become unemployed as a consequence of the recent increase in interest rates?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The last time I made a speech in Kinross and West Perthshire was during the General Election of 1959, and nobody paid very much attention to me then. Over the past couple of months, members of the Government have made 50 or 60 visits in Scotland and we have met representatives of many organisations to explain Government policies.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I draw to the attention of the House that it is now 3 o'clock and we have reached only Question No. 7. It would be a great help if hon. Members would try very hard to ask only one supplementary question when they are called and if answers could be correspondingly brief.

    Mortgage Funds
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the operation of the special mortgage fund set up by the Building Societies Association in consultation with local authorities.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) on 24th March, progress with the scheme has not been all that I would have wished. Discussions continue with the building societies about their taking a wider view of lending policies, and we are encouraging

    413
    local authorities to seek to involve individual societies more closely in meeting local housing needs.
    Mr. Cook: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer he gave to my Question on the last day the House sat before the Summer Recess indicated that the building societies were unduly restrictive in operating the scheme, since only a handful of families in the whole of Scotland have succeeded? Is he aware of the difficulties which this poses for the regeneration of inner city areas? If the building societies will not be more flexible in their arrangements, will my hon. Friend consider increasing the sums available to local authorities for lending?
    Mr. Brown: I accept that. The lending to local authorities is being maintained at £13 million this year, but I admit that this matter is giving me concern in our total housing strategy. I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the Government's recent action in increasing interest rates, many of our constituents who are trying to buy their own homes will be paying upwards of £5 a week more in mortgage repayments? As this is a result of the social contract, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that home buyers are separately represented in future discussions of the social contract so that they can have their case heard?
    Mr. Brown: I am more concerned with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook)—namely, looking after first-time borrowers, especially in the large cities, where there is tenement property for which the building societies will not lend. That is the stumbling block in encouraging people into owner-occupation.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ring that the building societies are throwing round certain areas is deplorable? Will he urge local authorities, and perhaps the Government, to aid the inner city areas, especially areas such as the West Centre of Glasgow, by environmental improvement schemes? That may, by a backdoor method, encourage the building societies to give more money for some of these houses.
    Mr. Brown: I have enough bother about exclusive limits without trying to define the ring that the building societies put around certain areas. I think it is to the credit of Glasgow that there is environmental improvement in the private sector. It has been an enormous boost and encouragement to building societies to go in and lend on property where the environment has been improved. We shall give Glasgow every encouragement in that direction.
    Mr. Welsh: What specific representations has the Under-Secretary made to the joint Government and building society liaison committee on this matter? Is he aware of the net outflow of building society funds from Scotland which could be used to help low-income families and young married couples? Why not use some of the oil revenue? I am sure that the Shah of Iran would be willing to help if the hon. Gentleman could not get resources from other sources nearer at hand.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is constant discussion and dialogue between the Government and building societies at United Kingdom level and at Scottish level—indeed, I have had them myself. In that respect there is nothing wrong with the discussions. It is the outcome with which we are a wee bit dissatisfied.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the horrifying increase in mortgage rates and the reduction in the availability of mortgages generally, not only for old property, will have a desperately severe effect not only on couples buying houses but on the Scottish building industry, particularly bearing in mind that owner-occupation in Scotland is at a low level? Has the Secretary of State been successful in getting any form of exemption for Scotland in terms of this difficult problem?
    Mr. Brown: That is a typical exaggeration. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the statement made yesterday by the chairman or managing director of the largest building society in the country to the effect that it does not think that the increased rate of interest will have any bearing on the number of people looking for mortgages.

    Ross and Cromarty
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has plans to make an official visit to Garve, Achnasheen, Plockton and Kyle of Lochalsh.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most civilised way of getting there is by a railway that is both a tourist attraction and an infrastructure that is more important to the life of the community than regional grants? Will he keep it open after the oil platform at Kishorn has been completed?
    Mr. Mackenzie: The future of individual services is a matter in the first instance for the British Railways Board. I have not heard of any proposals for the withdrawal of passenger services on the line my hon. Friend has mentioned. As regards the future of the railways as a whole, the Government's transport policy consultation document gives an opportunity for discussion of these matters.
    Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was only after years of fighting with successive Governments that the line was retained? Will he note that it is imperative that any future plans for rail cuts do not refer to this line?
    Mr. Mackenzie: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was this Government who saved the line.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Monro: How on earth can the Minister justify—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Hector Monro, Question No. 10.

    Scottish Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Scottish Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Millan: On 29th October.
    Mr. Monro: Does the Secretary of State realise that the reputation of the Scottish Office is now reaching an all-time low? Will he explain to the House
    416
    and the Economic Planning Council what estimate has been made of the loss of jobs that will arise from 15 per cent. interest rates and the 2 per cent. payroll tax?
    Mr. Millan: Any loss of jobs arising from the increase in interest rates will be as nothing compared with the loss of jobs that would come if we followed the Opposition's policy of indiscriminate cuts in public expenditure.
    Mr. David Steel: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the council, will he discuss with it the development of Tweed-bank in the Borders? Bearing in mind that this has been a central part of Government policy since 1966, why was the announcement made to the Press by the SSHA rather than by the right hon. Gentleman to the House, or at least to Members of Parliament for the region?
    Mr. Millan: This is not on the agenda for 29th October. If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question about Tweedbank, I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are likely to lose more jobs because of the action of the district valuer in North Lanarkshire in trebling rents for industrial factories, which is bound to force many individuals to return south? Will my right hon. Friend take the initiative of advising this officer that he should pay as much attention to the unemployment market as the rent market and not worsen the situation in parts of Scotland where we have 10 per cent. of the insurable population unemployed?
    Mr. Millan: I shall look into what my hon. Friend has said, but generally speaking rents for industrial premises in Scotland are very competitive. Under regional policy certain incentives are available, such as rent-free periods. I do not accept that the Scottish situation is uncompetitive. It is very competitive for industry, whether it is coming in or is already established.

    Economic Situation
    Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the industrial and economic position in Scotland.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on the economy.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy for the remainder of 1976.
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present state of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Millan: Prospects for the Scottish economy are closely linked to developments in the United Kingdom economy, where output, particularly of manufacturing industry, is now running well above the levels of a year or so ago. Recent surveys of industrial trends in Scotland also show a rising value of output and export deliveries.
    I have no plans to issue a White Paper on the economy as I am satisfied that the Government's policies are the right ones to put the national economy on a sound footing and that they will strengthen employment prospects in Scotland as elsewhere.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I am not quite sure whether I understand exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that answer. I shall ask him a simple question. Is there not one sector of the Scottish economy that can more quickly put matters right than any other sector—namely, small businesses? If we changed our interest and taxation policies, that sector could immediately take on one more person per firm and halve unemployment in Scotland immediately.
    Mr. Millan: I do not accept that. However, I accept that the small business sector of the Scottish economy is very important. It is not true that it has been neglected by the Government. Similarly, the Scottish Development Agency is paying particular attention to encouraging the small business sector, attention that I very much welcome.
    Mr. Henderson: What contribution does the Secretary of State consider that the Scottish Development Agency is making towards improving employment prospects? When is it likely to receive a realistic budget?
    Mr. Millan: The agency is already making a very significant improvement in the Scottish economy, and that improvement will be considerably developed over the next few months. Apart from one particular major acquisition that it has announced, for example, I know that it is considering a number of other prospects at present.
    Mr. Buchan: Has my right hon. Friend considered the implications for the industrial regeneration of Scotland if we failed to bring forward a new power generating station order for Babcock and Wilcox? Further, will he consider what implications it would have for industrial development if the Scottish National Party's wish to cut back on electricity expenditure and to cut us off from the possibility of ordering from an English nationalised generating board were fulfilled?
    Mr. Millan: I am very well aware of the particular problem of Babcock and Wilcox. The Government have promised a statement about generating capacity and orders generally before the end of the year. If Babcock and Wilcox were to rely simply on the Scottish generation programme, it would be in a very bad way indeed. It is only if we look at the whole United Kingdom generating capacity, as well as exports for that matter, that there is any future for Babcock and Wilcox. In saying that, I am simply saying what the company and its workers recognise. However, there is a problem there and I hope that we shall be able to end the uncertainty as soon as possible.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State say whether he has made an estimate of the extra unemployment that will stem from the higher interest rates and the payroll tax, or whether he is simply not prepared to tell the House of Commons?
    On a different question, does he not agree that his answers to all of these questions have been deplorably complacent in view of the fact that unemployment in Scotland is at 150,000? Is it not a further sign of the right hon.

    419
    Gentleman's total ineffectiveness in safeguarding Scotland's interests?
    Mr. Millan: On the first point, it is not possible to give a precise figure. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wants figures on unemployment in Scotland. In Scotland so far, approvals under the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation scheme and the subsidy for school leavers have saved about 32,000 jobs. I hope that Opposition Members welcome that.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Secretary of State agree that one major way in which we could help the Scottish economy and employment prospects would be to operate a policy of preference for orders at home? Will he undertake publicly today to ensure that all platform orders that may be forthcoming over the next few years for the development of North Sea oil will be given to yards working in Scotland, thereby guaranteeing employment for the men?
    Mr. Millan: We have provided the capacity in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in England, which may be available for, as far as we can see, any orders for production platforms which may be likely to come forward. I shall certainly expect to see those orders placed in Scotland. We have a memorandum of understanding with the oil companies on that matter. However, it is not possible, for various good international reasons, simply to make an absolute commitment to home preference in these matters. Nevertheless, the capacity exists and I certainly look forward to the orders, when they come, coming to Scotland.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend also understand that a vast number of people who have been employed in oil rig construction on Teesside have recently lost their jobs? If we are to take the view that orders for the North Sea should go only to Scotland, there will be a demand from England and a loss to Scotland of orders that could be placed in Scotland. That is the way to economic disaster for all the working people of Britain.
    Mr. Millan: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right, and in so far as his question contains a reprimand for forgetting to mention the Teesside yard I accept it, because that is a very efficient yard and
    420
    it is a considerable tragedy for the United Kingdom that it has run out of orders. I am talking specifically about United Kingdom orders, but the fact is that the bulk of these orders go to Scotland because that is where the capacity is.
    Mr. Crawford: Leaving aside the fact that small businesses were not helped in 1973 by the imposition by the Conservatives of the levy on the self-employed, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the simplest way of creating jobs in Scotland and reducing unemployment to the Norwegian level of 1 per cent. is by the injection of Scottish oil revenues, which are now running at £700 million a year?
    Mr. Millan: As far as Scottish oil, so-called, is concerned, there has been far more expenditure on North Sea oil than there has been revenue from it so far.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Secretary of State has mentioned some of the temporary schemes that the Government have introduced to help employment in Scotland. Worthy as they are and much as we welcome them, does he not realise that the fact that they are necessary at all is a measure of the failure of the Government's economic policies? Will he lift his eyes to the future instead of giving such complacent answers, and realise that what we need in Scotland is the prospect of productive industry with a future? In that respect, what relevance have high interest rates and the payroll tax? It is new jobs and modern industry that we want.
    Mr. Millan: There has been concern in the United Kingdom as a whole about investment levels in many areas. No one expressed it more eloquently than the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Indeed, the particular speech concerned was quoted in the House in the economic debate on Monday. Therefore, to suggest that there is some particular worry about investment which has come only from the announcement last week is really no way of solving the present problem. I have already said that high interest rates, by themselves, are not an incentive to investment. Obviously that is the position. But the investment trends generally in Scotland are more favourable now than they have been for a considerable time, and I expect that situation to continue.

    421
    From meeting Scottish industry, I do not find that it shares the pessimism of Opposition Members.

    Local Authority Expenditure and Services
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding reductions in expenditure and curtailment of services.
    Mr. Millan: The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has recognised the necessity for its member authorities to continue to exercise the utmost economy. It has also conveyed to me the views of member authorities that the reductions in local authority expenditure required to conform with the last White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393) would entail the curtailment of services and some redundancy.
    Mr. Younger: As the total failure of the Government's economic policies is forcing them to demand these cuts by the local authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir George Sharp has made it clear that if the Government's cuts are insisted upon there will be a large number of redundancies? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a ceiling on rate increases to make sure that spendthrift councils do not merely pass on their higher costs to their ratepayers, who are already hard-pressed enough?
    Mr. Millan: I consider that question to be utter hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman is a member of an Opposition party which as recently as Monday of this week called for savage cuts in public expenditure, and they must include local authority expenditure. What we have called for is a freeze, and even a freeze has employment implications, as I indicated in my original reply.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the rate support grant is cut by the rate projected, it will mean in the Lothian Region 700 redundancies among teachers and a 40 per cent. cut in street lighting? Is he prepared for cuts that would have that result?
    Mr. Millan: I have not yet said what the rate support grant settlement for 1977–78 will be. That will be a matter
    422
    for negotiation between me and the Convention at meetings starting on 5th November. Therefore, I do not accept the figures that my hon. Friend has just given.
    Mr. MacCormick: Does the Secretary of State accept, from the SNP Bench, that the setting up of the ridiculous Strathclyde Region was due entirely to the previous Conservative Government and that the biggest change and improvement we could make would be to get rid of it?
    Mr. Millan: Again, I do not accept that a reform of local government would make a significant impact on the problem of local authority expenditure.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be quite unfair for local authorities which in the past have obeyed the Government's guidelines about expenditure to be treated in exactly the same way as those which have deliberately rejected the Government's requests? Does he not agree that there should be a differential in the approach to local authorities based on their past response to pressure from the Government?
    Mr. Millan: That is a matter that I shall be discussing with the Convention. However, if the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the rate support grant system—which is, perhaps, doubtful—he will know that it is extremely difficult to make the kind of discrimination that he is suggesting for Scotland.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman please cease his insulting evasions and tell the House what his calculations are for the increase in unemployment in Scotland as a consequence of the increase in interest rates?
    Mr. Millan: I have answered that question on a number of occasions, but in any case it does not arise out of this Question.

    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate when he next expects to meet the Scottish Law Commission.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I had a meeting with the Scottish Law Commission on 14th June last.

    423
    I have not made any arrangement of a formal nature to have a further meeting with the Commission. There is, of course, a constant exchange of views and information between the Commission and my departments.
    Mr. Fairbairn: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the Scottish Law Commission, will he ensure that the excellent principle of the 110-day rule is neither interfered with nor watered down, nor in any way given the blame for the disreputable and incompetent prosecution of what is colloquially called the Tartan Army case, the blame for which rests entirely with the Department for which he is responsible? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer his resignation as an indication of that incompetence?
    The Lord Advocate: I always enjoy listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he is waxing indignant. The answer to the last point is that I shall not resign.
    The case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, while not technically covered by the sub judice rule, is nevertheless one in which the time for appeal has not expired. In those circumstances, it is highly desirable that I, as the public prosecutor, should refrain from making any comments on the merits of the case.
    Accordingly, what I should say about this matter is to mention the 110-day rule to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Procedural difficulties arise for the Crown. They arise out of the operation of the 110-day rule in a situation where justice required the prevention of unfairness to the last three accused to be arrested. Injustice could have arisen if the two accused who were arrested before had been tried before the others in a separate trial. I am sure that that was a proper view to take.
    Those difficulties reinforce the case for the implementation of the reform proposed by the Thomson Committee, namely, that the 110-day period ought to run from the date of full committal to commencement of the trial and not to the conclusion of the trial, as the rule now requires. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see from this answer that I am not as enamoured of the 110-day rule as it stands as he appears to be.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what pressure he received from the Scottish Law Commission for a consolidation Bill on sexual offences? Does he believe that it would be wise for the House to re-enact the potpourri of nineteenth century legislation without first having an opportunity to consider whether that legislation requires reform?
    The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend will appreciate that legislative time is at a high premium during the present sittings of Parliament, and it is difficult to get time in all Parliaments for matters of law consolidation. For those reasons, this small measure is a useful contribution to the consolidation of the law. I can understand that people who have strong feelings about certain aspects of the law therein dealt with may wish to take the opportunity when such a Bill is before the House to air their desire for changes in the substantive law, but such changes are not the proper subject of a consolidation Bill and they do not fall within my jurisdiction as Lord Advocate.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Can the Lord Advocate say when he will bring proposals before the House arising out of the Thomson Committee, which I understand reported some months ago?
    The Lord Advocate: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have a committee working on this subject. As soon as that committee reports, we hope to have proposals to put before the House in this regard.
    Mr. Rifkind: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), may I ask whether the Lord Advocate realises that in asking Parliament to approve this consolidation Bill he will be asking Parliament to approve one clause of it that will retain as a criminal offence conduct which the Crown, by his own person, said will not be subject to prosecution, despite its being a criminal offence? Will he accept that it is contrary to public interest that Parliament should be asked in 1976 to approve laws which the Government and he himself have no intention of enforcing?
    The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman, with his legal qualifications, will appreciate that what he has put to me is grossly over-simplified. I content myself

    425
    with saying that for 60 years the Crown Office has adopted a humane and reasonable policy of prosecution in connection with the matter that he has in mind. If people feel that that is not enough and that the substantive law ought to be changed, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the proper way is not by a consolidation Bill, which has totally different objectives, but by trying to introduce a Private Member's Bill, which can be properly considered by both Houses of Parliament in a context that will allow all moral views to be considered properly.
    Mr. David Steel: Surely it is one thing for the Crown Office to base its policy on an antiquated statute of the last century but quite another thing to update the law in a consolidation measure and thereby reinforce a policy which his Department has ceased to implement. It is that to which we are objecting.
    The Lord Advocate: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has fairly said, but I reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). The matter is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman has put to me. If it were as simple as he suggests, it would be attractive.

    GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Glasgow Sheriff Court.
    Mr. Monroasked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.
    The Lord Advocate: I have no plans at present to make an official visit to Glasgow Sheriff Court.
    Mr. Taylor: If the Lord Advocate will not go to Glasgow, will he discuss with the sheriffs of Scotland the appropriateness of the sentences that they impose for hooliganism at football matches? In particular, will he consider whether powers are available to sheriffs to require people found guilty of football hooliganism to report regularly on Saturday afternoons to police stations in a sober condition?
    The Lord Advocate: I take note of the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman about hooligans reporting to police
    426
    stations. I think it may be that we require wider powers of disposal for our courts than we have now. However, that is not a matter directly put to me in the Question.
    As regards prosecutions for which I am responsible, we ensure that, so far as possible, serious cases of football hooliganism, which arise mainly inside football grounds, are dealt with only in sheriff courts. That ensures that the penalties that can be imposed are substantial. When incidents arise outside football grounds, where possible we prosecute such cases in district courts, unless there is a specially serious aspect which deserves consideration by the sheriff court.
    We do our best in the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal service to ensure that these incidents are treated with the seriousness they deserve. It is not for me to comment on the sentences that are imposed. The courts are wholly independent in their sentencing.
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate what the Lord Advocate has said about the severity of sentences, but will he take an early opportunity to have further discussions with procurator-fiscals and the police to see whether individuals are being charged with severe enough offences which can result in the imposition of long custodial sentences by the courts?
    The Lord Advocate: I shall be happy to do that.
    Mr. MacCormick: Would the Lord Advocate care to say whether he has considered the question of hooliganism at political meetings in Cathcart and Glasgow, and therefore make a comment?
    The Lord Advocate: I am happy to say that the last time I was in Cathcart canvassing I found it to be very peaceful.

    THOMSON COMMITTEE
    Mr. Sproatasked the Lord Advocate what evidence he has submitted to the Thomson Committee.
    The Lord Advocate: I have regular meetings with the Lord President of the Court of Session as business demands.
    Mr. Sproat: My Question is No. 33.
    The Lord Advocate: I have regular meetings with the Lord President—
    Hon. Members: Wrong Question.
    Mr. Speaker: The Question to be answered is No. 33.
    The Lord Advocate: I have not personally submitted evidence to the Thomson Committee.
    Mr. Sproat: Arising out of the Thomson Committee, will the Lord Advocate support a change in the system whereby a trivial procedural error by a member of the legal profession, such as we have just seen, can result in legal proceedings being totally abandoned, resulting in a travesty of justice for those concerned, as happened recently in the case of my constituent Mr. L. M. Cameron at Perth?
    The Lord Advocate: Now that I have the right Question, it would be desirable not to comment. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points that he wishes to make about that case, he should perhaps write to me.

    COURT OF SESSION
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Lord President of the Court of Session.
    The Lord Advocate: I think I am now entitled to say that I have regular meetings with the Lord President of the Court of Session as business demands.
    Mr. Wilson: While one would recommend the use of a calculator to the Lord Advocate for the purpose of selection of answers to Questions, at his next meeting with the Lord President, who is responsible for fixing court fees, will he note that divorce expenses in an undefended divorce cost three times as much as those for an undefended separation action in the sheriff court? What facilities will there be for transferring divorces to the sheriff court?
    The Lord Advocate: That matter will have to be taken into account by the Government in future when this issue next arises. It is only fair to say, however, that I think that practitioners would certainly not accept that the work done in a divorce case is necessarily the same as the work done in the lesser cases of separation in the sheriff court.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Assuming that the Lord Advocate can tell whether he is meeting the Thomson Committee or the Lord President, and that he is meeting the Lord President, may I ask him to use his influence to break the particularly restrictive bonds on the criminal fees paid to solicitors who engage in more work, paid for out of the same Treasury, when very much more is paid to English practitioners for the same work, a fact which is prejudicial as against comparative work undertaken by solicitors in Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate: I am not sure that I understand the hon. and learned Member's point, but I can say that charges for divorces in Scotland are very reasonable.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (DIGITAL CLOCKS)
    Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed the installation during the Summer Recess of two digital clocks above the Government and Opposition Back Benches. These are synchronised with the digital clocks on the Clerk's Table. Since there is occasionally a discrepancy between the time shown by the digital clocks and that shown by the more conventional clocks at each end of the Chamber, I propose in future to go by the time shown on the digital clocks, which I think are clearly visible to all hon. Members.
    If, when hon. Members are addressing the House, they keep their eyes on the clock rather than on me, I shall not take it as a personal affront.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FIRE SERVICES)
Mr. Craig: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely:
"the emergency caused by the dispute with the fire services in Northern Ireland."
This is a matter which puts at risk to an even greater extent the lives and property of the people of Northern Ireland. Such a matter can never be dismissed as unimportant or lacking in

429
urgency. It arises out of action taken by firemen in the Northern Ireland Fire Service who are in dispute with their employers over a matter of pay.
Unhappily, because of the way in which that dispute has developed, the firemen have felt it necessary to withdraw fire cover in all incidents arising out of terrorist action affecting commercial property and places of public entertainment. They have said—and I believe they mean it—that they will do what they can to see that fires which would put life at risk will be covered. But how can anyone judge whether a fire will put life at risk? Any fire is a potential risk to life. No matter how good their intentions are, unless something is done speedily, a most unnecessary tragedy could occur in Northern Ireland.
This is an avoidable risk. I should like the House to consider urgently what we can do to remove the additional risk. It is not enough to say that the Army can give some assistance.
I know that I may not debate the issue now, but it would be wrong to dismiss this as just another pay dispute or as the action of some wildcat men. These are men who have bravely and courageously served the community in very difficult circumstances, in a war situation, for about eight years now. Some of them have been shot at and some killed while attending fires. They have done their job without complaint or reservation. The fact that they now take this action calls for investigation at the highest level. It is a matter of confidence. I believe that the House would consider it such and would agree that if the Government would intervene, this problem could be solved. That is why I ask that the House should be able to consider this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration: namely,
"the emergency caused by the dispute with the fire services in Northern Ireland."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would be raising this matter and I have given careful thought to it. But I have to rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (PREVENTION OF BLASPHEMY)
  Mr. Marcus Kimball presented a Bill to prohibit the production of certain cinematograph films; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time to-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 232].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1234), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

PROHIBITION OF SPECULATION
3.38 p.m.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit speculation in currencies or commodities; and for connected purposes.
If this Bill had been law last March, the result of the Bank of England's treasonable mismanagement of the money markets would not have led to the run on the pound caused by the speculators and leading to the present crisis which, as we all know, is not a new one but simply an extension of what has gone on before.
Speculation fuels inflation, it causes unemployment and in many countries it causes extreme poverty and starvation on a large scale. Decent and honourable financial journalists—there are some—admit that inflation in recent years has been largely fuelled by speculators.
Indeed, John Palmer, the Business Editor of The Guardian, writing in the middle of the June election in 1974, said:
"Alarming evidence is emerging that the activity of speculators on the London commodities market has played a major role in worsening both the rate of inflation and the balance of payments deficit. One estimate in the City suggested that in some cases as much as half the increase in prices of some commodities in the previous year was caused by speculative buying of futures contracts."
He said that the uncontrolled access to the City commodity markets of large investors anxious to seek a hedge against inflation and currency uncertainties caused prices to rise twice as fast as they would have done without the speculators there. The Economist in March 1975 claimed also that uncontrolled commodity markets of the previous two years had contributed handsomely to our hair-raising inflation.
I know that some economists argue that currency speculation is far more damaging than commodity speculation and it is this which makes the Government's constant attempts to persuade speculators to buy sterling all the more unforgiveable. The value of a currency, even in a capitalist free market system, should depend on the buying and selling of currency and commodities for legiti-
432
mate trade purposes only—not on operators making a living selling the pound and Britain short constantly as they do. There is something sick about the major opposition party in that it supports and advocates such activities in the City of London.
It was announced yesterday in the Financial Times that the Stock Exchange is to seek to engage in what will be the ultimate casino operation of all time—the opening up of a market in trading options. This is a system which has been used in the United States of America for the past few years to perpetuate large-scale frauds on small investors, rendering many of them penniless. The American Government have taken action to control the activities of that market. In the past, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) has accused the City of operating a gigantic casino where the nation is the only loser. It was 25 years ago that he made that accusation. I hope that he will seek to ban any new speculative markets until his official inquiry into the City of London has reported.
My right hon. Friend's inquiry will be strengthened by the action of this House in granting me leave to introduce the Bill. After a quarter of a century of criticism my right hon. Friend now has a great chance to take some action and change the City from the casino that it undoubtedly is. My Bill would outlaw the situation whereby the modern speculator with no factory, no warehouse and no transport facilities but with a telex machine and the co-operation of the banks can use the highly sophisticated markets in this country and abroad to buy commodities he does not need and to sell currencies he does not have. That situation only fuels inflation in the long term.
The Bill will outlaw such action by stopping all agreements where legitimate trade is not involved and will impose penalties in line with the scale of the offence. I accept that futures markets play an important part in manufacturing industry. The City of London attempted to educate me during the recess when it saw my motion on the Notice Paper in late July. I fully accept that manufacturers wish to buy commodities and goods in advance of production so that they may plan their marketing and pricing policies.

433
They will not be affected by my Bill as long as they intend to produce something and not just buy and sell without the intention of ever producing anything.
The same will apply to currencies. There is no good purpose served, for the country, the workers, or this Government, in allowing the present casino situation to exist for much longer. I hope therefore—given this short outline of my Bill, which is extremely simple—that speculation can ultimately be outlawed by making sure that agreements that do not contain legitimate trade clauses are not agreements that can be enforced in the courts. It is as simple as that. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
3.44 p.m.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to oppose the motion?
Mr. Bottomley: I do. I rise with not much hope of convincing the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that he is wrong-headed in putting forward this proposed Bill. If he has failed to benefit from the education which has been offered to him in the past few months, a little bit more from me might just help.
I want to take up the two bases on which he has built his argument. The first was that speculation is a major cause of inflation and that it has led to a major part of the balance of payments deficit. It is now commonly agreed, certainly between the Chancellor and many of my colleagues, that Government action leads to inflation and that often such Government action is a reaction to pressures imposed on them by trade unions, manufacturers or whoever.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Speculators.
Mr. Bottomley: If trade unions are speculators, fair enough. Perhaps they will be caught by this proposed Bill, if it is enacted. I have not heard anyone suggest that speculation is either endlessly profitable or a major cause of inflation. Things which are inherently unprofitable in a mixed or free economy are not followed by many people for long. However disastrous the rise in
434
house prices may have been during the time of the last Conservative Government, many people have learned their lesson in the domestic, industrial and commercial property market. The great thing about speculation is that people learn from their mistakes.
One of the unfortunate things about the Labour Party, which has a constitution written in 1918 tied round its neck, is that it does not get the opportunity to learn from its mistakes because it is sufficiently wrong-headed and pig-headed not to understand where it goes wrong. I am directing my remarks generally rather than to anyone in particular.
The hon. Member's second point about speculation leading to a balance of payments deficit seems to be equally wrong. As I understand it, the balance of payments deficit comes about because people do not produce as much as they want to consume and have the opportunity of buying more of what other people are producing without paying directly for those goods. Let me give a simple example concerning the rise in earnings and the production of car workers in this country as compared with their German counterparts over the past 10 or 15 years. Pay increases in this country have been 200 per cent. while in Germany they have been 100 per cent. Yet the value of the paper wages in this country are greatly reduced because production is not sufficiently high. If there could be more speculation about the causes of that and an attempt to tackle the underlying problems perhaps we would get away from the balance of payments deficit.
I refer the hon. Member to page 11 or page 13 of Labour Weekly. There are about nine or ten pages in that publication every week saying how wrong it is for people to speculate. That paper would condemn the hon. Gentleman if he were to set up a bicycle factory and sell bicycles perhaps £5 cheaper than those sold by the Royal Arsenal Co-op or department stores. He might become so successful that he ends up with £500,000. Because of his speculation, or enterprise, everyone else would be better off. Many Labour Members would see that as being wrong, despite the fact that the hon. Member would be helping to lower the retail price index and enable more people to get bicycles. These bicycles could be

435
sold in Germany and would help to put right our balance of payments deficit. Were the hon. Gentleman to do this he would be hit by capital transfer tax, corporation tax, wealth tax and so on.
Yet, on page 11 or page 13 of Labour Weekly, week after week, there appear the words suggesting that to win £500,000 on the football pools people should use
Labour Weekly perm No. 7. That condemns the sort of argument the hon. Member is using.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 164. Noes 139.

Division No. 316.]

AYES

[3.50 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Graham, Ted

Oakes, Gordon

Archer, Peter

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Orbach, Maurice

Ashton, Joe

Grocott, Bruce

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Ovenden, John

Atkinson, Norman

Hardy, Peter

Park, George

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Pavitt, Laurie

Bales, Alf

Hatton, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Henderson, Douglas

Price, William (Rugby)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Bidwell, Sydney

Huckfield, Les

Robinson, Geoffrey

Bishop, E. S.

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rooker, J. W.

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Hunter, Adam

Roper, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Ryman, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Sandelson, Neville

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Sedgemore, Brian

Buchan, Norman

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones. Dan (Burnley)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Cant, R. B.

Judd, Frank

Sillars, James

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Kaufman, Gerald

Silverman, Julius

Cartwright, John

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Small, William

Clemitson, Ivor

Kinnock, Neil

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lambie, David

Snape, Peter

Cohen, Stanley

Lamborn, Harry

Spriggs, Leslie

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Stallard, A. W.

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Stoddart, David

Concannon, J. D.

Leadbitter, Ted

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Conlan, Bernard

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Swain, Thomas

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lipton, Marcus

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Litterick, Tom

Thompson, George

Crawford, Douglas

Loyden, Eddie

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Tierney, Sydney

Cryer, Bob

McCartney, Hugh

Torney, Tom

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McCusker, H.

Urwin, T. W.

Deakins, Eric

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Dempsey, James

McElhone, Frank

Walker, Harold (Doncastsr)

Doig, Peter

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Dormand, J. D.

Maclennan, Robert

Watkins, David

Dunlop, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Welsh, Andrew

Eadie, Alex

McNamara, Kevin

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Edge, Geoff

Madden, Max

White, James (Pollok)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Mahon, Simon

Whitehead, Phillip

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Whitlock, William

Ennals, David

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Mendelson, John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Moonman, Eric

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Moyle, Roland

Forrester, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

George, Bruce

Newens, Stanley

Mr. Russell Kerr and

Golding, John

Noble, Mike

Mr. Dennis Skinner

NOES

Adley, Robert

Blaker, Peter

Bulmer, Esmond

Aitken, Jonathan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Burden, F. A.

Alison, Michael

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Beith, A. J.

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Churchill W. S.

Bell, Ronald

Brittan, Leon

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Brotherton, Michael

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Biggs-Davison, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Cope, John

Corrie, John

Jopling, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Costain, A. P.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridsdale, Julian

Crouch, David

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Durant, Tony

Lamont, Norman

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Eyre, Reginald

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Colin

Fairgrieve, Russell

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shersby, Michael

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Silvester, Fred

Fry, peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lloyd, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Luce, Richard

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCrindle, Robert

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Goodhart, Philip

Macfarlane, Neil

Speed, Keith

Goodhew, Victor

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Spence, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Marten, Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Gorst, John

Mather, Carol

Sproat, Iain

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mawby, Ray

Stanley, John

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Gray, Hamish

Mayhew, Patrick

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mills, Peter

Tebbit, Norman

Hannam, John

Moate, Roger

Townsend, Cyril D.

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Monro, Hector

Tugendhat, Christopher

Hawkins, Paul

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

Hayhoe, Barney

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Warren, Kenneth

Higgins, Terence L.

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Weatherill, Bernard

Holland, Philip

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mudd, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Howell, David (Guildford)

Neave, Alrey

Winterton, Nicholas

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Neubert, Michael

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Newton, Tony

Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Hurd, Douglas

Onslow, Cranley

Younger, Hon George

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, John (Harrow West)

James, David

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Pardoe, John

Mr. Peter Bottomley and

Jessel, Toby

Pattie, Geoffrey

Mr. Peter Hordern.

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Penhaligon, David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Geoff Edge, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Joan Evans and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

PROHIBITION OF SPECULATION
Mr. J. W. Rooker accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit speculation in currencies or commodities; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 231.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HEALTH SERVICES BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment [11th October] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

  HEALTH SERVICES BILL
    Clause 1

      THE HEALTH SERVICES BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES
      Which amendment was: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.
      Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this we may take the following amendments:
      @No. 67, in Schedule 1, page 25, line 14, at end insert—
      '(d) two other persons representing the interests of patients who wish to undergo medical treatment privately.'
      No. 68, in page 25, line 21, leave out:
      'one or other of the national health services'.
      No. 69, in page 25, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3) In appointing all the members of the Board the Secretary of State shall, so far as is practicable, ensure that they will have as their sole concern the interests of hospital patients generally, and not the interests of any other group or class of persons.'
      4.1 p.m.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: When the guillotine fell last night, I was in the process of moving an amendment concerning the composition of the Health Services Board. The composition of the board is extremely important. It is not going too far to say that the success or otherwise of the arrangements made will depend upon the right, just and good composition of the board.
      Last night I explained the vast number of functions which the board will have. I said that there was a real need to have seven instead of five members, not least because the board will cover seven major areas of responsibility. It is absurd to suggest that a tiny committee of five will
      440
      be able properly to cope with all those areas. Five members might be able to do the job by skimping, but they will be unable to do it properly. The board's duties will be immense, and if it has seven members it will have a better chance of doing the job adequately. A membership of seven is neither large nor unwieldy.
      Last night I also dealt with the representatives who will be on the board. There will be the chairman, two medical practitioners and two others. Of these last two the Secretary of State may recognise one as being representative either of the doctors or the dentists. The second will represent one of the trade unions whose members work in NHS hospitals.
      It is extremely unfair that no one will be appointed to look after the interests of private patients. It is wholly and completely wrong to set up a board which will so greatly affect the ability of persons to have private medical care but to leave those persons unrepresented upon it. Last May the then Minister of State said in Standing Committee:
      "the hon. Lady seemed to imply that doctors were not the sole representatives of the interests of private patients."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D. 18th May 1976; c. 53.]
      I do not even say that. I say that doctors will have quite enough to do under the Bill looking after their own interests without extending their activities to safeguarding the interests of private patients.
      Doctors will have difficult decisions to make under the Bill. They will have to deal with the whole question of how far they will have to extend their hours to take account of travelling between their private patients and their other patients in National Health Service hospitals. They will have to decide what sacrifices to make in order to provide that time.
      There is also the question of remuneration, and many other questions. There is the problem of the common waiting list, with all that that implies in terms of the duties it will put upon the doctors on the board. It is totally wrong to imagine that the doctors can look after the private patients' interests in these circumstances. It is totally unjust to deny a place on the board to those persons who will be most affected by the Bill.
      The third amendment of the group sets out to overcome what appears to be

      441
      very odd verbiage. I have explained why this phraseology is divisive. I am not against National Health Service patients being represented on the board and their interests being catered for. I cannot see, however, how a continuing interest will be maintained when and if no private patients remain in NHS hospitals. Why in that situation is there a need for one member of the board to deal with the interests of NHS patients?
      Perhaps the Secretary of State envisages that the very presence of private patients in any hospital will have some sinister and detrimental effect on patients in NHS hospitals. The case for that, however, has not been made out. The private patients and the private insurance companies, therefore, have a much better case for representation on the board than have the NHS patients.
      Unless the Secretary of State envisages direction of labour in the medical profession, I cannot see how a representative of the NHS side is to remain on the board at all. Surely the time will come when he will not be involved. Hospital patients generally will be and must be the main concern of the board. While the vast majority of the trade unionists working in the two main trade unions concerned are sensible, moderate and reasonable people, there is no doubt that a vicious minority have set out in the past to harm the interests of patients. They must not be allowed to do that. We want no more cases like that of the hospital porter in Manchester who took upon himself the duty of deciding whether patients could be admitted to the hospital. Some of the patients involved were cancer patients. That person was acting completely beyond his responsibilities.
      I seek to ensure that the board acts in the interests of patients. I had hoped for unanimity in the House on that issue. People such as the hospital porter I have described are anathema to the sensible trade unionists who would be more than glad to see them sent packing.
      Mr. David Crouch: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) in her argument about the advisability of increasing the membership of the board to seven. I find it difficult, however, to suggest to the Government from where these two members might be recruited.
      442
      The Bill provides that the membership should consist of a chairman, two medical practitioners and two other persons who will be selected after consultation with certain bodies. The bodies are those which the Secretary of State might recognise as being representatives of persons employed in one of the health services, or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals. But if there is to be a chairman, two medical practitioners and two persons concerned with the bodies described in the Bill there will still be no one on the board, which will be so important to the decisions which have to be made on the phasing out of pay beds and the control of the private sector, distinctly representing the interests of the patients.
      It is difficult to know where to find such representatives or how to define in a schedule a person who could be seen independently to represent those interests. But I think that there is a case here for increasing the number to seven, which is not an unwieldy composition for such an important body.
      The Secretary of State and his predecessor increased the size of the regional health authorities in order to widen the responsibilities they carried on behalf of the public, the patients and those who work within the NHSS for its administration. In setting up this new board, which has a transitional role to perform, it is important that the Government should, as it were, fall over backwards to see that the patients are in some way represented distinctly and independently—independent of the medical practitioners and all those other persons in the NHSS who are very important and work within it. It should not be beyond the right hon. Gentleman's wit to be able to find persons who can be seen to be clearly outside the working of the NHS and holding an independent view in representing the patients. My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution in suggesting this improvement to the Bill.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: This group of amendments forms yet another example of the Opposition's desire in all these discussions to have the best of both worlds—in other words, to argue, as they have done throughout our debates, that the Government are bound by the Goodman proposals—but they are not. The first simple answer to the hon. Lady the

      443
      Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is that her proposals conflict with the Goodman proposals.
      The proposals of the Goodman compromise were the result of many hours of detailed negotiation and balancing of argument. They resulted in an agreement on the exact composition of the board. Indeed, paragraph 3 of the Goodman proposals spelt out the membership of the board, in that it should consist of an independent chairman and four other members appointed by the Government. It went on to define how they should be chosen. It said that two would be members of the medical profession, adding that it would be the Government's intention to ensure that those members were acceptable to the profession, while the remaining two would be appointed after consultation with other NHS staff and interested parties.
      In drafting the Bill, we sought in this provision, as we did throughout, adhere rigidly to the compromise which had been reached. But now the hon. Lady wants to go much further in differing from the spirit which underlay the compromise. One could well argue that the figure of five laid down in the statement I made to the House on 15th December is not sacrosanct and could be raised to seven, but the hon. Lady's real purpose is revealed by Amendment No. 67. All this chatter about the large range of functions which will fall to the board is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the talk about the need to think of the patients first, because Amendment No. 67 gives the game away.
      What the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends propose is to add
      "… two other persons representing the interests of patients …"
      —it does not stop there—
      "who wish to undergo medical treatment privately."
      That is the kernel of the change that the hon. Lady is trying to bring about, and in doing so she is trying to put a gloss on the Goodman proposals which would never have led to the agreement that was reached.
      4.15 p.m.
      What does this mean in practice? The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) more or less admitted that one
      444
      cannot conjure representatives of patients out of the air, that one cannot have a ballot of NHS patients asking them to elect two members of the board. Therefore, this aspect would be difficult to define. What kind of board does the hon. Lady want?
      The hon. Lady wants a board consisting of two representatives of doctors, two representatives of BUPA and two representatives of the health service unions, which would, with the independent chairman, give the board a membership of seven and also give her a massive majority against any phasing out of private beds from NHS hospitals. The hon. Lady should not be so blatant in her manoeuvres.
      Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Lady be good enough to confine herself to telling us what she wants and stop telling us what she thinks I want?
      Mrs. Castle: I am going on to tell the House what I want. I want the Goodman compromise, for all its faults. Despite the fact that I like it much less than the consultative document, I am standing by it absolutely consistently. As the Minister who negotiated it, I ought to know the nature of the compromise. It was that there should be an even balance between the medical profession, which does not want phasing out, and the health unions, which do, under an independent chairman. In that balance, the board, working to the overriding principle that pay beds should be separated from NHS hospitals, taking into account the criteria laid down, will proceed to phase out pay beds in a way which gives the medical profession a greater sense of security about the speed and so on at which it will be done. It is as simple as that.
      That was the nature of the compromise. To inject into that compromise now two members of the board representative of people who presumably do not want pay beds phased out at all would make a ludicrous nonsense of the whole compromise, and hon. Members opposite know it perfectly well. They may be devious but they are not daft and they know what they are up to. It is all part of their attempt to distort the Goodman compromise in their own way.
      Underlying the Bill and the proposals on which it is based is an undertaking

      445
      that the right to private practice should be maintained—again, Lord Goodman spelled it out by repeating the pledge which Aneurin Bevan gave, that no one working in the NHS would be compelled to work full time. That, too, is built into the Bill. Otherwise, the sole aim is to separate private practice from the NHS, but the Government take on no obligation under the agreement to ensure that private practice flourishes or even survives outside. That is the responsibility of those who want to get their medicine commercially. If they can do it, let them get on with it. It is no part of the Government's responsibility to ensure that, whatever happens, somehow private practice in itself, as against the right to it, shall survive.
      Therefore, the board will not be concerned with the sort of responsibility which the hon. Lady has in mind. It is a nonsense to argue, on a Bill the overriding principle of which is that pay beds should be separated from the NHS, that the board's membership should include two people who object to that principle. That is a nonsense.
      Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Cannot she see the point of the argument, even if she feels that it has been put forward perhaps too passionately for her? All we are saying is that the patients' interests should be represented on the board. The medical profession is to be represented by two practitioners, or perhaps by the medical unions. What about the patients? There is to be an impartial chairman. Why should the right hon. Lady not agree to the patients' interests being represented? It might well be that the patients' representatives would support her view. Surely they should be represented.
      Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. Schedule I says that the two practitioners are to be appointed after consultation with
      "such bodies as the Secretary of State may recognise as being representative of medical practitioners or dental practitioners".
      There are also to be two other persons appointed after consultation with
      "such bodies not falling within paragraph (a) above as the Secretary of State may recognise as being representative of persons employed in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals."
      446
      We have been generous enough to include in relation to the two non-medical profession representatives a reference to "the interests of patients". The medical profession did not assume that that reference should also go into the guidance as to the choice of its two representatives. But there is a reference in Schedule 1 to
      "the interests of patients at NHS hospitals".
      The hon. Member for Edgbaston wants to have two people on the board representing the interests of those who wish to undergo medical treatment privately inside the National Health Service. That is absurd, because it would put completely out of balance a board which is supposed to be handling the delicate relationships between the two views. It is a jolly good try-on, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not fooled by it.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: The points made very lucidly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) have exposed the real intention behind this group of amendments. This is not the first occasion on which the Conservative Party, after having opposed measures taken by the Government, have then attempted to fight a rearguard action. They are attempting to dig their last trench in order to continue to fight against the principles established by legislation.
      A good example of this was the Conservative Party's action in relation to the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Conservative Members opposed this measure violently, but when they saw that it was going steadily through the various stages they decided in the end to concentrate on the body that would be responsible for running the industry after the legislation had gone through Parliament. They sought then to draw into the areas of influence and decision-making the so-called apolitical independent people. At that time the Conservatives referred to them as consumers. Today, in the Health Services Bill, they refer to patients.
      Most of the patients in any hospital are from the working population of this country, who are dependent on the National Health Service. Therefore, we should have on the board people who are committed to the idea of the complete withdrawal of pay beds from the NHS.

      447
      That is a prerequisite to having health services that will provide properly for patients in the future and have a proper concern for them.
      My right hon. Friend has already indicated the real intention of the amendments. Conservative Members have the audacity to argue that those representing private medicine should be on the board.
      It is a pity that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself has not been selected, because we would have gone further in advancing the argument that there should be a total commitment by those who serve on the board to carry out the spirit and intention of NHS legislation.
      My right hon. Friend has completely demolished the argument that this is an innocent amendment designed to broaden the basis of the board. She has shown that it is intended to introduce into the board people who would be completely opposed to the real interests of the NHS.
      Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) complained that we have the audacity to advance the argument that the board should have upon it representatives of private medicine. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole basis of the Goodman proposals was that these arguments should be continued in Parliament. It was on that basis that industrial action was withdrawn. The proposals were accepted by the profession—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has stated it many times—and the industrial action was withdrawn because of the Goodman compromise, on the ground that the argument could continue through the normal parliamentary process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his remark that we have the audacity to propose that representatives of private medicine should be on the board.
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will accept that the bargain contained in the proposals put forward by Lord Goodman, and presented to the consultants, was that industrial action would end if the consultants and the profession accepted that the Goodman
      448
      proposals would be the basis of legislation—not that they would be the beginning of a debate on the basis of the legislation. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has been standing by, and that is what I have been standing by.
      Mrs. Castle: That is right.
      Mr. Boscawen: If these words mean anything, surely they mean that the basis can be contested in Parliament. The ultimate intention to replace pay beds by alternative facilities is not in question, but I still feel that we have a perfect right to put forward suggestions and proposals to improve the board's representation.
      The right hon. Member for Blackburn would have had a better case if the board were to be phasing out the first thousand beds. It is the Secretary of State who will be responsible for doing that.
      We have heard from the Secretary of State many times that the first priority of the board, which very much affects the patients, is to work out a system of common waiting lists. That is very difficult to do but it is a task of considerable value. The only thing of value that will come out of the Bill will be that an independent board will look at this terribly difficult problem of common waiting lists.
      The board will have to take some very difficult policy decisions early in its life. What will be the basis of the common waiting lists? Will it be the single hospital? Will it be a single specialty? Will it be on an area board basis? These are very difficult questions and it will be very difficult to produce the right answer to them.
      There are other difficult problems that the Board will have to face, such as the balance between the medical specialties and the surgical specialties within the hospital. There have always been grounds for very considerable discussion and, indeed, argument in this respect. These are all difficult matters which affect patients. If it had been suggested that one of the representatives of the patients should be from the NHS and the other from private practice, I should not have objected. That would have been perfectly fair and reasonable. But let us have the patients' views on this board,

      449
      because they are not the same as those of the professions and those of the unions.
      I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has done the House a great service even at this late stage of the Bill by moving her amendment.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ennals: My task has been made much easier by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I do not think that I disagreed with anything that she said except her reference to whether the Opposition were devious. I do not think that there is any deviousness about the amendment. What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) proposes is completely open. She wants a board which is not balanced, as was proposed by Lord Goodman. I am not certain about the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Perhaps he is confused, or it may be that he simply does not agree with this amendment.
      The amendment is quite clear. The wish of the hon. Member for Edgbaston is for two other persons representing the patients who wish to undergo medical treatment privately—
      Mrs. Knight: One.
      Mr. Ennals: Two other persons. The hon. Lady must have read her amendment. It refers to two other persons representing the patients who wish to undergo medical treatment privately.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury was arguing the case of other patients, presumably the vast majority of patients in the National Health Service, who do not want or do not have the opportunity to undergo treatment privately. So I must accept that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the amendment, as he did not last night.
      Mrs. Knight: Surely the Bill says
      "… representing the interests of patients in the National Health Service."
      I am merely arguing, because there are union representatives as well, that the one person who will be most affected should also have representation. I do not want an unbalanced board. I want fairness.
      Mr. Ennals: In that case, when I have completed my answer, no doubt the hon. Lady will be happy to withdraw her amendment. I shall be saying how the procedure is working as it was laid down and accepted in Standing Committee for the establishment of the members of the board.
      I hardly need add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said. I said yesterday that a contract was a contract and that it would be stood by. My right hon. Friend read the appropriate paragraph from the Goodman agreement. It was that there was to be a board of five members—a chairman and four other members—and that it would be an evenly balanced one. If we add to that board the two who represent the interests of those patients who wish to undergo private treatment, we shall have an unbalanced board and, if I accept the amendment, we shall destroy the basis on which this legislation has come forward.
      I must say also that, listening to the hon. Member for Edgbaston outlining the role of the board, one might have been forgiven for thinking that we were setting up a board to take over the role of the Secretary of State in his responsibilities for the running of the NHS. I accept that the board has an important task. Its two main functions are progressively to withdraw facilities and accommodation for the treatment of private patients in NHS hospitals and to consider whether the development of a relatively large private nursing home or hospital is likely to operate to a significant extent to the disadvantage of the NHS. The suggestion that those tasks and the preparation of a policy on common waiting lists will be more easily done by seven than by five is one which the hon. Lady has not proved.
      I think that it would be helpful if I indicated the nature of the consultations, because I agree with the hon. Lady that the interests of National Health Service patients, who basically are us, are those of people who will go into hospital, especially those who have not a special interest in private treatment. So the consultation has proceeded.
      As regards the agreed methods for the two medical members, the Government are following the method by which

      451
      medical members of the Medical Practices Committee and the General Practice Finance Corporation are chosen. The bodies to be consulted have been invited to send to me six to eight names of people all of whom they would find acceptable. They have now supplied those names. I am considering them and, in due course, I shall choose two.
      As for the non-medical members, again I have accepted and carried out what was agreed in Standing Committee. I have formally consulted the Staff Side of the General Whitley Council on which all staff who work in the NHS are represented. I have asked that body for from six to eight names. I have also consulted the TUC and also the Patients' Association which is set up specifically for the purpose of taking an interest in the welfare of patients in the NHS. I mentioned the TUC. It represents 8 million members and their families—a high proportion of the working population—and it may well be an important body to be consulted in looking at patients' interests. The names have now been submitted by the Staff Side of the General Whitley Council, and they are being considered. Once the Patients' Association has made its views known, I shall be in a position to choose two members from among the suggested names.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet able to say anything about the chairman of the board?
      Mr. Ennals: I am not yet in a position to make any announcement about the chairman. I shall go through the process which was accepted in Committee which is to discuss the nominations for the chairmanship with the interests concerned which are set out in the Bill. I cannot yet make an announcement, but I have every confidence that we shall be able to see the board established with its chairman and its other members in time to proceed with its task without delay.
      Mr. Crouch: One of the last things that I like in this House is having words and thoughts attributed to me which are untrue. It misleads the House. I am sure that the Secretary of State, in his generous way, will agree that in my short intervention supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston
      452
      (Mrs. Knight) I was supporting Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 69. I was not so much supporting Amendment No. 67, which specifies the type of membership. I was talking about patients. A patient can be a person who wants to be served by the National Health Service and nothing else or one who wants to be served by a National Health Service and a private service. But I was talking about patients. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I was perhaps solely interested in the aspect of patient representation to deal with a private health service. That is quite wrong.
      Mr. Ennals: I may have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said. I thought that he was saying that basically patients in the National Health Service should be represented and that in so doing he must have been disagreeing with Amendment No. 67 which refers to two other persons representing the interests of patients who wish to undergo medical treatment privately. I was attributing to the hon. Gentleman a point of view which was accepted by Government supporters and with which I thought he was in agreement. But I am glad that he has made himself clear. He having done so, I am sure that he will not now suggest that we should undergo an operation to change the basis of compromise which has been an integral part of the whole of this legislation.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What the Secretary of State said about the procedures for choosing the two medical members and the non-medical members has been noted with interest. However, the key difficulty will be the chairman, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be making his decision in due course. We shall watch that with great interest.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is right to say that the people who are the most affected by the process of this legislation are the private patients who will no longer be able to have their treatment by the consultant of their choice at a National Health Service hospital and will have to go somewhere else. Therefore, at first sight, it seems not unreasonable that that category of patients should have special representation. The vast majority of NHS patients will never know the difference.

      453
      I see the strength of the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that if we went down that road it would upset the balance of Goodman. However I ask the Government to bear in mind that we are here debating a Report stage with a whole series of amendments on which there were tied votes in Committee. The advice that we received was that an amendment on which the vote was tied would be almost bound to be selected for debate on Report, whereas if we put down a different amendment it would be within the discretion of Mr. Speaker whether to select it. We wanted a debate on patients, and we have had a debate.
      I would particularly commend Amendment No. 69 to the House, but there is no prospect of our reaching it. If we were not suffering under the guillotine I would advise my hon. Friend not to press her Amendment No. 1 and tell the House that we should vote on Amendment No. 69, which contains a proposition that it would be very difficult for the Government to vote against:
      "In appointing all the members of the Board the Secretary of State shall, so far as is practicable, ensure that they will have as their sole concern the interests of hospital patients generally, and not the interests of any other group or class of persons."
      We seem to be getting a board which will be something of a battleground for those representing the interests of the medical profession and those representing the interests of others employed in the National Health Service. The board is being appointed not to have regard to the interests of patients generally but to pursue the policy which has been introduced by the Labour Party for phasing out and for licensing. Therefore, if we had been able to do it, we would have voted on Amendment No. 69. I would have been interested to see Government Members trooping through the Lobbies to vote against a proposal that the board should have regard to the interests of patients.
      That vote will be denied us, but I do not think that we should revert to voting on Amendment No. 1. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel it right in the light of the debate to ask to withdraw her amendment. No doubt, note will be taken in another place of what has been said on Amendment No. 69.
      Mrs. Knight: In the light of the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on the Front Bench, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 7, leave out
      "or a certificate under section 14 below".
      This amendment is consequential on the acceptance of an amendment to Clause 14 in Committee. That amendment removed the necessity for certifying the smaller private hospital developments outside the National Health Service and substituted a process of notification.
      Mrs. Castle: I fully recognise that the amendment is merely consequential on other matters and cannot therefore be sensibly resisted, but in Committee I expressed some regret at the change in procedure from certification to notification. I do not think that my hon. Friend was able to attend the Committee that morning, but I would just draw his attention to my continuing anxieties about this. I ask him to watch very closely to make sure that the simplication of procedure which he has introduced does not lead to abuses, and to take the necessary steps to amend the legislation if it does.
      Mr. Moyle: I undertake to do so.
      Amendment agreed to.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Ennals: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 16 leave out "Part IV" and insert "Parts IV to VI".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 71 and 113.
      Mr. Ennals: Amendment No. 113 is consequential on Amendment No. 3. The effect of Amendment No. 71 is to make the Health Services Board and the Scottish and Welsh Committees subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales respectively.
      In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr.

      455
      Owen) undertook to consider whether the Health Service Commissioners should be empowered to investigate allegations of maladministration by the Board on its Welsh and Scottish Committees. We consulted the Commissioner, Sir Idwal Pugh, who expressed the opinion that the Health Services Board and its committees were bodies which could properly be made subject to his investigations. The Government accepts the Commissioner's view and seek to give effect to it by introducing this series of amendments.
      The scope of the Commissioners' investigations is laid down in Section 34(3) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. The Commissioners may investigate:

      "(a) an alleged failure in a service provided by a relevant body; or

      (b) an alleged failure of a relevant body to provide a service which it was a function of the body to provide; or

      (c) any other action taken by or on behalf of a relevant body,

      in a case where a complaint is duly made by or on behalf of any person that he has sustained injustice or hardship in consequence of the failure or in consequence of maladministration connected with the other action."
      The Commissioners will therefore not be empowered to express an opinion on the merits of—for example—proposals for phasing out pay beds. Nor will they be able to investigate an allegation that an incorrect decision was given by the board on an application for authorisation of new hospital premises. The Commissioners will be empowered to investigate allegations that someone has suffered injustice or hardship because the board had not considered observations that had been submitted to it about phasing-out proposals, or because an application for an authorisation was not dealt with within a reasonable period of time.
      The Secretary of State does not have a power of direction over the board and the amendment takes account of this by requiring that reports of the results of the Commissioners' investigations should he sent to the person who made the complaint, to the Health Services Board or to the Scottish or Welsh Committee and to the person who is alleged to have taken or authorised the action complained of, but not to the Secretary of State.
      456
      Similarly, the annual report of the Commissioners upon their functions relating to the board and the committees, and any special reports they decide to make on instances of hardship or maladministration suffered as a consequence of maladministration by the board or either of the committees, will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and not submitted to the Secretary of State.
      I hope that with this explanation the House will accept the amendments. They are again a reflection of points made in Committee, and a further indication of ways in which we have sought to improve the Bill as a result of consultation in Standing Committee.
      Sir George Young: When the Bill was published it did not permit the Health Service Commissioner to investigate complaints against the proposed board or its committees. The Government's original intention was that this important constitutional redress should not be extended to those who might suffer as a result of maladministration by the board. The argument for bringing the Health Services Commissioner into the picture was movingly made on 27th May, as reported at columns 195–202 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, and I do not propose to regurgitate it. But one does not see the proposals purely as negative. I see them as a positive step, giving the board the benefit of the fund of wisdom which the Health Service Commissioner now has about how the NHS is run. I hope reinforcing rather than reducing public confidence in the board.
      The Commissioner refers in his reports to a number of cases in which he has invited authorities to review their administrative practices and procedures. It might be a good idea if the Commissioner made informal contact with the board before it started work to give its members some advice which might help them in dealing with maladministration later.
      I have a number of points on Amendment No. 71. The original amendment, I think No. 264, was brevity and clarity itself:
      "The Health Service Commissioner shall be empowered to investigate allegations of maladministration by the board."

      457
      In 15 succinct words it said it all. Since then the parliamentary draftsman has spent the Summer Recess translating that into 70 lines of incomprehensible legal prose which one cannot understand without three other Acts of Parliament and a trained barrister at one's elbow.
      I refer to the point raised in Amendment No. 71 which sets out who shall receive the reports compiled by the Health Services Commissioners. As I understand the application of Section 37 of Part III of the National Health Service (Reorganisation) Act 1973 to this Bill, the person who made the complaint and the Health Service Board or the Committees will get a copy of the Commissioners' reports. No one else will receive a copy unless the Commissioners so decide. Sub-paragraph (i) of the amendment relieves the Commissioner of the obligation to send the report to the Secretary of State, and as far as I can see he is not obliged to do so by any other part of Section 37. Under subparagraph (ii) each House of Parliament will get a copy of special reports only when the injustice or hardship has not been and will not be remedied. This seems to exclude a number of other reports which no one will read about unless the Health Service Commissioner decides to send a report.
      Then there is the question of staff. I assume that there wilt be sufficient spare capacity in the Health Service Commissioner's office to take on this extra task without the need to employ any more people.
      I cannot help wondering whether we have got the right Commissioner. The Health Services Board is a new constitutional animal and its functions under Part II are purely administrative. Under Part III its functions are quasi-judicial when it comes to licensing. Ministers have said time and time again that the Health Service Board is an independent body. But independent of whom? Schedule 1, paragraph 6, says
      "The Board shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown …"
      Presumably it is independent of the Secretary of State, his Department and of central Government generally. But it is also intended to be independent of the area health authorities, the regional health authorities and other bodies within the National Health Service administration.
      458
      The Parliamentary Commissioner has jurisdiction over central Government departments and the Health Service Commissioners have jurisdiction over the administration of the NHS. If the board is to be independent of both administrations, strictly speaking it should be neither the Parliamentary Commissioner nor the Health Services Commissioners involved here. Therefore, who is the right ombudsman? When we originally debated this matter both the Minister of State and I were somewhat confused about this matter.
      The Government have plumped for the Health Services Commissioner but that indicates that the board will form part of the administration of the National Health Service and therefore may not be seen to be independent of that administration. Perhaps this is an area which could be debated in the Lords where they will have more time to devote to it. Perhaps the issue could go to the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner, which has an interest in his work.
      However, having said that we welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the Health Service Commissioners in response to our amendment in Committee, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for their response.
      Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) can take a considerable amount of credit for the way in which he put this argument forward in Standing Committee. He had done his homework on this issue and as a result I think that he has been instrumental in improving the Bill, and all sides of the House will recognise that.
      In his submission he said that there was a wealth of information with the Health Service Commissioners because they look at a whole range of events which take place within the National Health Service administration. He then queried the fact that the Health Service Commissioners should be involved because the Health Service Board is an independent body. He wondered whether it would not be more appropriate for the Parliamentary Commissioner to have these duties. But his first point was far more relevant than his second. The Health Service Commissioner looks at things with a considerable amount of knowledge of the background

      459
      and the kind of representations which are being made to him. So I hope that my right hon. Friend will stick to the provisions he has made and leave the Health Service Commissioners in the Bill.
      Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). Perhaps I could have been more fulsome in my appreciation of the efforts of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) and I will not be done down by my hon. Friend on this issue.
      One of the advantages of a substantial Committee stage is that we are able to treat seriously proposals for strengthening the Bill. The reason we did not include this provision in the original Bill was that the board is an independent body and not a servant of the Crown or the Secretary of State. If it had been the servant of either it would have been obvious and sensible to make it subject to one of the two Commissioners.
      I agree that it is more appropriate to include provision for the Health Service Commissioner. I am prepared to discuss the matter with Sir Idwal wearing his other hat, but he accepts that this is a sensible proposal and I am glad that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, supports it.
      I explained earlier the reasons why the reports would not be sent to the Secretary of State. That indicates that I am not responsible for the operation of an independent board. The board will have been established by Parliament although I may have made appointments to it. Although there is no statutory obligation for reports to be submitted to me, I do not think it will be difficult for me to see copies of such reports. The annual reports of the Commissioners and their functions, and any special reports on hardship or maladministration, will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and it will be very surprising if copies do not reach me in the process.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      PURPOSE OF SS. 3 TO 5
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
      460
      '(1) The Board shall exercise its functions under Parts II and III of this Act with the object of—

      (a) making available in Great Britain the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of illness, both at premises vested in the Secretary of State and under private arrangements; and

      (b) to that end securing the availability of sufficient accommodation and services of a satisfactory standard at both National Health Service and other hospitals for use in connection with the treatment of persons at such hospitals as resident and non-resident patients'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments:
      No. 4, in page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (1).
      No. 6, in page 2, line 33, at end insert:
      'Provided that such separation or withdrawal shall not impair the reasonable availability of such facilities, accommodation or services to patients or practitioners desirous of obtaining or providing treatment on a private basis.'
      Mr. Jenkin: Before I discuss the amendment I would like to associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) upon having been instrumental in making a notable addition to the Bill.
      We now come to Clause 2 of the Bill, and as there is not much time left before the Report stage I will move this amendment briefly. We had a long debate in Committee about Clause 2, which is the declaratory clause intended to reflect the propositions in the Goodman proposals, that is, that the Bill should contain a broad declaration that private beds and facilities should be separated from the NHS, and the expression of the Government's commitment to the maintenance of private medical and dental practice in this country. In Standing Committee we divided on the amendments which were in the same form as those on the Notice Paper now, and on each occasion the Committee came to a conclusion only with the casting vote of the Chairman. This not only entitles us but obliges us to raise the matter again.
      Obviously Clause 2 and particularly Clause 2(1), by setting out the principle of phasing out, raises the temptation to have yet another Second Reading debate, but we had a very full and interesting debate yesterday, and we

      461
      heard points of view not only from those hon. Members who served on the Committee but from others who did not. I shall try to speak directly to the issue whether this clause should be in the Bill and whether, if so, it should be in this form.
      5.0 p.m.
      I do not think that there is a dispute between us that subsection (1) is wholly without effect. It is wholly declaratory. I am sure that the Minister of State has studied the debate which took place in Committee. We made the point that the board, in exercising its functions in the phasing out of pay beds, should be governed by all the succeeding clauses in Part It and that those succeeding clauses should determine whether a particular bed or group of beds should be phased out at the time that the board was considering the matter. Therefore, those clauses could not have regard to the general statement of intention in Clause 2, which is purely declaratory.
      The same to some extent is true to subsection (2) which is wholly otiose and would not be there at all if the Goodman proposals had not stated that it would be. It merely repeats, and the Bill elsewhere repeals, the provision guaranteeing that consultants should not be bound to be in full-time service in the National Health Service.
      When I questioned the desirability of having these entirely otiose and declaratory statements in the Bill I was confronted with precedent: it had happend before. Indeed, it was said that my name, when I was Chief Secretary, had been on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill, one of the early clauses of which was wholly declaratory.
      I suggest that there is a difference between that kind of Bill, which came before the House as a largely agreed measure—certainly, wholly agreed in objective—and this Bill which is put before the House very much as the view of the Labour Party and is in no sense supported even by those who took part in the Goodman discussions. We should not put broad statements of intent in a disputed matter of this kind when later there is spelt out in great detail the exact conditions which are to apply when the Bill comes to be operated.
      462
      It is primarily on that ground that I believe that subsection (1) ought not to be in the Bill. For that reason, I should not mind if subsection (2) were removed, provided that the original provision of the 1946 Act were to remain. Of course, we should then, as it were, need to repeal the repeal.
      The Bill came before the House following the Report of a Select Committee. Unlike the vast majority of Bills this measure is in direct conflict with the Report of that Select Committee. I remind the House that the Select Committee, in paragraph 49 of the Report stated:
      "We recommend:

      (i) that no major changes to the system are needed;

      (ii) that control procedures in hospitals should be more strictly observed;

      (iii) that all charges for private patients should be reviewed regularly at least every two years; and

      (iv) that more publicity be given to the availability of amenity beds."

      Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the circumstances surrounding that Select Committee Report? The Select Committee was set up under one Government and there was then a change of Government. Because a Select Committee cannot have a minority report, the recommendations which finally emerged were the result of a majority decision, the strength of the Committee having been changed from that under the previous dispensation.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his explanation. The Report makes clear that it is a Report of the Expenditure Committee, Session 1971–72, and the Expenditure Committee was nominated on 3rd November 1971. Whether some other Committee appointed on some other occasion with different members would have come to a different conclusion seems wholly irrelevant. The Committee appointed and set up to examine the matter came to its conclusions, which I have just read.
      That is another reason why it seems wrong to state in the front of a Bill, as though it were a broad, agreed objective, a proposal which is in fact hotly contested. The danger is that it may in some way detract from the later conditions which have been carefully drawn up—we examined them in depth in Committee—

      463
      regarding the application of the principle. It is not right that we should in any sense risk muddying the water by putting in broad general propositions of this kind when they are not agreed. When there is broad agreement, there is no harm and it may be desirable, as a matter of cosmetics for public presentation, to put the proposition in, but when there is not broad agreement the Bill should be strictly confined to those matters which will govern the operation and duties of the Health Services Board.
      If the Government think that it is necessary to have something in, for goodness' sake let us have something which has more relevance to the real needs of the health service, not merely a restatement of what appears later in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 5 proposes:
      "(1) The Board shall exercise its functions under Parts II and III of this Act with the object of—

      (a) making available in Great Britain the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of illness, both at premises vested in the Secretary of State and under private arrangements; and

      (b) to that end securing the availability of sufficient accommodation and services of a satisfactory standard."

      In Committee is was suggested, just as it was a few minutes ago by the Secretary of State, that if we included those as the considerations which subsection (1) should have, we would somehow be transferring to the board the responsibility for running the health service. I suggest that the amendment could not conceivably have that purpose, because the introductory words would read
      "The Board shall exercise its functions with the object of".
      Since these presumably are the objectives of any sensible Secretary of State—that is, making available the best possible facilities and securing sufficient accommodation and services—all we are asking is that the board should have the same objectives as the Secretary of State and that it should not be deflected into the by-ways of what in a sense, as I have said on other occasions, is the almost irrelevant battle being fought out by the medical profession, on the one hand, and some members of some trade unions, on the other.
      The ultimate responsibility for the Health Service would remain with the Secretary of State.
      In parentheses, I may say that I am attracted by the report that the right hon. Gentleman has had from the three regional chairmen indicating how his responsibilities in this regard might be more effectively devolved upon the regions and areas, leaving him with only major policy and monitoring functions. That is by the way. All we are suggesting is that, in carrying out its functions, the board should have in mind these two objectives.
      A second slightly more sinister reason was given by the former Minister of State why the subsection is in its present form. If the Minister of State is to reply he will need to give us some firm undertakings on this matter.
      The Minister of State's predecessor said:
      "The reason for putting this broad declaration is that it should be made quite clear to anyone who wishes to be considered for nomination to the Board, and it should be clear to anyone who is considering the issues about which the Bill is concerned, that its prime central purpose is to separate private practice from NHS hospitals. Do not let there be any misunderstanding about that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17th June 1976; c. 405.]
      We must have a categoric assurance that there is no intention to pack the board with members who are predisposed to phasing out. That passage in the Minister of State's speech filled me with deep suspicion. We have referred already to the procedures for appointing the chairman, the two medical representatives and the two others. There is nothing in the Bill about the opinions of the people whose names are to go forward. They are to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation. He has told us how he has reached a list of eight people from whom he will have to choose the members. We want an assurance that there is no question of the Government asking for a sort of loyalty test, or that members might have to sign a declaration that they are prepared to co-operate in the phasing-out process. As the former Secretary of State in an earlier debate, this is intended to be a balanced board. Its composition was arived at after hard negotiation in Committee.
      We need a reassurance that the purposes of Clause 2(1) are not intended to prejudice the detailed operation of subsequent clauses or the appointment of members of the board. It stands in the Bill as a statement of principle, and there was discussion about it yesterday. The Secretary of State said that
      "hon. Members opposite do not see the strength of principle which is held not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by those who work in the health service. …They do not realise that for some of those who work within the health service it is offensive and a challenge to their principles to be involved in a service which makes special provision for those who can pay and does not simply provide for the generality of the nation's needs."—[Official Report, 12th October 1976 Vol. 917, cc. 352–353.]
      I should be much more impressed by the principle which is supposed to actuate hon. Members opposite if we did not hear in speech after speech from the Government side—from the hon. Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and the like-words which give the impression that they are more concerned with hammering the income of consultants—
      Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may have been mistaken, but I understood the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to use the word "louts" as a description of the hon. Members to whom he referred.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member must have misheard me. I would never dream of using such a word about hon. Members.
      The hon. Members to whom I referred give the impression with their constant repetition of phrases such as "Thrusting gold down the throats of the consultants" that they are more concerned with dragging down Dives than with elevating Lazarus. That is why I view with scepticism the so-called principle enunciated by the Secretary of State yesterday. The whole principle is made suspect when all the cliches of the class war are dragged out by hon. Members opposite.
      5.15 p.m.
      I contend that the great majority of those working in hospitals and the vast majority of those treated in NHS hospitals
      466
      are entirely content with the present arrangements. For the most part, they are entirely unaffected by them. Those in stoutest support of the principle we are discussing are entirely unaware of the advantages which flow to the NHS and its patients through the operation of the pay bed system.
      They should be helped to understand, and that is why I propose that the money received from pay beds should go to the hospital where the work is done and be used for ear-marked projects or equipment which people could identify and so realise that but for the money from private beds, those projects or equipment could not be afforded.
      I have also suggested that some of the money might go to those who work directly with the private patients. This is a matter which I should be happy to explore further as I have already with a number of trade union leaders concerned.
      I was interested to see an article by Katharine Whitehorn in the Daily Mirror. She said of hon. Members opposite:
      "Their action is going to have exactly the opposite effect of what they want. It's going to hurt the Health Service more than anything else could do."
      She concluded:
      "Let the nurses and radiotherapists and cleaners get their whack, too, and not just the doctors."
      The reaction from readers was interesting. The Daily Mirror reported:
      "Katharine Whitehorn's article 'Why we should save the pay beds' in the Mirror's Private Opinion series, provoked a heavy postbag. Most letters supported her view that pay beds should be retained within the Health Service."
      There followed a selection of readers' letters.
      Mr. Ennals: Is it not rather arrogant for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should try to educate those who work in the National Health Service about what they should think of the principles on which they do their work? He misunderstands the position when he says that the wisdom of the consultants should be conveyed to the lesser orders within the service, who do not understand all the benefits they get from pay beds. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that there is a very deep feeling among many of those in the National Health

      467
      Service about the principle on which the Bill is based and that there is a great deal of support for it. I have found from a large number of consultants that, although they may not agree with the Bill in all its parts, and may even disagree with the principle, they want it passed and want us to get on with the job because the health service will be the healthier for it.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State misunderstands me. I was not talking about education on the principle involved. I said that people should understand the facts, which we have already rehearsed, about the solid financial and health advantages which flow to the NHS from doctors being able to conduct private and NHS practices under the same roof.
      The right hon. Gentleman persists in the view that his opinion is supported by the majority. I shall not quote the National Opinion Poll from which I have quoted before. A new poll, asking a new question, carried out on the same basis as the previous poll, has been made available to me today. The question was:
      "There has been a lot of discussion recently on 'pay beds' in NHS hospitals. Some people say that 'pay beds' are a way of jumping the queue and ought to be stopped, others that people should be allowed to spend their money on private medical treatment if they wish to do so. Which of these points of view do you tend to agree with?"
      The results were: The use of pay beds ought to be stopped, 22 per cent.; ought to be allowed, 63 per cent.
      Mr. Ennals: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. It is clear—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has sat down.
      Mr. Pavitt: This place is a constant source of wonder and amazement to me. I find it so not least because the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who led the Opposition through 29 sittings in Committee, should find it a source of amazement that the Bill seeks to separate pay beds and private practice from the National Health Service and that the board is given that responsibility in various parts of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems to find something sinister in the fact that that
      468
      is laid on the line as the purpose of the Bill in Clause 2.
      I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the former Secretary of State. In the long debate in Committee it could have been possible not to make Clause 2 so explicit. However, it was obviously the more honest that we should seek to make that clear so that that which followed would logically stem from a statement of intent.
      One of the amendments would completely emasculate Clause 2. I take issue with the part of the amendment that seeks to duplicate the small responsibility of this Bill with the whole responsibility of the National Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman made it plain in his introductory remarks that he thinks it is right and proper that the same responsibility that rests upon the Secretary of State should rest upon the board.
      If the amendment were accepted in its present form, it would give the board responsibility for diagnosis and treatment outside the NHS. It is fairly clear that if that responsibility were to be incorporated into the Bill it would not be the job of the board merely to phase out the last 3,500 pay beds, it would also be its responsibility to ensure that private practice existed. It would be its responsibility to ensure an extension of private practice. If there is any greater negation of the purposes of the Bill, I cannot see it. As the House will imagine, I shall be voting against the amendment.
      Mr. Crouch: I was not a member of the Committee, but the Committee room was packed when the clause was debated, 19 of the 20 members being present, including the Chairman. There was great excitement on both sides of the Committee. The report of the debate occupied a great deal of space. Both sides of the argument were well argued and well debated. When it came to the vote the debate was well voted upon. The Committee divided exactly half and half—namely, eight votes to eight votes—on three occasions. On each occasion the Chairman, in accordance with precedent, had to vote with the Government to sustain the status quo. That is accepted.
      I wonder whether you can do anything now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to fill the House to the equivalent of eight

      469
      Members on each side of a Committee. The House would then hear what an important and vital amendment this is. It is no small matter although it has been dismissed so easily by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). The hon. Gentleman merely says that it is necessary to have a declaratory statement.
      Mr. Pavitt rose—
      Mr. Crouch: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt me before I really get under way, I shall give way.
      Mr. Pavitt: If a Committee is composed of the same number of Members on the Government side as on the Opposition side, how can we avoid having equal votes?
      Mr. Crouch: If the Government had better judgment, they would get many more votes. Given better judgment they would have managed to get more votes than they received day after day in Committee. On no fewer than 58 occasions the Chairman had to intervene to sustain the Government's case in this terribly thin argument and thin Bill.
      From the arguments advanced this afternoon it is quite clear what the Bill is about, or rather what it is not about. It is not about producing the best possible facilities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness in both the premises vested in the Secretary of State and under private arangements. That has been vigorously denied by the Government. That is not what the Bill is about. That has been denied. It is not about securing the availability of sufficient accommodation and services of a satisfactory standard at both National Health Service hospitals and other hospitals for use in treating patients at such hospitals. It is not about that. It is about the dogmatic belief with which the Government are determined to proceed and which is set out in the Bill. The Bill is not about securing the best services for the curing of patients and sick people in hospital.
      Even the worthy Member for Brent, South, who has been speaking on health matters for the past 15 years, dismissed the question of producing and securing the best possible facilities for the cure
      470
      and prevention of illness. He has become the dogmatic Socialist again. He is concerned only with securing the separation of facilities. He is concerned only with securing the progressive withdrawal of services. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are eaten up with the idea of separating the private patient from the NHS. There is no question of producing a better service.
      Clause 2 is always the most important part of a Bill. The first clause sets out an important statement but the guts of most Bills are in the second clause. Clearly the guts of this Bill are in Clause 2. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that when we get to the guts of the Bill it is a declaratory statement about Socialist dogma. It is a pity that we should have that dogma when talking about sickness, illness and serving the people.
      I only wish that the House would fill. I only wish that the television screens would bear the message "This is an important amendment and the hon. Member for Canterbury is making an important statement." In the old days the House would have filled up. If I continue for another 10 minutes, perhaps we shall attract the attention of most Members and you will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you hardly have room to sit in your Chair. However, that will probably not be the situation.
      We are now considering the very guts of the Bill. My right hon. Friend was right to say that it is wrong that we should have such a statement in Clause 2. If the Government are determined to go ahead with the removal of the private sector, let them—let me not be interrupted by the activities of my Deputy Chief Whip. I suppose that a nod is as good as a wink. I trust that he understands what I mean. Let the Government declare their intention of pursuing their dogmatic progress, their real intention, but above all let them show that they believe in producing a health service worthy of the people.
      The wording of Clause 2 is not worthy of that objective. Instead they have given us a minor objective and a minor aim. That is what I must condemn and that is why I welcome the amendment. I hope that it will be solidly supported by all my hon. Friends.
      Mr. George Thompson: I cannot see what objection there can be to a declaratory clause setting out the purposes that the board will have to fulfil. I take the Secretary of State's point that candidates for the board must be sure of what they will be called upon to do before they can accept or reject an invitation to be nominated.
      5.30 p.m.
      In Scotland we do not want an extension of the private sector. If people are willing to pay for treatment, let them do so, but I do not see why that purpose should be written into the Bill. It has been said that the Committee was always split right down the middle. If the Committee of Selection had had the wisdom to appoint an SNP Member to the Committee, the split would not have been down the middle. There would have been a clear majority for sensible solutions to this problem.
      I was much struck by the opinion poll that was cited. Unless I mistook what was said, it appeared to me that the dichotomy that was proposed to those who answered this poll was not in a perfect form at all but was, indeed, false. One cannot say "Are you in favour of pay beds in the NHS"? and put that as the precise oposite of "Are you against private practice?" It is quite false. If that was what the poll asked, it was quite unworthy of the British Press that such a thing was done. It is perfectly possible to be willing to allow private practice to continue and to be against pay beds in the NHS. That is precisely the policy of my party.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has probably misheard the explanation of the NOP survey. The particular question begins with a clear statement:
      "There has been a lot of discussion recently on 'pay beds' in NHS hospitals."
      Then follows the question. Therefore, I think it is clear that if the hon. Gentleman had had the opportunity of seeing the survey, he would have seen that it is directed to the question of pay beds in NHS hospitals.
      Mr. Thompson: Yes, but my point was that the dichotomy of the two questions was false, because it is perfectly possible to be in favour of allowing private prac-
      472
      tice and, at the same time, to be against pay beds within the NHS. Unless I was wrong in that, I think that my objection must be sustained.
      Mr. Ennals: This is absolutely typical of a loaded question. Perhaps I may read it.
      "Some people say that 'pay beds' are a way of jumping the queue and ought to be stopped, others that people should be allowed to spend their money on private medical treatment if they want to do so."
      This survey showed that a large proportion of all respondents, 63 per cent., said that people should be allowed to spend their money on private medical treatment if they wanted to do so. It did not imply for a moment that it should be private medical treatment within the NHS, so this is an absolutely bogus alternative, and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) is absolutely right.
      Mr. Thompson: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for confirming me in my opinion that the logic of the question was quite false.
      I want once again to commend to the House and to English Members present tonight our experience in Scotland. Our experience is not the product of some dogmatic theorising, any more than the intentions of the Government are based on dogmatic theorising. Our experience in Scotland is based on how the health service, the medical profession and so on have grown up in Scotland in a much more profoundly democratic way than they have grown up in the South of England. I commend to the House a consideration of our experience in Scotland as backing up what the Government are endeavouring to do for the ordinary people of southern England.
      In view of what I have said, I shall be advising my hon. Friends to support the Government on this matter.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish to take up a comment made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) when he spoke about our experience in Scotland. The areas of Scotland differ from each other in this respect. Everyone knows that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is not a single pay bed. However, in Edinburgh, which is recognised internationally as a medical centre, there are

      473
      a considerable number of pay beds. Circumstances differ from one area of Scotland to another.
      However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has firmly placed on record the fact that the SNP supports the Labour Government on this Bill and has done so throughout. I am grateful to him for that information. He has nut it on record absolutely clearly for Scotland. This matter has received virtually no publicity in Scotland. When doctors and surgeons come there, they will know full well that SNP Members are giving full support to the Labour Government.
      The survey asked the question whether the number of pay beds should
      "Remain as they are or be increased?"
      The proportion of people who said that pay beds should remain as they are or be increased was 71 per cent. An overwhelming majority in Scotland would like pay beds retained in some form. The hon. Gentleman has not put that matter to the test. There are no pay beds in his constituency. He may speak for his constituency, but he does not speak for Scotland as a whole.
      Mr. Moyle: I am in some difficulty because when the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) started this debate, he said that Opposition Members were anxious to make rapid progress. However, he then deployed his arguments at somewhat greater length than his opening statement had led me to believe he would. Nevertheless, I hope to make a brief reply in order to accommodate Opposition Members, who quite understandably want to get away from this matter and move on to other topics.
      If we were to accept the amendment, we should be emasculating an important part of the Bill. The clause is declaratory, as the debt hon. Gentleman said, but nevertheless its words are controlling provisions and act as an essential part of the Goodman proposals, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—namely, that the legislation which should emerge from the Goodman proposals should contain Clause 2 (1) and Clause 2 (2). We have done our best in our policy of accepting the Goodman proposals as a settlement of this problem. We have carried out the proposals and put them into the Bill. That is essentially why they are there.
      474
      This also has some other advantages in that it makes clear to the members who will be appointed to the board, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, what their duties will be in accepting membership of the board. I do not see that there is any reason why the Government should attempt to fudge the clarity of their attitude on this matter.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked us to give an undertaking that there is no intention to pack the board with supporters of the phasing out policy. We shall not give that undertaking because there is no need to give it, as membership of the board is quite clearly laid down in the legislation. There is to be an independent chairman, who is to be a lawyer as a guarantee of his independence—if, indeed, being a lawyer is such a guarantee. However, as the right hon. Gentleman and I were at one time members of that profession, I think that he will take what I have said in the right spirit.
      Another two members of the board will be members of the medical profession. We shall consult the medical organisations on that matter, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. I do not think that there is any possibility that the representatives of the medical profession will be in favour of phasing out as an initial attitude to the problem of the NHS.
      If the remaining two members of the board were people who were totally in favour of immediate phasing out of pay beds in the NHS—although I do not know what my right hon. Friend's intentions are—there would still be a complete balance on the Health Services Board. Therefore, I do not see that there is any need to give the undertaking requested.
      The right hon. Gentleman then said that he did not think that broad statements ought to be written into the Bill because they tended only to muddy the waters and to obscure the points being made in all of the subsequent clauses. That may well be a very wise piece of advice, but I wish that he and his hon. Friends had taken it instead of tabling Amendment No. 6, which is a very generalised statement that he proposes to insert into Clause 2 but which attempts to do what the whole of Clauses 3 and 4 set out to do. The only

      475
      effect of taking Amendment No. 6 into the Bill would be to create just that muddying to which the right hon. Gentleman is so much opposed. Therefore, consistency of argument would have been a good thing.
      Amendment No. 5 seems totally to misconceive the situation that exists at present. The Secretary of State is responsible for providing all the treatment that the amendment urges the Health Board should provide. My right hon. Friend not only has the powers and the duties, but the facilities, to do what is required, which the Health Board does not.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Minister has not answered my point. The introductory words in Amendment No. 5 make it clear that we are not imposing these provisions as duties on the Health Board but are saying that it shall exercise those functions with the objective of achieving the purposes achieved by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Moyle: I do not think that that alters the situtaion greatly, because my point is that the Secretary of State has the powers and duties to do all these things. In addition, succeeding legislation has provided him with the facilities and resources to do what is required. The board does not have those facilities and resources and no provision is made to give them to the board by any of the amendments put down by the Opposition.
      My right hon. Friend has made the point that he is capable of carrying out all these duties and responsibilities in so far as they affect NHS patients. The Opposition are seeking to persuade the House that the Secretary of State should look after not only NHS patients but private patients, too. I should have thought that that was a direct contravention of the whole concept of private treatment. The whole idea of private treatment is to escape from the toils of the organisations that owe allegiance to my right hon. Friend. Having paid money, the idea is that someone escapes from my right hon. Friend and the employees and profesional people who work for him. The idea is that by paying money people go into the private sector entirely.
      What a shock it would be for private patients, as I understand them—and I
      476
      admit that my understanding is limited—if, having paid their money to escape from the toils of my right hon. Friend, they found his tentacles reaching into the private sector to interfere with their treatment. We accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that minimum standards are maintained in private hospitals under the Nursing Homes Act, but beyond that the provision of adequate facilities for treatment is a matter entirely for the managers and owners of private nursing homes, subject again only to the criminal law.
      The amendment does not show any great confidence in the ability of the private sector to look after private patients when it gets them within its ambit. I should have thought that that was the last thing the right hon. Gentleman would want to convey. For the reasons that I have given, the Government cannot accept these amendments and will resist to the ultimate their introduction into the Bill.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I remain totally unconvinced by the Minister's argument when he talks about the Secretary of State's tentacles reaching into the private sector. Because of the guillotine, the Minister will not have bothered to read Part III, because we shall not reach it. We shall not debate that part of the Bill, but why the Minister thinks that those provisions should not be regarded as the tentacles of the Secretary of State reaching into the private sector defeats my understanding.
      The tentacles to which I have referred reach every kind of health facility in the private sector, for example, to see whether the notification procedure is carried out. I have seen the draft regulations, and we shall wait to see whether they come out in their present form. The larger organisations have to run the gauntlet of the Health Board, which is in a sense the Secretary of State's tentacles reaching into the private sector. The two objectives which we say the board ought to have in mind when exercising its functions under the Bill will give a reality and relevance to the needs of patients in both the private and the public sector. That is something that the Bill singularly lacks.
      The Minister has failed to answer the argument, and I gather that the Secretary

      477
      of State misquoted the opinion poll during the time that I was out of the Chamber.
      Mr. Ennals: I read it.
      Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman had to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
      For all those reasons, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are justified in dividing the House in favour of the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 220.

      Division No. 317.]

      AYES

      [5.46 p.m.

      Alison, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pardoe, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Baker, Kenneth

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Penhaligon, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Hannam, John

      Percival, Ian

      Bell, Ronald

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Benyon, W.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Bitten, John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Holland, Philip

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Blaker, Peter

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Bottomley, Peter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jessel, Toby

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Buck, Antony

      Jopling, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin

      Budgen, Nick

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Burden, F. A.

      Kilfedder, James

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Channon, Paul

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Speed, Keith

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Spence, John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Knox, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Clegg, Walter

      Lamont, Norman

      Stainton, Keith

      Cockcroft, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Stanley, John

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Cope, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Corrie, John

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Costain, A. P.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Stokes, John

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Luce, Richard

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      McCrindle, Robert

      Tebbit, Norman

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Dunlop, John

      McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Durant, Tony

      Madel, David

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Trotter, Neville

      Emery, Peter

      Marten, Nell

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mather, Carol

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Fell, Anthony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Viggers, Peter

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Wakeham, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mills, Peter

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Forman, Nigel

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Moate, Roger

      Wall, Patrick

      Fox, Marcus

      Molyneaux, James

      Walters, Dennis

      Fry, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gorst, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mudd, David

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Younger, Hon George

      Gray, Hamish

      Neubert, Michael

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Newton, Tony

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Grist, Ian

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Golding, John

      palmer, Arthur

      Allaun, Frank

      Gourlay, Harry

      Park, George

      Anderson, Donald

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Parker, John

      Archer, Peter

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Perry, Ernest

      Ashley, Jack

      Hardy, Peter

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Ashton, Joe

      Harper, Joseph

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

      Reid, George

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hatton, Frank

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Henderson, Douglas

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hooley, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Bates, Alt

      Horam, John

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

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

      Rooker, J. W.

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockpott N)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Roper, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Huckfield, Les

      Rose, Paul B.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Boardman, H.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hunter, Adam

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Bradley, Tom

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Silverman, Julius

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Skinner, Dennis

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Small, William

      Buchan, Norman

      John, Brynmor

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Snape, Peter

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Campbell, Ian

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cant, R. B.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Judd, Frank

      Stoddart, David

      Cartwright, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Stott, Roger

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Kinnock, Nell

      Strang, Gavin

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Lambie, David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Swain, Thomas

      Cohen, Stanley

      Lamond, James

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Coleman, Donald

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Con Ian, Bernard

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Elton & Slough)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Corbett, Robin

      Lipton, Marcus

      Thompson, George

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Litterick, Tom

      Thome, Stan (Preston South)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tierney, Sydney

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Tinn, James

      Cryer, Bob

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Tomlinson, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      McCartney, Hugh

      Torney, Tom

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      McElhone, Frank

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

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Deakins, Eric

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Watkins, David

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Watkinson, John

      Dempsey, James

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Doig, Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Welsh, Andrew

      Dormand, J. D.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McNamara, Kevin

      White, James (Pollok)

      Duffy, A.E.P.

      Madden, Max

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mahon, Simon

      Whitlock, William

      Eadie, Alex

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Edge, Geoff

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Ennals, David

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Moonman, Eric

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Woodall, Alec

      Flannery, Martin

      Moyle, Roland

      Woof, Robert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Forrester, John

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Newens, Stanley

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

      Noble, Mike

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Freeson, Reginald

      Orbach, Maurice

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mr. Tom Pendry.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Ovenden, John

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      IMMEDIATE DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE AS REGARDS WITHDRAWAL OF NHS BEDS FROM RESIDENT PRIVATE PATIENTS
      6.0 p.m.
      Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 1, leave out Clause 3.
      I said yesterday, when we were debating New Clause 4, that in our view the Government have not looked sufficiently closely at many of the local effects of the proposals in this Bill. This is particularly so when we come to this amendment, which refers to Clause 3, dealing with the thousand beds, and the accompanying schedule which sets out the number of beds to be closed in each area. We suggest that the Government should recognise that the numbers of beds set out have not been looked into carefully enough. This is not a party political point. We suggest that the Government should drop Clause 3 and hand over to the independent board the investigation of the details of the beds—how many there should be, where they should come from and how soon they are to be handed over.
      The Goodman proposals say:
      "Subject to Parliament's decision, it is accepted that there are some pay beds and facilities which could be phased out from the NHS without undue delay, there being already reasonable alternative beds and facilities;"
      When we discuss areas and individual proposals we shall want to try to explain to the Secretary of State that in many areas there are no alternative reasonable facilities. Lord Goodman went on to discuss the schedule and said:
      "In determining this Schedule the Government will wish to consult fully with the medical and dental professions and with those responsible for providing private medical and dental facilities outside the National Health Service."
      There follow some key words:
      "The Government will also wish to consult at the level of the individual hospital."
      This is where our main contention comes.
      We appreciate that this is a difficult and complicated matter. But we know from first-hand experience that in many parts of the country consultations have not yet taken place at individual hospital level. Lord Goodman used the word
      482
      "accepted" but we do not agree that the majority of the medical profession, the majority of members of the public or the majority of union members have accepted this. We went into this yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has referred to the most recent opinion poll. It is our contention that adequate consultations have not yet taken place.
      I ask the Secretary of State, as we asked him in Committee, can he say that this undertaking in the Goodman proposals has been satisfactorily carried out? We do not think it has. This is not a party political point but it is a crucial one in the eyes of many local authorities. I referred yesterday to a letter from the chairman of the Cambridgeshire Area Medical Advisory Committee. I will refer to it again today because it is a clear letter. We have had direct comments and letters from other parts of the country, too. Cambridgeshire is an area of constantly increasing population because of the Peterborough New Town. In Committee one of our main anxieties about the new towns concerned the fact that no arrangements had been made to provide hospital facilities for those settling in the new towns.
      The chairman of the advisory committee makes the point that Cambridgeshire is an area of constantly increasing population. He goes on to say:
      "The Area Medical Officer was instructed to draft a letter which was ultimately sent to the Department of Health and Social Security outlining our objections and asking for reconsideration of the proposed cuts. This letter was acknowledged but no further reply has been received. The Area Health Authority has now been informed that the Bill has passed through the Committee stage and will be placed before the House in due course. It has also asked that any further evidence about the proposed cuts should be forwarded."
      It has been pointed out that no comment has yet been received to the first letter, so the Committee finds it hard to follow this up with any reasoned argument because it does not know what objections may have been raised to that first letter. The chairman concludes:
      "This seems a most scandalous state of affairs, which is highly unsatisfactory."
      That is a reasonable point of view. What would make more sense, if the consultations are not complete—and I accept that

      483
      they may be complicated—would be for the whole of this area—
      Mr. Ennals: May I say that it is perfectly true that the chairman of the advisory committee did not get a comment from the Department. I have already apologised to him for this. There was a certain misunderstanding within the office. This came to my attention and I wrote to the chairman specifically apologising to him for this. I think that the hon. Member will know that the needs of Cambridgeshire were specifically dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the then Minister of State, in Committee on 29th July. The hon. Gentleman knows that those considerations were taken into account even though the chairman had not been contacted. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have apologised for what was a misunderstanding.
      Dr. Vaughan: That is an interesting answer because this letter to which I am referring has only just arrived. Whatever apologies and communications have taken place they do not yet seem to have got through to the people who feel aggrieved. I shall wait with great interest to hear from the Secretary of State whether, in his opinion, the local hospital consultations have taken place satisfactorily. Our view is that such a complicated matter as this should be carefully looked at. Before we write into the Bill the detailed figures for each area it would be better to think again, to take this clause out of the Bill and to hand over the provisions within it to the independent board.
      Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) will not expect me to accept this amendment. He was selective when reading out the statement of 15th December. It was made perfectly clear that the Bill would include a schedule dealing with 1,000 beds. It would, once again, be a breach of that agreement if we do not do what we are committed to in the Goodman proposals. It would be helpful, since the hon. Gentleman was specifically concerned about the question of consultation, if I tell the House the way in which we have proceeded with these consultations.
      It is now more than seven months since my right hon. Friend the Member for
      484
      Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) initiated consultations about the selection of the thousand beds to be phased out within six months of the Royal Assent being given to the Bill. It was a period of seven months during which the Government have given every opportunity to those most affected to consider and make representations about the proposals.
      The hon. Gentleman said that insufficient time was allowed for consultation. I emphatically reject that charge. The Government were so anxious to allow as long as possible, within the constraints of the parliamentary timetable, for consultation with field authorities, representatives of the medical and dental professions, other National Health Service workers and with the private sector that we undertook to consider representations up to the end of the Committee stage. As we approached the end of a long and thorough examination of the Bill in Committee, the Government decided to allow still more time for representations on the content of Schedule 2. We set a deadline of 30th September—only 12 days ago—leaving us less than two weeks in which to study and evaluate comments and criticisms on Schedule 2.
      Since then I have reappraised Schedule 2 carefully in order to satisfy myself and the House that the quotas set out in column 3 of the schedule are those that will best secure that the overall reduction of 1,000 pay beds is effected with due regard to the extent to which existing pay beds were under-utilised and to the reasonable availability of alternative accommodation and facilities for private practice outside the National Health Service.
      Dr. Vaughan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman supporting my point by saying that he has had only two weeks to examine this complicated matter? Does he not agree that the only consultation that has taken place in Cambridgeshire is one circular asking for views?
      Mr. Ennals: What I am saying is that I left myself only 12 days after giving a deadline for consultation. I have given the maximum opportunity for representations to be made and the Department has been weighing the situation carefully.
      I shall explain how we have considered the situation. First, we started from the

      485
      basis that the Government were committed in the Goodman proposals to publish in the Bill a list of 1,000 beds to be phased out, having regard both to the extent of demand as evidenced by occupancy by private patients in a year unaffected by industrial action and to the availability of reasonable alternative facilities in the private sector.
      The first aim was to find the 1,000 beds that most nearly satisfied those criteria. Starting there, we first considered those areas in which it was agreed that there were no alternative facilities to which displaced patients and consultants could go. There are 51 such areas in England and Wales, and we calculated the number of pay beds that would have been required to meet the demand from private patients in 1972 or 1973, whichever year had the higher demand. We took those years because they were unaffected by industrial action. This would give an average daily occupancy of 70 per cent.—slightly less than the average daily occupancy of acute beds in NHS hospitals. We can see no justification for recommending any reduction in the quotas originally proposed in Schedule 2.
      Next we considered the position in those areas outside London where some alternative facilities were known to exist. The quotas for these areas originally proposed in Schedule 2 were based on a notional average daily occupancy of 80 per cent. We calculated the reduction needed to secure the same throughout of patients as in 1972 and 1973 assuming a notional occupancy of 80 per cent. In doing so, we recognised that one consequence of this would be to force some private patients to seek treatment in the private sector. I do not apologise for that since the purpose of the Bill, as so many right hon. and hon. Members opposite and some representatives of the medical profession outside this House seem conveniently to forget, is to bring about complete separation of private practice from NHS hospitals.
      6.15 p.m.
      Finally, I turn to London, where the number of private beds already greatly exceeds the number of authorised pay beds where the number of acute beds in the private sector will have increased between publication of my predecessor's
      486
      initial proposals last February and the end of the initial period by no fewer than 278 beds and where patients are in the habit of travelling further for treatment to the hospital of their own or their general practitioner's choice. We thought it right to treat the whole of the GLC areas as a single entity. The fact that alternative private sector facilities in Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea greatly exceed those in Camden is surely irrelevant—or so it seemed to us—since it would involve no hardship for most patients who have been accustomed to seeking private treatment in the private wings of, say, UCH or the Middlesex to look to the alternatives in Harley Street, Nottingham Place or, for that matter, Lissom Grove.
      Relatively few private patients who are treated in London teaching hospitals actually live in the same London borough. Most come from all over London and some from outside it altogether. Bearing in mind this and the size of the private sector in London, we calculated the number of pay beds needed to deal with the same throughput of patients as in 1972 or 1973—whichever year had the highest throughput—with a notional occupancy of 85 per cent. Again, we recognised that such a notional occupancy would involve some transfer of demand to the private sector.
      Lest is should be argued that enforced transfer of this kind is unfair because it may result in longer waiting times for private patients, I would say that this seems to me irrelevant. The vast majority of the people of this country are obliged to rely on the NHS for the whole of their health care and sometimes have to wait for non-urgent treatment much longer than any of us would like. I see no reason for shedding tears if one result of separation is the extension of this kind of experience to those who hitherto have used their cheque books to avoid a queue.
      What has been the result of our review? We have considered the representations made to us in the light of the broad principles I have just described. We have satisfied ourselves that the proposals in Schedule 2, as the then Minister of State and I maintained in Standing Committee, were broadly right and do not call for the widespread modifications favoured by hon. Members opposite.

      487
      We have checked and re-checked our calculations and looked carefully at any discrepancies pointed out by health authorities. We have studied particularly the cases drawn to our attention in Standing Committee to make certain that their representations have been noted. In the final analysis we have found only four instances in which we think it would be proper to propose modifications, and these are set out in Amendments Nos. 108, 114, 115 and 116.
      Dr. Vaughan: The figures of bed occupancy are based on 1972 and 1973. There is a widespread belief that what the Minister said is not the case. It has been pointed out in Wirral or Tameside that industrial action took place in the years selected for the bed occupancy figures. Will the Minister comment on that?
      Mr. Ennals: I can give an assurance that all the figures were related to 1972 and 1973. We chose those dates because they were not affected by industrial action. In no part of the country were the figures based on any other year.
      Mr. Hal Miller: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) in seeking to omit Clause 3. We are unconvinced that the necessary consultations have taken place. When I say "consultations" I mean effective consultations, not just circulars. We were hoping that the numbers would have behind them some rationale and that due regard had been paid to the matters set out in the clause.
      I wish to say a few words on the subject of bed occupancy and the availability of alternative accommodation. The Goodman proposals referred in paragraph 3(b) to the words "subject to Parliament's decision". It is accepted that some pay beds and facilities could be phased out of the NHS without undue delay because there are reasonable alternatives. We understand that the Government will publish in a schedule to the Bill the location of the 1,000 beds to be released to the NHS within six months after Royal Assent.
      I hope that tonight we shall get clarification of how the total of 1,000 pay beds was arrived at. In Standing Committee the Secretary of State told us
      488
      that there had been a reduction in the occupancy requirement from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent. Later he told us that it was easier to negotiate down than up. We were told in Standing Committee that the figures referred to England only. We were never told clearly whether in the discussions leading up to the 1,000 figure it was decided that beds in Northern Ireland had not been included.
      Mr. Ennals: I must have answered that question many times in Standing Committee. At no stage did the Government intend or imply that the figure would include any beds in Northern Ireland. All sorts of allegations have been made by the Opposition on this matter and I am happy, therefore, to repeat my assurance.
      Mr. Miller: I accept that that was never the Government's intention, but the Government were only one party to the Goodman proposals. There was a great deal of misunderstanding among those who were involved in the negotiations.
      If we examine the figure and the basis of calculation it is clear that the results of information received up to 30th September have led to no changes in the schedule. We had an exhaustive discussion in Standing Committee of the various issues covered by Schedule 2. We were given the impression that there would be a detailed examination of the points that we raised. I subsequently found that some of the information I was given about the Northern area was not entirely accurate. I take this opportunity to apologise to the very reverend father in charge of the St. John of God Hospital at Scorton who wrote to me in an uneasy frame of mind asking where my information had come from about the radiology facilities available at his hospital.
      The Minister seized my main point that in areas such as the Northern area, but particularly in Cumbria, which he admitted was a particular difficulty, the figures need to be looked at again in the light of the distances which have to be travelled and the weather conditions obtaining on roads at certain times of the year. I do not think that the Secretary of State has done justice in his remarks so far to those very valid points. I hope that he will expand on them at

      489
      a later date, because people need to be reassured about them.
      It is not a question of making wider use of the facility of group authorisations. That was a helpful proposal which had to some extent been put into effect before our Standing Committee discussions. But the right hon. Gentleman agreed that there was possibly the need for an enlargement of that method of dealing with the situation.
      We are here discussing reasonable availability so that not only patients but doctors may continue in private practice. Whatever Labour Members below the Gangway may say, the former Prime Minister in his statement of 20th October gave the Government commitment to the maintenance of private medicine. That means that there must be reasonable facilities for such private medicine to be practised. It is no good saying to someone in Cumbria that he has the right to engage in private practice if geographic considerations render that impossible.
      Let me turn now to the examination of other matters referred to in subsection (3). In Standing Committee the Opposition were by no means satisfied with the criteria for use as applied to the occupancy of pay beds in NHS hospitals. There is of course a limit in any hospital to the number of beds which may be used as pay beds at any time. They can be found in different parts of the hospital in different specialities in different wards.
      But in Committee the Secretary of State did not deal with a point I raised previously. In the returns from the hospitals on which these occupancy rates are established pay beds are calculated on a totally different basis from NHS beds. The pay bed occupancy rate takes no account of public holidays, the closure of wards for redecoration or maintenance, and so on. There is therefore a great deal of uncertainty about the occupancy calculations, and so far the Secretary of State and his colleagues have done nothing to dispel that uncertainty. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about reducing the rate from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent., he carries no conviction, because the beds figure is suspect on the basis of the returns made to his Department from the hospitals, as evidenced in a Written Answer to me, and as made plain to us
      490
      by representatives from the medical profession.
      There are further points about pay beds being used largely for acute cases, and the need for a patient to reduce his stay to the minimum possible. One would in any case expect a shorter occupancy. The pay bed occupancy is not calculated during daylight hours but at the witching hour of midnight. At that time, of course, if one has managed, having bound up one's wounds, to leave the previous evening in order to avoid an extra night's cost, it cannot be realistic to expect anyone to take over that bed at five minutes to midnight. So the basis of the occupancy figures is not beyond challenge and has not been clarified.
      6.30 p.m.
      The second matter referred to in subsection (3)(b) of the clause is
      "the extent to which…alternative accommodation and facilities…are reasonably available…"
      This also leaves behind a great deal of imprecision and has aroused much uncertainty in the minds of medical practitioners, because, as I have said, what is the worth of the right to private practice to the profession, or of the freedom of choice to the patient, if the necessary facilities are not available?
      We went into this matter at great length in discussing Schedule 2 in Committee. We were then promised a number of replies which have not so far been available. Indeed, it is apparent that not all the consultations have effectively taken place or been digested in the Department. This was one of the reasons why we proposed postponing phasing out and the reference of the matter to a Royal Commission, or, in the case of either of these two suggestions failing, the replacement of the Secretaty of State by the board to be established so that it should be able to satisfy itself about the criteria for the 1,000 beds and the matters that are to be held in due regard.
      This has been a somewhat technical discussion and perhaps somewhat dry. I have purposely tried to refrain from political polemics, but I do not want the Secretary of State to be in doubt about the seriousness of the matters I have raised or that they go to the heart of the concern about the Bill. Indeed, this

      491
      was recognised by the Government in Committee, when Clause 3 was taken out of order in order to allow time for further consultations. But those consultations had not been completed by the time we came to consider the clause in Committee. Some of us feel that they have still not been satisfactorily completed, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given us the reassurances we want on this point. That is one reason why I oppose the clause.
      Mr. Tom Litterick: In opposing the amendment it is worth pointing out that it is really an attempt to destroy the Bill completely, because Clause 3 is at the heart of the Bill. Without it, the Bill would have no meaning.
      I was impressed by the contention of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) to the effect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not justified in defining specific numbers, as he does in Schedule 2, of pay beds which should be withdrawn within the first six-month period. The hon. Gentleman alleged that insufficient consultation had taken place, and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) took up the same point at considerable length.
      Quite apart from the fact that my right hon. Friend has given his assurances on this matter, it is of some wonder to me, if the Opposition can assert with such confidence that a great Department of State like the Department of Health and Social Security cannot conduct sufficient consultations to the satisfaction of the Opposition, what kind of consultations took place which led them to specify in amendments before the House various figures for pay beds. The Opposition, having objected to the definition of specific numbers in Schedule 2 because, they say, the Department has been unable to conduct sufficient consultation, then proceed, presumably on the basis of consultations conducted on their own less sufficient resources, to propose such figures as 876, 946, 967, 988, and 991.
      The figures proposed by the Opposition are so very precise that the House is agog to hear the explanation of the special logic contained in each of them and how the Opposition arrived at them.
      492
      I am surprised, indeed, that hon. Members opposite are not moving amendments against one another, or that they did not nominate every number from one to 1,000 in 1,000 amendments.
      The fact is that the Opposition are simply playing the numbers game. Until such time as a rational explanation of the figures they propose comes forward, it is obvious that the Opposition are playing a spoiling game, their usual attempt to nibble away at the central strength and position of the NHS as a universally available medical service.
      So many years after the inception of the NHS, the Conservatives still resent it bitterly because it reduces the opportunity for private commercial operators to make a profit, which is central to the Conservative attitude throughout society, let alone the NHS. A central feature of their philosophy is that if someone is not making a profit, the service concerned is at least unnecessary and at worst wholly undesirable.
      An interesting light was thrown on this continuing doctrinal bigotry by the Tories in some remarks by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch. He was not aware, apparently, of the intrinsic effrontery of his remarks when he complained that what he described as the right to private commercial medical practice would not be genuine unless the public underwrote it with their taxes and were prepared, in thinly populated areas, to provide subsidies in the form of physical resources which would be used by private commercial medical operators to make a profit. It is the old game always played by the Tories. They detest State intervention in the economic life of the community except in so far as it serves the interests of private commercial operators. In doing so, they make the interests of the citizen, whether he be a patient, tenant or anything else, very much secondary to the central doctrinal element in their philosophy. That is what the debate is all about on this clause. As I said at the beginning, this clause is the heart of the matter.
      Mr. Hal Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly recall that I stressed that patients needed to have reasonable access to alternative private facilities? Will he not also accept that such patients

      493
      seeking the doctor of their choice and the treatment that he chooses to prescribe for them have paid their taxes and are fully entitled to be in a National Heatlh Service hospital?
      Mr. Litterick: I do not think that anybody can be under any illusion about what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch was actually saying. To be sure, he phrased it in terms of the propagandist rhetoric of his party. He said that it is the patients who must have the choice, and therefore the taxpayer has to provide the facilities whereby private medical practitioners are able then to stand with their begging bowls saying "Come to me so that I can make some money out of your anxiety"—and, maybe, even the patients' foolishness.
      We all know very well that a significant part of the individual patronage of private practice is not unconnected with the notions of what public medicine is and what private medicine means in terms of social significance. This is played upon constantly. But the heart of the matter is the production of profit.
      As has so often happened during the life of this Government, a piece of legislation has been brought forward and greeted with howls of rage and anger by the Conservatives. There have been evocations of red revolution, rivers of blood, and so on, and the terms "extremism" and "left-wing" have been trotted out. But this is in fact a very modest proposal indeed. That word "modest" implies relatively, and I am talking about its modesty in relation to my own party's ambition—the total abolition of private medicine within the facilities of the National Health Service.
      The Bill is not offering the instant abolition of private medicine within the National Health Service. The only specific quantification of withdrawal is to be found in those marginal figures defined in Schedule 2, and the period of six months. Beyond that there is nothing specific. The matter of the abolition of pay beds within the National Health Service has been left almost indeterminate. That is very clear from the structure of the Bill.
      From my point of view, not only does this make it a rather modest proposal:
      494
      it also clearly leaves the door open very substantially for an expansion of the private sector within the National Health Service, should there be, for example, a change of Government within the next two years. This is not impossible. The private beachhead within the National Health Service is left substantially intact.
      To use only one example; in Birmingham, my own city, only 28 private beds are to be phased out within the time limits defined, leaving more than 100 from the original 129. That is still a very significant private, commercial beachhead within the medical services of the Birmingham area. The pattern is the same throughout the country.
      I quite understand the Secretary of State's point of view. He is trying to please everybody. With the greatest respect, I think he has bent over too far backwards and tried to please too many people. Members of the Labour Party of long standing have always known that if we concede our own objectives, or a significant element of them, in order to pacify the Conservatives, their reaction is always to want more concessions.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: Their thirst is insatiable.
      Mr. Litterick: If the Labour Party wins an election, the Conservatives do not like it because they have not got the jobs. The next best thing for them is that the Labour Party should do their job for them. Sadly, all too often this transpires and, in effect, the Labour Party winds up doing the job of the Conservative Party. All too often it ends up doing the dirty jobs which Conservatives would rather not do.
      6.45 p.m.
      I understand the reasons for the Secretary of State's moderation. What I cannot understand are the continual doctrinaire attacks being waged by the Conservative Party, under the cover of social concern for this mystical, vast number of people who wish to enrich a very small minority of doctors, fundamentally damaging the service. It always seems possible to mobilise large sums of money for this purpose, the intention being that the service, which was originally conceived as a universal and comprehensive service, should be reduced once again to the status of a charity organisation to be patronised only by the deserving poor.
      Mr. Thompson: The amendment appears to me to be an attempt to slow down the process of phasing out pay beds, and I want to say why I oppose the amendment. But first I should like to clarify a matter raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in our debate on the last amendment, because the hon. Gentleman's remarks are very relevant and my response to him is very relevant to our debate on this amendment. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the Scottish National Party was in a sense now coming out in its true colours, as though it had never concealed these colours. He gave the slight impression—he is much too honest a man to do other than merely that—that the medical men in Edinburgh would be surprised by what I said in the debate yesterday and by what I have said today.
      No doubt he thought that the reading of my speeches in the Official Report would act as a sort of revulsion therapy, dissuading any of these gentlemen from supporting the SNP at the next General Election and from supporting the cause of Scottish independence. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to set before people in Scotland objections to anything that I or my party may say. Indeed, it is his duty to do so. But I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish National Party's policy on health and on private practice was published in the spring of this year. It was voted on at our annual conference at Motherwell in May. I assume that the coverage was sufficient to have reached even Edinburgh.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It did not reach Kinross.
      Mr. Thompson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not had a copy, I shall be very willing to send him one, and to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West as well. I can tell both hon. Gentlemen and the House that copies were widely distributed within the Scottish medical profession. The SNP's policy was commented upon in the British Medical Journal, if I remember correctly, and it has been reasonably well received by many in the medical profession in Scotland.
      In that document, in paragraph 18, under a heading printed in stout black
      496
      type, "Private Medicine", the first sentence reads:
      "Pay beds within the Scottish Health Service will be phased out."
      That is a very plain, very Scottish statement of the position.
      Mr. Fairbairn: And very wrong.
      Mr. Thompson: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire says that it is very wrong. I have no doubt that in his opinion it is. However, in my opinion and I believe in the opinion of the vast majority of the people in Scotland it is very right. I am afraid that if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire rush hot foot to their constituences to tell the surgeons and doctors there of what I have said in this Chamber, both will find that the news is very old and, by now, rather cold, though no doubt they will try to stir up the embers.
      When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West spoke of the pay beds in Edinburgh, I assumed that there was a large number of them. However, I find on consulting the schedule that in the Lothian area there are 34 beds. I assume that the bulk of them are in Edinburgh, and it is proposed in the first stage of the Government's plans to phase out 13 under Clause 3, thus leaving 21. I do not consider that to be an excessive lopping off of pay beds in the city of Edinburgh.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West also mentioned our pride in Scotland in the medical school of the University of Edinburgh and in the medical schools of those of our other universities which have them. I seem to remember that we produce 25 per cent. of the medical graduates in the United Kingdom in our Scottish medical schools, and we are very proud of this fact. It has to be borne in mind that our medical students in Edinburgh and elsewhere are trained in the general hospitals, and I feel that this is one reason for the very strong commitment among the Scottish medical profession to the service of the whole community of Scotland and that it is one reason why we are not afflicted by the pay beds problems which appear to deflect attention from the National Health Service in the South-East of England.

      497
      Now I have to say why on this occasion I am prepared to follow the Secretary of State in his reaction to this amendment. I find that his mind works along the same lines as my own, and I should need to be convinced either that he is an ogre who is intent on inflicting pain and suffering upon patients in England or that he is mistaken in his views. I have no reason from my observation of his behaviour or from what he has said to conclude that he is, in any sense of the word, an ogre. What is more, I am content to believe that he has taken as good advice as the Tories have taken. Since he is working for the same ends as my own party is, I must veer to his conclusion rather than to those of the party which is acting in exactly the opposite way to that which I should wish to go.
      It is for these reasons that I shall be advising my hon. Friends to support the Government in rejecting this amendment.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish to speak again for only one minute, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I wish first to say to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that I was not accusing him of concealment. He has confirmed a policy about which we have known for some time.
      I want, secondly, to ask the Secretary of State whether he will refer to the position in Wales. I do not want to go into it in detail now as we dealt with it in Committee. However, the amendments dealing with it may not be reached tonight. If he can confirm that there will be reasonable facilities available to all patients in Wales if the measures proposed in the Bill go through and if he can confirm that the problems of access to and of getting to and from hospital
      can be coped with, I shall be grateful to hear what he has to say.
      Mr. Ennals: In the case of Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom covered by the Bill, there are later amendments which I expect will be dealt with, but I can give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).
      I want to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), who is worried about the way in which the bed count is taken and about the occupancy rates. He referred especially to public holidays, temporary closures, and so on. Of course, it is true that people's preferences may be for not being in hospital at Christmas time or during public holidays. But, whatever comparison we make, precisely the same basis is used for general bed occupancy and bed occupancy in relation to private beds. In 1974, the average daily occupancy of all beds was 72 per cent. That of private beds by paying patients was 49 per cent. On that basis and other bases, it would have been perfectly reasonable for this legislation to have proposed the phasing out of more than 1,000 in the first six months. The fact that it is 1,000 shows how very modest this proposal is.
      I can see no reason from anything said by hon. Members in the debate for doing other than urging the rejection of the amendment.
      Mr. Hal Miller rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way, or has he concluded his remarks?
      Mr. Ennals: No, I have sat down.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 212.

      Division No. 318.]

      AYES

      [6.57 p.m.

      Alison, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bottomley, Peter

      Buck, Antony

      Baker, Kenneth

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Budgen, Nick

      Beith, A. J.

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Bell, Ronald

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Burden, F. A.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Brittan, Leon

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Beny, Hon Anthony

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Channon, Paul

      Biffen, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Clegg, Walter

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Cockcroft, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Cope, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Corrie, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Costain, A. P.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Knox, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lane, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dunlop, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin

      Durant, Tony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Silvester, Fred

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Emery, Peter

      Lewis. Kenneth (Rutland)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lloyd, Ian

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Luce, Richard

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McCusker, H.

      Speed, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spence, John

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Madel, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Fox, Marcus

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fry, Peter

      Marten, Neil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mather, Carol

      Stanley, John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stokes, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Gray, Hamish

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Norman

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Molyneaux, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Grylls, Michael

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Hannam, John

      Mudd, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Neubert, Michael

      Wakeham, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Newton, Tony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Holland, Philip

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Wall, Patrick

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pardoe, John

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Penhaligon, David

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Percival, Ian

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Younger, Hon George

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson and

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. W. Benyon.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Allaun, Frank

      Ctemitson, Ivor

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Anderson, Donald

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Ashley, Jack

      Coleman, Donald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Ashton, Joe

      Corcannon, J. D.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Flannery, Martin

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Corbett, Robin

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Crawford, Douglas

      Ford, Ben

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cronin, John

      Forrester, John

      Bates, Alf

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cryer, Bob

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

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      George, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Golding, John

      Boardman, H.

      Deakins, Eric

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Bradley, Tom

      Dempsey, James

      Grocort, Bruce

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Doig, Peter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hardy, Peter

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Harper, Joseph

      Buchan, Norman

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hatton, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Edge, Geoff

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cant, R. B.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hooley, Frank

      Cartwright, John

      Ennals, David

      Horam, John

      500

      501

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Madden, Max

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Huckfield, Les

      Mahon, Simon

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Stoddart, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Stott, Roger

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Strang, Gavin

      Hunter, Adam

      Mendelson, John

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Swain, Thomas

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Moonman, Eric

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Moyle, Roland

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      John, Brynmor

      Newens, Stanley

      Thompson, George

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Noble, Mike

      Thome, Stan (Preston South)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Tierney, Sydney

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ovenden, John

      Tinn, James

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tomlinson, John

      Judd, Frank

      Park, George

      Torney, Tom

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Parker, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Kelley, Richard

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Kerr, Russell

      Pendry, Tom

      Ward, Michael

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Perry, Ernest

      Watkinson, John

      Kinnock, Neil

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wellbeloved, James

      Lambie, David

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Lamborn, Harry

      Reid, George

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Lamond, James

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      White, James (Pollok)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Whitlock, William

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Litterick, Tom

      Rooker, J. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Roper, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McElhone, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Woodall, Alec

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wool, Robert

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Silverman, Julius

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Small, William

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      7.0 p.m.
      Sir George Young: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'one thousand' and insert 'eight hundred and seventy-six'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:

      No. 74, in Schedule 2, page 31, line 7, column 3 leave out '2' and insert 'Nil'.

      No. 75, in page 31, line 8, column 3 leave out '16' and insert '6'.

      No. 76, in page 31, line 9, column 3 leave out '10' and insert '4'.

      No. 78, in page 31, line 11, column 3 leave out '22' and insert '10'.

      No. 79, in page 31, line 14, column 3 leave out '15' and insert '9'.

      No. 80, in page 31, line 18, column 3 leave out '9' and insert '4'.

      No. 81, in page 31, line 19, column 3 leave out '9' and insert '5'.

      No. 82, in page 31, line 21, column 3 leave out '15' and insert '8'.

      502

      No. 83, in page 31, line 22, column 3 leave out '15' and insert '5'.

      No. 84, in page 31, line 23, column 3 leave out '11' and insert '5'.

      No. 85, in page 31, line 24, column 3 leave out '56' and insert '30'.

      No. 86, in page 31, line 25, column 3 leave out '19' and insert '10'.

      No. 87, in page 31, line 27, column 3 leave out '7' and insert '4'.

      No. 88, in page 31, line 28, column 3 leave out '8' and insert '3'.

      No. 89, in page 31, line 29, column 3 leave out '28' and insert '15'.

      Sir George Young: As the Whip on the Committee I express some regret that the results on the Floor of the House are not quite as close as those upstairs.
      These 16 amendments bear a striking resemblance to Amendments Nos. 483 and 446 to 460 which we discussed in detail in Committee on 28th July, as reported at columns 1389 to 1416 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings for

      503
      that date. That was one of the many matters on which Standing Committee D was unable to come to a conclusion. I much regret that in making slight alterations to the number of pay beds to be phased out the Government did not take on board the strong representations made on behalf of the London area about the harsh treatment meted out to it.
      I should like to deal with an argument raised in the last debate as to why we chose 876 rather than the 1,000 on which the Government have insisted. The figure of 1,000 was plucked out of the air by Ministers and civil servants, and it bears no relation to reality. The figure of 876 is based on representations made to us by the regions and area health authorities. It represents much more closely the actual number of pay beds which can be phased out.
      Over the past three months since we debated this matter, the need in London to reverse the phasing out has become even more acute. Today I spoke to a number of district administrators in London to see whether there had been any change in the circumstances since 28th July. As far as pay beds are concerned the situation is now more urgent because of the worsening economic conditions.
      This is particularly so in teaching hospitals. St. Thomas's has to find £750,000 and Charing Cross £800,000, and neither of them has any hope of finding the extra money. The deficit will have to be carried forward, and the economic crisis superimposed on the loss of pay beds is lowering morale in London hospitals. Recently I have seen representatives of the Royal College of Nurses and they confirm that morale is at an all-time low in their hospitals.
      District administrators are worried about pay beds because the one source of buoyant income they had will be progressively withdrawn. The four Thames regions have 37 per cent. of pay beds and have to accept 40 per cent. of the cuts. This is clear evidence of the inequity in London. There will have to be a reduction of 26 per cent. in the number of pay beds in London compared with 23 per cent. in England generally.
      This is particularly unfair because many National Health Service hospitals in London have a higher pay bed occupancy than elsewhere. This is because many
      504
      of them have a higher incidence of specialised treatment and a greater number of overseas patients bringing in much needed foreign currency. The treatment of London should be more rather than less favourable.
      This is supported by the Independent Hospital Group which produced a schedule for phasing out 1,000 pay beds and in that schedule London would not have received the punitive treatment which it is receiving from the Government. Then there is the peculiar treatment of inner London, compared with outer London. In inner London there is greater access to alternative facilities because this is where these facilities are concentrated, yet inner London has been dealt with more generously than outer London. Ministers have seriously underestimated the difficulties in the cost of travelling within the Greater London area.
      In drawing up the schedule for phasing out pay beds for London the Minister has jumped the gun in arriving at his figure. He has taken account of 295 beds which are under construction but not yet ready for use. This shows that the Government are ready to poach on the preserves of the Health Service Board. If the new beds come into the stream after the Bill is passed, this is one factor which should be taken into account in making recommendations to the Minister for further phasing out. If the Government take the beds into account now, this will trespass on the preserves of the so-called independent Health Services Board and prejudge its decisions.
      I refer to the notional occupancy figures implied in the Government's reasoning on pay beds. Their notional figures are that 91 per cent. of these beds are occupied in inner London, 92 per cent. in outer London and 67 per cent. in England as a whole. No wonder there is a great sense of inequity in London.
      I urge the Secretary of State to come clean and tell the House how many redundancies will be needed to cope with the cuts. We tried to press the Minister on this point in Committee, but he was unable to give any figures. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to come clean about the number of redundancies the policy implies. I plead with the Minister to make some concessions and to

      505
      give London better treatment. I hope that my pleas will not fall on deaf ears.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Pavitt: One of the difficulties in following the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is that he always makes very nice speeches. Sometimes, as in a previous debate today, I am able to commend the effectiveness of the case he has put, but on other occasions, as now, he makes a very good speech but I find that I do not agree with one word of it.
      The purpose of the amendments, which propose reducing the first phasing out of 1,000 pay beds, is exactly the opposite to mine. The decision on what kind of criteria one should apply in the early phasing out and in any further examinations is a matter of judgment. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton gives the judgment of representatives of area health authorities. I have gone into the same kind of judgment, but personally I prefer to look at the occupancy of beds.
      The hon. Member mentioned the London teaching hospitals. One of the difficulties facing Londoners is that half their beds are in teaching hospitals. We have 25 teaching hospitals and I have the figures for bed occupancy in 1973, 1974 and 1975. Charing Cross Hospital has an average daily occupancy of only 28 of its 40 pay beds. Middlesex Hospital has an average daily occupancy of 41 of its 67 pay beds. This is in London which is a tremendous magnet for the whole country and people from abroad as well.
      It is rather a disadvantage to Londoners that 50 per cent. of the NHS bed occupancy as well is in teaching hospitals, and one would hope for a better balance between teaching hospitals and general district hospitals. One of the failures of successive Governments since the war has been in giving permission for the building of further teaching hospitals in the London area. It would have been better not to rebuild Charing Cross Hospital in Fulham and not to go ahead with the tremendous building programmes at Guy's or Westminster. This building should have been spread out over the country as a whole.
      On the criterion of bed occupancy alone there is a strong case for rejecting the amendment, and for tabling a whole series of amendments which would make
      506
      the number not 1,000 but something nearer 1,750. I am not a truly rebellious character, but I contemplated following the example of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and putting down a series of amendments altering the numbers in Clause 3 in order to bring in a few more.
      In Ealing, Acton there are 31 pay beds but only 21 of these are occupied for more than 50 per cent. of the time—
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: These occupancy figures for pay beds are based on occupation by paying patients. The implication is that somehow the beds are empty for much of the time. This is not true. The passage which I read out from the 1968 Act yesterday shows that many pay beds are occupied by National Health Service patients and their occupation may have precluded occupation by private patients who may have to wait for some weeks. Therefore I would not place too much reliance on the occupancy figures.
      Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman tells me something that I know only too well. We debated this matter on several occasions in Committee. I am aware that, given normal bed admissions, whether emergency or otherwise, Section 5 beds can be and are used for National Health Service patients. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate the argument that to earmark beds in that way is the right way to get the most successful use of them.
      In Willesden Hospital there is 23 per cent. occupancy and in Wembley Hospital there is 42 per cent. occupancy. The highest occupancy is at Northwick Park, because it is not only a district general hospital, but it has 200 beds from the Medical Research Council for clinical research. There is a 70 per cent. occupancy there. Therefore, there is probably a strong case initially for phasing out more beds.
      The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) referred to the use of beds for other purposes. One of the uses which is not possible while they are scheduled is the specific provision in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 that the young chronically sick, if they are to be long-stay patients, should not find themselves surrounded by people who, because of

      507
      their age and condition, are facing death day in, day out. One important provision was that beds should be provided for the young chronically sick.
      In Brent there are no such beds. The only way that we can deal with the young chronically sick is to send them to Putney. In these financially stringent times that is a heavy additional expense on the area health authority. Because, in effect, it means transferring funds to another area health authority, it is naturally reluctant to send patients there.
      Since the 1968 designation of beds is no longer attached to actual beds, there is a strong argument for releasing more than 1,000 beds to cope with the problem of finding beds for the young chronically sick, because those designated beds would be permanently available. They are not available at the moment. Although a pay bed can be occupied by a National Health Service patient, it cannot be occupied by a long-term patient, because that would negate the idea of having the pay bed. The pay bed would be taken out of service probably for years.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We always listen with respect to the hon. Gentleman, because he comes to these matters with long experience. However, he cannot let that argument stand, that since 1968 they have not been designated beds. If a long-stay patient occupies a bed, obviously, from the point of view of the number of authorised beds, other beds in the hospital have to be used.
      Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that, because a bed can be moved about, it is not fully occupied. But we must have flexibility, and the flexibility does not exist. If we had more flexibility, we should have fewer pay beds than we have in my area at present. For that reason, I shall oppose the amendment.
      I should tell my right hon. Friend that I did not put down 90 amendments to Schedule 2 and one amendment to this part of Clause 3, because I am confident that the board will look into some of these matters in greater depth than we have done so far and that we shall get rapid phasing out. I believe that when we get the first of the reports from the board we shall have a speedy phasing out of the second 1,000 beds after the first 1,000 beds.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I rise with some trepidation to take part in this debate because I did not serve on the Committee stage of the Bill. After listening to the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), it would seem that the argument for this amendment and for destroying the Bill has already been made.
      We have been told that certain things cannot be done because we have not got the money. On the assumption that pay beds generate income—as far as I know, that has not been denied by any Labour Member—surely more things can be done within the National Health Service. This applies to providing beds for the young chronic sick, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, or for those who, like myself, are trying to maintain National Health Service beds in my constituency for the use not only of my constituents but of those of the Minister of State, some of whose names appear on a petition which I received this morning from an 11-year old girl who feels very strongly about the matter. Therefore, the argument for more income has been established not only by the Opposition but by Government supporters.
      We were told by the hon. Member for Brent, South that the beds are not designated and that the only limitation on the number of pay beds is the maximum number of private patients who can be within a hospital at a time. That is a limitation on the top level which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said in Committee, means that in some teaching hospitals there is a longer wait to get in as a private patient than as a National Health Service patient. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to deny that. From my reading of the Committee proceedings, it was not denied.
      If, as I assert—I see no head shaking in disagreement, and there are many assembled experts here—the number of pay beds is a maximum, that they are not designated and that they are available to the NHS when not being used in any other way, what is the point of the Bill? I am referring specifically to Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 which affect South-East London, parts of which the Minister of State and I have the honour to represent.
      I should like to refer to one of the hospitals in my constituency, the Eltham

      509
      and Mottingham General Hospital, known locally as the Cottage Hospital. It was started 100 years ago by voluntary effort, extended by voluntary effort and brought up to NHS standards by voluntary effort. Now, because it has been nationalised, everyone is beginning to rail against the NHS because there are threats, or proposals, from the regional health authority and the area health authority, with mild interest shown by the Department, to close it.
      The Cottage Hospital has a small number of beds. We are told that the beds are uneconomic, that there is not the money available to keep it going, and so on. However, we are told that we can afford the extra £40 million a year involved in getting rid of pay beds and that we shall be able to provide a better service to NHS patients. This hospital is under threat.
      Many people are beginning to rail against the National Health Service not because they are against it, but because they are against the results of Government ineptitude and not having the money to keep hospitals in places where they are needed.
      There are many council estates in my area, four major secondary schools and six primary schools. We are told that if somebody suffers a broken leg or needs minor surgery, he or she can go to the Brook Hospital. Of course, most of those who go to hospital for minor things are the elderly or the young, neither of whom is likely to have a car. Such people are likely to be more isolated now because their parents or children will not be able to visit them easily. Yet we are told that the cost of ambulance transport will be paid by the local authorities and that that does not count.
      Amendment Nos. 83 and 85 affect the area from Lambeth to Bexley and cover part of Greenwich and my constituency. If it can be shown that the income generated from the pay beds could keep the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital going, we would see not the results shown in the National Opinion Poll quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), where over 70 per cent. of people are shown as wanting to keep pay beds going, but a situation in which I could
      510
      guarantee that in my area 99 per cent. of people would say "Let us keep these pay beds. Let us have the income and the National Health hospital that we want because we need the money to keep it going."
      7.30 p.m.
      In her letter, which I received today, 11-year-old Hilary Kear says:
      "I attended the protest meeting on Saturday 11th September, and I agree with everything the speakers said. I signed the petition at the meeting, and I have asked people of all ages to sign my sheets. I think that anyone who has been in a small hospital such as Eltham and Mottingham will agree that if one wants peace and quiet, or a minor operation, small hospitals are perfect. Maybe they don't pay as much as big hospitals, but surely human life matters more."
      One reads that cottage hospitals are being re-established in outlying areas. Perhaps, as with high rise flats, we shall discover that the trend to have minor operations in big hospitals is not the way of dealing with the problem and we may be seeing more delinquency films such as that shown on BBC television about the situation in Liverpool applied to hospitals and the demoralisation there.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South and I both want more money for our hobby horses. The petition to which I referred earlier has been signed by more than 10,000 people. At the meeting to which Hilary Kear refers, the prospective Labour and Liberal candidates for my constituency, a number of members of the local authority from both political parties and myself were present. All 10,000 names on the petition want the hospital retained. We have been told that it will have to be closed because of lack of money. A reduction in the number of pay beds will guarantee a further reduction in revenue for the NHS.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South wants more money for chronically sick young people, but he destroyed his own case in the elegant way in which he usually destroys other people's cases when he confirmed that these young people could go into unoccupied beds because such beds are no longer designated.
      We shall have to face a reduction of medical services because of this paltry Bill. The Secretary of State has no answer

      511
      to that. I was at a meeting earlier of constituents who are very worried about the future of the local hospital. I told them that I had to return here and watch the Government reducing the income of the National Health Service. When they asked whether that would affect the future of the local hospital, I said that there would be cuts anyway and that this Bill would mean cuts of another £40 million.
      If this is the way the Government operate, the sooner they get out of health as well as out of the economy, the better.
      Mrs. Castle: This is not a Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) has joined in our discussions rather spasmodically and obviously does not appreciate that fact. We are discussing whether the number of beds to be included in the schedule should be 1,000 or rather fewer. This amendment seeks to make the figure 14 fewer.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said that the figure of 1,000 had been plucked out of the air and bore no relation to reality. I ought to correct that statement. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the medical profession's negotiators. The figure of 1,000 was agreed as rational in the Goodman proposals.
      It seems to be my function in these debates to remind hon. Members of the proposals. Paragraph 3(b) says that subject to Parliament's decision on the principle.
      "it is accepted that there are some pay beds and facilities which could be phased out from the NHS without undue delay, there being already reasonable alternative beds and facilities; and that the Government will publish in a Schedule to the Bill the location of 1,000 pay beds to be released to general NHS service within six months after the Bill has received Royal Assent."
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Lady has gone back no further than the proposals published on 15th December. We have never been told about any item of the discussions which led up to that document. I understand that those who participated in the discussions concluded that it would be better for all concerned if none of the discussions leading up to the document became public while the matter is one of controversy.
      512
      Merely to point to the document saying that 1,000 beds is accepted is to ignore the fact that the medical profession never accepted that there should be any phasing out. We do not consider ourselves bound by any figure of that sort and nor should the House feel so bound. The figure needs to be justified. We have never had a justification.
      Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways at once. In Committee, he pilloried the Government on the details of the proposals and then complained that some of my hon. Friends in their amendments were trying to go back on the Goodman proposals.
      This must be a two-way bargain. Part of it is that the profession should be free to fight the principle of the Bill. That has never been denied. The Prime Minister did not argue that in his letter for which the profession asked.
      It has been established—and it is the basis of the bargain—that, should Parliament decide to legislate, the Goodman proposals should be in the legislation. If that were not the case, there are other things which hon. Members, including myself, would have liked to see included in the Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton is criticising the profession when he said that the figure of 1,000 beds bears no relation to reality. The Goodman proposals say that 1,000 beds is a reasonable figure to include in the schedule. That is part of the deal.
      If the Opposition want to consider the whole of this Bill tonight, they should skip the next four groups of amendments, all of which are treading ground which has already been trampled. The Opposition would merely be wasting their own time.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on making a speech without mentioning yachts or people flying their dogs across the Atlantic. When I was secretary of the House of Commons Yachting Club, there was a greater tonnage of yachts on the Labour side.
      The fact that we lost the last amendment will be a great disappointment to my constituents. The Bill is an attempt to satisfy the doctrinaire members of the Labour Party so that they can abolish

      513
      pay beds and say that they got their own way.
      We could argue all night about how many beds should be phased out, but we can discuss in detail the effect such reductions will have on hospitals in our constituencies. In my constituency I have exactly the same problem as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). The Secretary of State knows my constituency very well as he was my next door neighbour for some time. I am glad to see his successor in his place—namely, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The argument against pay beds is that somehow someone who is ill might get abandoned. It is argued that others might use the facilities that have been provided by the National Health Service, although they have helped to pay for those facilities in the first place.
      I have some news for the Secretary of State. At the Royal Victoria Hospital at Folkestone—we shall probably hear a great deal of talk about it before many years are out—the sister in charge of the pay bed section, who happens to be the mayoress, recognised that the hospital was short of some facilities and was responsible for a public appeal for £3,000 to buy a heart machine. In fact, £6,000 was raised in two weeks. In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it was raised by taking the begging bowl to the homes of rich folk, I must point out that the sister received large subscriptions from Dungeness. Over £2,000 was raised immediately. Everyone wanted to help the hospital. Perhaps that feeling has been removed by the National Health Service running our hospitals. The voluntary concept had a great deal to do with people in the locality wishing to help. Every time we abolish a pay bed we take away the concept of making that hospital something special.
      When all the public services are short of money it is surely ridiculous to abolish anything which can provide an income. People will have to go to nursing homes, and we know that more and more nursing homes are being built, or that attempts are being made to build them. The Bill tries to stop that trend. Only today I spoke on the telephone to someone who was saying that he wants to raise £1
      514
      million to provide a nursing home not in my constituency but in Surrey, where I live at the weekends.
      Clearly the more we talk of abolishing pay beds the more we take away the concept of voluntary help. I ask the Secretary of State to recognise that he can accept the amendment and satisfy the doctrinaire argument that his right hon. and hon. Friends have put forward.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask whether he is aware that because of the Government's intervention there is a move to set up a private hospital in East Kent, which will involve a great diversion of public money into that area?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) to go rather wide of the mark. We have disposed of the question of pay beds and we are discussing a difference of 124 beds as proposed in the amendment.
      Mr. Ennals: I shall try to be brief in summarising the debate. I was delighted to have the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) as my neighbour for a time some years ago. However, that does not mean that he did not talk absolute nonsense tonight. The idea that the love of a hospital by the people whom it serves is based on the number of pay beds that it has available is too ludicrous for words.
      I hurriedly move on to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich West (Mr. Bottomley).
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if he continues getting rid of pay beds and the income from them he will be involving hospitals that were built by voluntary subscription.
      Mr. Ennals: I was about to deal with that point.
      Mr. Ronald Brown rose—
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Ennals: No, I must proceed, although I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      Although it was not directly concerned with the amendment, the hon. Gentleman

      515
      referred to a touching letter by a young lady of 11 years. As far as I am aware it was not related to pay beds. Certainly it provided the hon. Gentleman with the opportunity to deliver an interesting speech. The question of his hospital and its future is basically a matter for the health authority. If the authority determines that part of its programme is that that cottage hospital should close, unless the community health council agrees it will be a matter that the Secretary of State will have to decide. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but he must not say—it is absolutely incorrect for him to do so—that a decision taken by the regional health authority in this connection is based on income from pay beds. It has been made clear in the House—if the hon. Gentleman had been present on earlier occasions he would know—that there will be no reduction in the sums available to a health authority as a result of the implications of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to unemployment, presumably basically nursing staff, as a result of the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas Hamilton) raised a Question about the matter in July. He asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to give an estimate of the number of National Health Service staff who may become unemployed as a result of the Bill. I replied:
      "There is no reason to suppose that the progressive separation of private facilities including pay beds from National Health Service hospitals should lead to unemployment of health service personnel."—[Official Report, 5th July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 443.]
      That is as much so today as it was when the Answer was given. That is partly because there are some agency nurses. As I said yesterday in relation to another hospital, there are still unfilled places at London hospitals for trained staff. I cannot guarantee that those who are under training in a particular hospital will necessarily gain a job in that hospital. There is much less wastage in the nursing profession now than there was at one time. It may be that nurses have to be more mobile, but we are not dealing with a significant problem of unemployment among nurses
      516
      as a result of the Bill, or as a result of any other policies.
      There is no reason for me to accept the proposals put forward in advancing the amendment. The total reduction for tile four Thames regions that is proposed in Schedule 2 is 402. We need look no further for justification of these figures than the number of acute beds in the private sector in the Thames region registered since 1st April 1974. In fact, there are 327. There are 295 in the process of being built. The number registered and those that are to be produced will give a total facility of about 600. That demonstrates that 402 is a modest figure for London.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that I cannot accept that he is entitled to take account of beds that are not in existence? If he studies the Bill, he will see that Clause 3(3)(b) refers to beds that are "reasonably available"—
      "alternative accommodation and facilities…that are reasonably available".
      Beds that are merely a twinkle in the developer's eye are not reasonably available. His right hon. Friend did that in Committee. He has no right to place any reliance on beds that do not exist.
      Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a large private sector within the health service in London. That is one reason for London taking a higher share of the 1,000 beds than the rest of the country. I do not base the 402 beds in anticipation of hospitals that are in the process of being built. I said that 327 new beds have already been registered. That is not very much below the 402 figure. The four Thames regions now have 37 per cent. of all the pay beds in England. The proposed reduction of 402 in Schedule 2 is 40 per cent. of the total reduction of 1,000. That represents 26 per cent. of the existing number and compares with an overall reduction in England of 23 per cent. Given the concentration and relative accessibility of existing private facilities in London, and the balance and distribution of the 1,000, I believe the reduction to be fair and reasonable.
      As I said in an earlier debate, I have taken very carefully into consideration

      517
      the views expressed in Committee. I have also given regional and area health authorities a further opportunity to present new evidence or to draw attention to any inequalities in the distribution of the 1,000 beds in Schedule 2.
      Three of the four Thames authorities, in consultation with their area authorities, had no comments to offer. The fourth formally took note of the contents of Schedule 2. There is, therefore, no basis from the health authorities in the Thames Region to suggest that the figures put into the Bill need in any way to be changed.
      Opposition Members are simply playing a numbers game and spinning out the time.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am not sure why the Secretary of State should accuse the Opposition of spinning out the time. We have only just over one and a half hours left for the Report stage, because of the guillotine. The fact is that these are very serious issues which ought to have been developed and debated over a much longer period than we have been allowed under the guillotine.
      In Committee we had a substantial debate on this matter. The Minister of State answered it but failed to satisfy the Committee. The amendment moved in Committee was rejected only by the Chairman's casting vote. Therefore, it is entirely proper that we should return to this matter and to some other areas of the country on Report.
      The right hon. Gentleman has failed to address himself to the question. The difficulty is that his hands are tied, because he feels himself bound by this wholly arbitrary figure, which was plucked out of the air. Whatever the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) may have said, it was plucked out of the air, I suspect, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It is a nice round figure that looked about 25 per cent. of the total. It is some sop that the Government could throw to the Left-wing Members below the Gangway—although Left-wing Members are not even here to receive it. I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). If he had given way, he might have
      518
      heard the first words of support for the Bill from any hon. Member on the Government side of the House.
      Mr. Ennals: Was this or was this not part of the contract?
      Mr. Jenkin: This is a contract that does not bind the Opposition, and about which the Prime Minister wrote to the medical profession, perfectly properly—I had not appreciated, until the right hon. Member for Blackburn said so, that it was at the request of the medical profession—saying that the profession was to be entirely free to oppose the Bill.
      Mrs. Castle: The principles.
      Mr. Jenkin: All right—the principles, but with the principles go the details throughout the Bill's passage through Parliament.
      It was a document that was thrashed out, but in no sense of the word can it be said to have been agreed. It was not agreed. It has been forced upon the profession. The profession managed to claw back something from the outrageous proposals in the original document of 15th August and has got something. However, the idea that somehow we are reneging on an agreement by arguing that fewer than 1,000 beds would be appropriate for phasing out does not stand up, because the right hon. Gentleman, in order to justify the figures for the four Thames regions, had to drag in beds in the private sector which do not even exist. That is notwithstanding that in his own Bill the criterion is intended to be beds that are "reasonably available"—
      "alternative accommodation and facilities…are reasonably available."
      The right hon. Gentleman has conceded the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that the four Thames regions are bearing a higher proportion of the total than a strictly proportional reduction would justify. The right hon. Gentleman has gone no way at all to answer the very fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) that the phasing out and the threat of phasing out is costing the areas concerned the revenue that they might have had. Of course there has been a reduction as a result of the vendetta of the right hon. Member for

      519
      Blackburn against private practice and the inspired political and militant action in some of the hospitals. Of course there has been some reduction in the demand for pay beds.
      In the letter that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me, arising out of the Enfield and Haringey AHA report—which I took up with him directly, as he will recall—he did not deny that there was to be no compensation to the areas for the reduction in pay bed revenue which is simply caused by the amount of usage falling below the estimated amount in the current year. Yet this can be seen to be as a direct result of the militant action against pay beds. This is one of the reasons why many of these authorities are now short of revenue and are having to scratch around with very great difficulty in order to try to find economies to keep within their cash limits. We do not oppose cash limits. On the contrary, we believe that it is extremely important that all elements of the public sector should be constrained. However, the fact is that by legislation and the threat of legislation the authorities have lost revenue, and as a result of that, other things are having to be cut out.
      I could not go into detail about the four Thames regions, as we did in Committee, but I shall not do that at this stage. There is no doubt that the four Thames regions are having to bear a wholly disproportionate share of the cutback, and for no reason other than that the Secretary of State's hands are tied completely by this arbitrary figure of 1,000. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill reaches another place, perhaps their Lordships will consider it right to look at these matters again—that is for them to decide and not for us—to see whether it can conceivably be consistent with the intentions of the 15th December proposals. [Interruption.] There is a basic inconsistency here. The right hon. Member for Blackburn may laugh, but if the Government can justify the figure of 1,000 beds and this proportion coming out of the four Thames regions only by reference to facilities in the private sector that do not yet exist, there is an inherent inconsistency in the document.
      It is up to Parliament to expose that and to put it right. The right way to do
      520
      it is to reduce the figure of 1,000, so that actual reductions in pay beds—if we have to accept this wretched Bill—bear at least some relationship to the criteria set out. The reductions do not. My hon. Friends have demonstrated that categorically.
      However, we must press on. We do not want to waste time between now and 9.30 p.m. spending a quarter of an hour, or whatever it is, traipsing through the Division Lobby. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton should withdraw his amendment but that it should be allowed to be negatived so that we may press on.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mrs. Knight: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'one thousand' and insert 'nine hundred and forty-six'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:

      No. 73, in Schedule 2, page 30, line 42, column 3, leave out '20' and insert '10'.

      No. 92, in page 31, line 35, column 3, leave out '8' and insert 'Nil'.

      No. 94, in page 31, line 43, column 3, leave out '13' and insert'9'.

      No. 95, in page 31, line 44, column 3, leave out '14' and insert '7'.

      No. 96, in page 31, line 46, column 3, leave out '5' and insert '1'.

      No. 97, in page 31, line 47, column 3, leave out '28' and insert '16'.

      No. 98, in page 31, line 48, column 3, leave out '3' and insert 'Nil'.

      No. 99, in page 31, line 50, column 3, leave out '2' and insert 'Nil'.

      No. 100, in page 32, line 7, column 3, leave out '7' and insert '3'.

      Mrs. Knight: These amendments deal with Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell. I may not be the only Member who is struck forcibly by a feeling of déjà vu this evening, as we spent a considerable time in Committee putting forward very lucid and clearly argued objections to the figures in the schedule. We did not at that time carry the argument. However,

      521
      looking back at what was said in Committee, the interesting point is that one is most impressed with the air of sweet reasonableness that the Minister of State gathered unto himself on this matter. Of course he would listen and consider. It all sounds absolutely marvellous. However, he was torpedoed in his efforts to spread sweet reasonableness by certain of his hon. Friends.
      8.0 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) made it clear in the middle of the debate that he felt that sick people who had the temerity to wish to be private patients were undeserving cases. That was a shocking thing because, to my hon. Friends and myself, sick people are sick people and need to be cared for and not turned away simply because they wish to have their treatment privately.
      I draw the attention of the House to one or two quotations from the Committee proceedings to underline the sweet reason which a moment ago I said emanated from the Minister of State. With regard to the first of the areas dealt with in the amendment, Peterborough, I made the case then for deleting 10 beds instead of 20 from the Cambridge area, and I was strongly supported then, as I have been today, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).
      My right hon. Friend said in Committee:
      "The Minister of State has a serious question to answer here, because the area administrator has raised issues which show that Cambridgeshire is being unduly penalised."
      A few columns later the Minister of State said:
      "I come back to Cambridgeshire. I shall gladly look at the problem, but I do so without any commitment."
      We see today that the figure for Cambridgeshire is the same as it was in Committee.
      I made the case for Buckinghamshire, and I must have made it reasonably well because the Minister of State said:
      "I come now to the Buckinghamshire area health authority…we accepted in the discussions we had that the availability was to some extent uncertain."
      With those thrilling words in my mind I turned to look at what had happened
      522
      about beds in Buckinghamshire and I found that the number was the same as when the argument was advanced in Committee.
      The next area is Warwickshire. The Minister of State said:
      "We recognise that alternative facilities in the private sector are not believed to be reasonably available. The informal exchange of information with the IHG confirms this view."
      That was wonderful. We had made a point, we had won an argument, and so we turned eagerly, with shaking fingers, to see the new statement about this authority, and we found that the figure was exactly the same as before.
      I now come to Coventry, which is one of the other authorities mentioned. The Minister of State said:
      "I agree with the hon. Lady that alternative facilities in the private sector are not believed to be reasonably available. The informal exchange of information with the IHG confirms this view.…"
      Those are almost the same words as the Minister used about Warwickshire and, alas, with the same result—no change.
      A little later, when dealing with Sand-well, the Minister said:
      "Again, I accept that alternative facilities in the private sector are not believed to be generally available."
      Again one presumes that the case for a change was made but, alas, with the same result—no change.
      I spoke at some length in Committee about my own city of Birmingham and pointed out that there was a difficulty. We were not discussing what kind of beds would have to be disposed of. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has an unhappy habit of coming into the Chamber, making an intervention speech and then disappearing for the rest of the debate. He felt that just over 100 beds—the figure is 101—represented far too many. Birmingham is a city of more than 1 million people, and it is not only the city that has to be catered for by the hospitals there. The Birmingham hospitals deal with a wide catchment area.
      The children's hospital in Birmingham is the second largest in the United Kingdom. It draws children from Northamptonshire in the east, to the Welsh border

      523
      in the west. It has an enormous catchment area. There are to be only 101 private beds in the whole area.
      I spoke in Committee about special needs. I said that the question of obstetric and gynaecological facilities was important for Birmingham because there are no facilities for private maternity work anywhere within the city. I was told that matter would be dealt with, and the Minister of State said:
      "Birmingham is a more complex area…
      I shall consider carefully what she"
      the Minister was referring to me—
      "said."
      The Minister went on to say:
      "if we adopt considerations of this sort in the light of consultations about the assumed lack of reasonable alternative facilities available and any initial over-estimation which we may have made, and we respond to pressure in places such as Birmingham, it is very difficult for us then also to take on board the arguments used by the Opposition in earlier debates."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 29th July 1976, c. 1438–47.]
      In other words, we are again hoist with the petard of the 1,000 beds, and the Minister of State was saying "No matter how good the case, no matter how valid the points put forward, they do not matter two hoots because we have decided on 1,000 beds and we shall not alter that figure".
      I do not think the House will be surprised to learn that although the Minister of State took on board some of the points that I made about Birmingham, the situation with regard to that city is the same now as it was at the time we were meeting in Committee. The same number of beds will be withdrawn although the case has been made over and over again that what is proposed is not enough for a city of this size and which has such a large catchment area.
      The arguments were made for Shropshire and, as I have said, Sandwell, and in each case one felt that the Minister of State was listening, but in each case nothing has happened.
      Earlier today the Secretary of State spoke about the consultation that has gone on since the Committee stage. Let me tell the House what consultation there has been in the Birmingham area. I imagine that similar consultation has gone on with other parts of the country.
      524
      A letter went out from the Elephant and Castle to the administrator of regional and area health authorities on the question of the withdrawal of pay beds in their areas. One must bear in mind that those concerned were well aware of the case that had been made in Committee for the retention of pay beds. There is one doom-laden paragraph in the letter. It said:
      "Only in the most exceptional circumstances would variations above or below the total of 1,000 beds be considered."
      In other words, this flimsy pretence of consultation amounts to a letter in that form. It is no wonder that the health authorities are dispirited and feel that although their case was put strongly in Committee by hon. Members who had taken considerable trouble to read and learn the facts of the matter, all the arguments fell on deaf ears. It is no wonder that a certain feeling of despair has obtained and no further representations have been made. The case is a strong one, and if the Minister of State will not listen today I cannot blame people for feeling that he will not listen to anything.
      One point should be borne in mind when we talk about hospitals that have been endowed. I want to raise particularly the question of endowed beds, because many hospital beds have been donated specifically to certain hospitals for the use of private patients. When I asked in Committee about these endowed beds, the Minister of State said:
      "the advice I have is that the terms of the trust must be followed so long as that remains feasible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 29th July 1976, c. 1450.]
      In other words, it is all right to go back on the terms of a trust in certain circumstances, and the Minister went on to point out that in certain circumstances that had already been done.
      An interesting dichotomy arises here. In the days when we were arguing the matter of museum charges I recall Labour Members making fervent and passionate arguments that it was impossible to remove a museum bequest or a collection of pictures which had been endowed so that people could enjoy them for free. I think that that argument had some strength then—
      Mr. Moyle: Hon. Members opposite did not accept it then.
      Mrs. Knight: We did accept it then, and if it had strength then, it is valid now.
      Hon. Members must surely take the point that if a bed is endowed for a certain purpose it is nothing but daylight robbery to steal that bed for another purpose. I have not yet been satisfied on the legal side of this matter and I am concerned about the legalised robbery which is apparently going on. I would bet that many people who endowed beds in the belief that their wishes would be respected will now wish that they had not made those endowments.
      I do not want to prolong this debate. We have already made a strong case against the proposals in the Bill. We always come up against this 1,000 beds nonsense. However good our arguments, they cannot be carried out because the 1,000 beds pledge is in the Bill. I ask the Government to listen once again to the voice of reason of people who know what they are talking about, who have urged the Government not to carry out the proposals with regard to the areas at present in Schedule 1.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 10, which will replace the figure 1,000 with the figure 946. I hope that two of the 54 beds which will be restored are the two which are due to be withdrawn from the Isle of Wight. I have to put it that way because my amendment has not been called.
      In a debate on the health service about 12 months ago, I was able to address my remarks direct to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who listened to me. At that time the proposal was to withdraw four of our pay beds on the Isle of Wight. Whether due to my advocacy or not—I cannot believe that it was—two have been restored. As I said then, we in the Isle of Wight are in a unique situation. There is no private hospital provision there, so our consultants—we are lucky to have excellent consultants—are now thinking hard about whether they can continue to live and practise there.
      Certainly we are worried about the future. A number of consultants are approaching retirement age. We believe that we shall have great difficulty in re-
      526
      placing some of those consultants if there is not sufficient incentive for them in the way of private practice, which means sufficient beds for them to make a living.
      Already, our consultant gynaecologist, a man of great repute, has left us to go to Newfoundland. We hope that he will come back—he has gone on a two-year contract—but I suspect that he will decide to remain.
      I have never occupied a bed in a private ward, and I subscribe to no private hospital schemes, but I defend the right of an individual to go into a private ward if he wishes. Our situation is different from that of our immediate neighbours. If consultants cannot practise where there are sufficient private beds for the patients who want them, the Government are putting at risk the whole service on the Isle of Wight, and this view is supported by the whole Isle of Wight medical profession. It is likely that we shall not get the quality of consultant in future that we have been fortunate enough to have in the past.
      I therefore ask the Minister seriously to take on board my plea that even if the amendment is not carried, at least before the Bill goes to another place further consideration will be given to our situation. I hope that the two beds which are to be withdrawn will be restored and that therefore no change will be made on the Isle of Wight.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before the Minister of State replies, I should like to draw one matter to his attention so that he can consult and deal with it. It refers to the Cambridgeshire AHA. He will know that in Committee I raised at some length with his predecessor strong points which had been put to the Department by the area administrator, of which copies had been supplied to Members of Parliament covered by the AHA, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym).
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, the Minister of State made considerable reference to this matter in his reply col. 1443–4 of the bound volume of Hansard—on 29th July. Since then, we know from the Bill that there has been absolutely no change. There have been

      527
      no Government amendments to take account of the strong points which were made about why the number of beds to be phased out in that AHA was considerably in excess of what it should have been.
      But there has been a further difficulty. I should like to quote from a letter from Dr. Robinson, Chairman of the Consultant Staff Council of Addenbrooke's Hospital, writing to my right hon. Friend. He referred to the letter of 18th June which the Cambridgeshire AHA had sent to my right hon. Friend, enclosing a copy of the letter from the authority to Mr. Illingworth of the DHSS:
      "That letter contained the Area Health Authority's view on the above subject, formulated after consultation with local interested parties, including Consultants at local hospitals. Although receipt of this letter was acknowledged no further communication was received, despite the fact that the letter required a reply.
      Further enquiry by an official of our Area Health Authority would indicate that our letter was 'mislaid', presumably a departmental euphemism for 'lost'.
      This matter has given rise to considerable anxiety and anger amongst our medical colleagues and hence our enclosed letter to the Secretary of State. You will see that we ask from him an assurance that our position is in no way jeopardised by the possible failure of our views to be appropriately presented.
      We write to you in the hope that should this assurance not be forthcoming you may be willing to personally lend your support."
      My right hon. Friend has passed me the letter—I expect that the Minister has it—dated 22nd September, addressed to the Secretary of State and signed by Mr. Wilkey, the Chairman of the Cambridge Health District Medical Executive Committee, and by Dr. Robinson.
      That letter expressed considerable anger at the fact that, although they were invited to put these representations to the Department, in fact all that happened is that after the Minister of State's predecessor had read it—he actually referred to it in his reply—the letter was apparently mislaid. We know that no account was taken of it because no changes have been made.
      This brings me back to the whole question of consultation. I use this amendment as a peg on which to hang this point. It arises directly in the case of the Cambridgeshire Area Health Authority. The letter of 28th May sent
      528
      by Norman Illingworth of the Department, addressed to RHAs and AHAs and the boards of governors, referred to the obligation in the Goodman document to hold consultations:
      "at the level of the individual hospital."
      The Government owe it to all those doctors, administrators and members of AHAs and district medical teams who have submitted views in response to this letter to let them know exactly how the Department conducted these consultations at the level of the individual hospitals.
      I understand that in the debate on Amendment No. 7 my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) asked what the Government had done to honour their undertaking to consult down to the level of the individual hospital. I understand, too, that there was no answer. We must be told. Time and again Ministers, in the House and in Committee, have refused to make any concession to the views put forward by those representing the medical profession or certain areas or districts. They have said that they could not depart from Goodman because it was holy writ and they were bound by it. Yesterday and today we heard that this was a contract by which everyone was bound. But part of that contract was that consultations should be conducted down to the level of the individual hospital.
      Before we part with this group of amendments the Minister of State must come clean and tell the House and those outside how this consultation was carried out. He might also say what happened to the letter of 18th June after the previous Minister of State had read it. He referred to it in his reply. Why has it been lost? What account was taken of the views put forward in it? If any account was taken of them, why has there been no change in the number of beds to be phased out in the Cambridgeshire district?
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) raised what seemed to be a strong point. The Isle of Wight is a place where there are no alternative facilities. On the basis of Clause 3 there ought to be no beds phased out because there is nowhere else to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston ranged across a number of issues covered by these amendments.

      529
      We feel that the Government have treated this matter in an exceedingly shabby way. They have made no attempt to justify the figures in the schedule. In some cases they are the same as but in some cases they are different from those attached to the original DHSS letter circulated in February. Often they bear no relation to any figures put out by the Independent Hospitals Group. They appear to have been plucked out of the air.
      All of this is done against the background of the self-imposed straitjacket of the figure of 1.000 beds. Again and again we return to the point that the figure of 1,000 is totally inconsistent with the criteria appearing in the Goodman document. Of course the figure was plucked from the air. It was made without any reference to the adequate provision of alternative facilities or to the real usage of pay beds as opposed to the bogus figures which are constantly quoted.
      When we examine the position, hospital by hospital, district by district, area by area, we see that there is no way in which one can produce a result that is consistent both with the criteria of Clause 3 and the figure of 1,000 beds. The Government must think again about this. They must go back and be bold enough to tell their hon. Friends below the Gangway that the figure of 1,000 beds cannot stand.
      They will get a rocket from the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), I have no doubt. As always, he will trot out the old "Iron Curtain" arguments about why this ought to be done tomorrow. But Ministers have to stand up to that. It is no good the Minister of State shaking his head. Ministers must stand up to that and produce a result that is meaningful in health terms. In health terms, as spelled out in the criteria, a figure of 1,000 beds is palpably several hundred too high.
      It is time that the Government recognised this. We much prefer that this should not be left to the Government at all but handed to the Health Services Board. We shall come to that later if we have time. The Government must tell us how the consultation was carried out and what account was taken of it and how they will square this circle of criteria related to usage and availability of private
      530
      accommodation with the figure of 1,000 beds. I do not believe that they can. They will have to think again.
      Mr. Moyle: I have listened to the debate carefully and I am afraid that it seems that the major contours of the ground over which we have to travel are well known to all of those who have interested themselves in this issue. It is some of the topographical detail only that has to be filled in.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) that I foresee no possibility of dissension between him and myself on this schedule and Clause 3. To that extent I can give no encouragement to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). He knows that the figure of 1,000 beds is one of the major contours to which I have referred and which will not be shifted. If there were any prospect of its being shifted, I believe, as the Secretary of State has said, that it could easily be shifted in the direction of a greater rather than a lesser number. We stand by the total.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggested that if any alteration were made in the reductions in these regions which we are considering two of the beds might go in the direction of the Isle of Wight. If any movement were made—and none is to be made—the benefits of such a movement would go to East Anglia, the West Midlands or Oxford, which are the regions we are discussing this evening.
      The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford raised the question of the Cambridgeshire area which had made representations during the course of the Bill. I accept that the people of the Cambridgeshire area feel that they have been hardly done by. I suspect that a good deal of their resentment arises from the fact that they thought that their letter of 18th June had gone astray.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: "Mislaid."
      Mr. Moyle: That is what they were told by someone lower down the line. I have here a letter from my right hon. Friend which says:
      "I can assure you that the letter of 18th June setting out the Cambridgeshire Area Health Authority's views on the content of Schedule 2 of the Bill was not only received in the Department but that the Authority's

      531
      representations were personally considered by Ministers."
      The letter and the representations were fully considered. We are accepting a target occupancy rate of beds in that area of 73 per cent., based on the 1972–73 figures, whereas the occupancy rate proposed in Committee was 57 per cent., which is a great deal below. We have come to the conclusion that there are alternative facilities in the Cambridge area. The Independent Hospitals Group proposed a reduction in pay beds in the area by one more than the Government propose in the schedule. To that extent we have improved on the IHG's view of the situation.
      There was a great deal of argument as to the ways in which certain specialties should be dealt with. They can be dealt with when we come to deal with Clause 8, and Professor Calne and other consultants can use the National Health Service facilities under that clause for specialties and can put the fees into the research funds of the area. For all those reasons my right hon. Friend sees no reason to change the situation in Cambridgeshire.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked about the details of consultation. A letter was sent out by the Department on 6th May to all regional and area authorities and to boards of governors setting out the details of what was proposed and asking for comments. It also asked whether they would ensure that consultation should be taken to the level of local professional committees, staff bodies and community health councils. From that exercise we derived our original proposals and we have gone back to re-check. Up to 30th September we allowed a further round of submissions to be made. Therefore, it was only 12 days ago that we finally closed representations. That has been the consultation procedure.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Could the Minister explain how his last comment ties in with the comment he made three or four minutes ago that there would be no alteration in numbers? First he said that there would be no alteration in the numbers, and he then appeared to want to alter the numbers. What is he
      532
      doing? Does he indeed know what he is doing?
      Mr. Moyle: If the hon. Lady is as dim as she appears to be, she will not have appreciated that when I spoke of no alteration I was talking of a figure of 1,000 beds. There is no alteration in that. Within that figure of 1,000 beds we have done our best to ensure that we have deployed the figure in the best interests of the NHS as we see the situation. If people have made a sufficiently convincing case there would be room for us to alter the figure within the 1,000 beds and to redeploy it. There is no doubt that we are committed to 1,000 beds in the Goodman proposals, and I see no point in disguising that fact.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: From what the Minister said, it looks as though the exercise involving the canvassing of representations up to 30th September was a waste of time. He is completely ignoring the appeal I made to him on behalf of a particular part of this country which will certainly suffer from the proposals set out in the Bill.
      Mr. Moyle: I have attempted to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I should be out of order if I dealt with this point. The hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to have an indulgent occupant of the Chair who has allowed him to make that point. I think that the hon. Gentleman should rest content with the situation as it is. I do not seek to criticise the Chair, and no doubt I would have adopted the same course had I been in that office. If the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who has not graced these debates with any great degree of assiduity, stays for the next group of amendments, he will get an idea of what I have in mind.
      I turn to the detailed amendments. Amendment No. 10 is a paving amendment to other amendments. Broadly speaking, in respect of these three regions we believe that what we propose is as right as we can manage. The number of pay beds to be reduced in the three regions are 30 in East Anglia, 31 in Oxford, and 90 in the West Midlands. They have altogether 15 per cent. of the total number of pay beds in England and their share of the 1,000 reductions in Schedule 2 is also 15 per cent.

      533
      Every amendment put forward by the Opposition seeks to introduce a lower level of reduction even than that proposed by the Independent Hospitals Group as a fair distribution of the 1,000 beds. For example, in the 18 areas covered by the three regions the IHG suggested reductions greater than those in Schedule 2 in nine instances, in six instances it agreed with the Government's proposals, and in only three areas did the IHG suggest a smaller reduction than we are proposing in Schedule 2. In each instance the difference was only one bed.
      Therefore, the outcome of the exercise is probably about as good as can be achieved in the circumstances. I do not think there could be any better illustration that the figures we have achieved result in a proper and careful balance of the two criteria which must be taken into account.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) raised a technical point about endowed beds. The position is not quite as black and white as she seemed to think. Certainly endowed beds vested in the health service in 1946 involve trusteeships which, I understand, were transferred to the Ministry of Health free of any trust existing before that date. Although the Secretary of State retains the duty to try to carry out the objects of the trust where that is possible in any new circumstances, there is, I understand, no legal obligation on the Secretary of State to do so. Therefore in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves that group of beds can be phased out without breaking any legal trust.
      Mrs. Knight: Was it not the case that those endowed beds were permitted to be taken into what became health service hospitals because private patients were using them in those hospitals on vesting day? When they were first endowed they were in a hospital which was not owned by the State but which became a National Health Service hospital. Surely they moved into a new category after the legislation was enacted since they were still being used for private patients under that arrangement. Does the Minister of State agree that it seems that there will be a change in that whereas they were being used for the purpose for which they had been endowed, after the passage of this Bill they will not be.
      Mr. Moyle: I do not wish to set myself up as an expert on the law of trusts The key to the position is whether they were vested in the Secretary of State when the health service legislation was passed in 1946. If they were, although there was an obligation on the Secretary of State to try to apply them for the purposes for which they were endowed, whatever those purposes might be, as I understand it there was no obligation on him to do more. Therefore it is likely that those endowed beds could be phased out of those NHS hospitals.
      There is a second group of beds which were endowments specifically given on trust to the NHS authorities to provide private patient facilities. They were made since 5th July 1948, which was the vesting date for the National Health Service. The position here is different since the original trusts remain operative. What would happen in the case of an individual endowment of this kind after the separation of private facilities from NHS hospitals would depend on the legal construction of the terms of the trust. In that case I cannot take any further the position of beds endowed since the health service came into operation.
      Amendment negatived.
      Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 2 leave out 'one thousand' and insert 'nine hundred and sixty-seven'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are also to take Government Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 and the following amendments:

      No. 101, in Schedule 2, page 32, line 8. column 3 leave out '13' and insert '5'.

      No. 103, in page 32, line 12, column 3 leave out '7' and insert '4'.

      No. 105, in page 32, line 13, column 3 leave out '20' and insert '10'.

      No. 106, in page 32, line 16, column 3 leave out '28' and insert '20'.

      No. 107, in page 32, line 17, column 3 leave out '1' and insert 'Nil'.

      We are also to take Government Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 116.
      Dr. Vaughan: I was interested in the Minister of State's remark just now about this group of amendments. I took it to

      535
      mean that he would be coming forward to tell us that there have been some changes as a result of the consultations. So far remarks by both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have not led us to believe that these consultations have produced any results at all. They appear to have been a farce and based purely on one questionaire to the various authorities.
      The figures in Amendment No. 11 refer to the Wolverhampton health area. They are precise because they are based on factual information given to us by the staff in the Wolverhampton area. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) asked earlier why our suggested figures are so precise. I point out to him that the distribution of the 1.000 beds is based on a model developed in the Department, whereas our figures are based on information given to us from the areas concerned.
      I am pleased to refer particularly to the Wolverhampton area because it well demonstrates the problem I raised in debate on Clause 3. It is a difficult matter. Many complicated local issues have to be looked at. I have said that it is not a party point, that we believe that the right hon. Gentleman in the circumstances would be wiser to take the whole of these provisions out of the Bill and hand the matter over to the independent board for consideration.
      I shall not refer to all the hospitals in the area, but only to some where major anxieties lie. At Chester, for instance, there are 70 private beds spread over 11 hospitals. In Committee, I pointed out that the figure we have for that area is 72 as against the figure of 70 in the Bill. On 29th July I asked what was the correct number, because, quite clearly, to the consultants and hospital staffs locally there is an important difference in an area of this size, between 70 and 72.
      It does not build confidence in the Department that there should be doubt about what the actual number of beds is. But—and this is important—it is only in Chester itself, where there are 23 of these beds, that private alternatives exist. We asked in Committee—and again there has been no answer—whether the 13 beds scheduled to go would come from the area outside Chester, which would cause
      536
      considerable hardship, or whether they would all come from Chester. It would be easier in Chester because there are alternative facilities in that area, although even so there would be great problems which would affect the care of patients, because there are travelling problems in Chester.
      We have discussed at intervals the damage that we believe these proposals will do to the care of patients. We have discussed the fact that patients in an NHS hospital who are looked after by a part-time consultant who will in future have to travel considerable distances to see his private patients will be put at needless risk. This is because, however urgently the consultant may wish to go back to them, he cannot simply drop other patients and then travel perhaps a considerable distance through traffic and give service to NHS patients. The reverse is true, of course. In such circumstances he could not simply drop NHS persons and travel perhaps considerable distances through traffic to give service to private patients. We have pointed out that there are great advantages from the point of view of the quality of care of patients, particularly in emergencies and post-operative complications, in having geographical whole-time consultants who spend the whole or most of their time in one place, even though in that one place they may be seeing both NHS and private patients.
      Again, it is not simply a matter of the care of patients. Many peripheral activities of importance will go in many areas if travelling time has to be found to carry the present clinical load. I make no excuse for referring to a letter which is typical of many we have had. I referred to it in Committee. It is from a consultant who sets out in detail the restrictions he has already had to make in order to find travelling time because some of the beds have been closed down.
      For example, he has had to stop giving weekly lectures to nurses between 8.15 and 9.0 a.m.—an important matter to those nurses. He has had to stop giving lunch-time tutorials to his house officers.
      At a time when many junior staff are coming from overseas, this kind of help is absolutely invaluable to the junior staff concerned. He has had to stop attending

      537
      and contributing to post-graduate clinical meetings held weekly at 5 o'clock. He has had to resign from the membership and chairmanship of one committee which is held between 5 and 7 o'clock. He writes:
      "I very infrequently attend my own departmental meeting previously held monthly between 5 and 7 p.m. but now far less often."
      He also says:
      "I have stopped a weekly teatime tutorial for medical students attending my hospital from medical schools in London."
      He concludes:
      "I would point out that, apart from the nurses' lectures for which I was paid, the remainder were carried out willingly and with goodwill outside normal working time and without any financial remuneration."
      It is this kind of additional devoted service, on which a great deal has been built in the past, that will be damaged and destroyed in many parts of the country as a result of the provisions in the Bill. I do not think that these aspects have been looked into fully.
      8.45 p.m.
      We have had as yet no answer at all to where the beds in the Chester area are expected to come from. Also in this area there are the proposals for the Wirral. Here there is to be a loss of seven out of 35 private beds. We know a good deal about the Wirral area. We spent a considerable time in trying to find out the staffing figures on which the Minister had based the statement on staffing that he made in the House. It was from places such as the Wirral that we found out that the figures he talked about were a model and bore no relation at all to the actual circumstances existing in the local areas.
      In the Wirral there is very strong local feeling that to close down seven beds will be very damaging to the care of patients. We are dealing with very small numbers here. It is felt that four would be the sensible figure to aim at. This is an area in which there is a high demand for private care, and there are no alternative facilities within a reasonable distance.
      Ironically, it is in this area that there is a special requirement that consultants should live within a short distance of the hospital. Apparently when it comes to caring for a National Health Service sick patient, the consultant must be readily available, but when it is a matter of
      538
      caring for a different kind of sick patient, the nearness of the consultant is nothing like as important. This causes a great deal of damage to morale in a local area.
      Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that during the General Election campaign of 1974, when the Labour Party's programme was clearly laid down, informing the nation that the election partly related to dealing with pay beds on the basis of queue jumping—the Labour Party had a policy before the nation to prevent queue jumping in the National Health Service—not one person, medical, nursing or otherwise, came forward with any alternative scheme?
      Dr. Vaughan: This point was brought up in Committee. The fact is that we have had very anxious representations made to us right across the country from many people who, I should have thought, were unlikely to vote for us. The hon. Gentleman can hardly speak for the whole country when only a third of the voters in the country could possibly have supported the Labour Party manifesto.
      But, even more important, does the hon. Gentleman think it likely that someone would write to him making representations knowing that his mind was closed beforehand? This is the problem. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made the point that no one had written to her. What a farce it would have been if anyone had done so, remembering that the right hon. Lady is on record as saying that she has no intention of changing her views.
      This question of the care of patients is a very serious matter and, as we look from area to area, we find anomalies, problems and anxieties. In the Lancashire area, there are 92 beds spread over 19 hospitals, and 20 of those beds are due to be closed. The local view is that 10 could be closed without damage to the service, but that closing any more would produce great problems locally. In fact, the only part of the area where there are adequate alternative facilities is in the Blackburn area, which is rather ironic. I keep coming back to this fundamental issue. Part of the Goodman proposals was that there should be adequate alternative provision, and that is not the case in a great many parts of the country.

      539
      In Manchester, there are 138 beds, and it is proposed that it should lose 28 of them. At first sight, that may seem rather generous, but in fact in the Manchester area there is only one private unit as an alternative. It is at St. Joseph's Hospital, where there are 140 beds in the unit. That sounds a lot, but 36 beds are set on one side for geriatric cases and the chronically sick, so that there are only 99 beds available for acute medical and surgical problems.
      Even there, however, there are problems about the facilities for staffing, with the result that at St. Joseph's it has been found necessary to limit the number of doctors who can work in a hospital. There will be no room there to take in doctors from outside. What is more, St. Joseph's Hospital covers not only the Manchester area but a very wide area outside, and it is already unsatisfactory for that reason.
      I cannot see how further calls can be made on St. Joseph's Hospital. In fact, the local view is that the closure of pay beds in the area will affect not only the acute medical private patients but will also have an effect on the geriatric and chronically sick in other kinds of beds in the area. So, like a stone dropped into a pool, when we start to look into this, the ripples spread and we find more and more complications which have not been thought through properly.
      As I say, I could go on to other hospital areas within this Wolverhampton health area, and I am perfectly prepared to do so. However, I think that I have touched on where the main anxieties lie. I say yet again to the Minister "Please be straight and open about this. Look at what you are doing. Have some proper consultations." If the right hon. Gentleman does that and does not come back with the feeling that he has got the wrong mix for the spread of his 1,000 beds, I shall be very surprised.
      Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) described my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) as having a closed mind, and he described how people have tried to reach her with various ideas only to find her failing to listen. The whole debate indicates that Conservative Mem-
      540
      bers also have closed minds and they also fail to listen to the ideas that are put to them. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Reading, South is doing a very good job in protecting what he considers to be the interests of his profession and, in his way, possibly the interests of the people concerned in this subject. I do not quarrel with that.
      However, I find it very difficult to follow some of the arguments put by the Opposition. For example, yesterday there was a good contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) who had had personal experience of being a National Health Service patient. He spoke with some delight about the service that he had received and one could only applaud his response. We hear at the same time that what is involved is the right to choose, freedom of choice. It is fairly clear that that hon. and learned Member, on the basis of his experience, would choose to be a National Health Service patient. That is very good.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) indicated that it was clearly better to be a National Health Service patient, because one got better consideration within the service. I wonder what this talk about choice is. If we are sick we want to be made well again. The criterion of payment to be made well seems to me almost obscene. Yet Opposition Members, in spite of their delight about what is offered to them in the National Health Service, continue to prate about private medicine.
      The hon. Member for Reading, South said that we were talking now only about small numbers. Because of the need to make progress I shall only ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that there is nothing wrong with my arithmetic but something wrong with Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. It suggests that Amendment No. 109 is a Government amendment. I do not think that it is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Amendment No. 108 is."] That is so. I have added Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 118 together to make an alteration of three beds, which is covered by Government Amendment No. 116. Therefore, the number remains the same. However, if Amendment No. 109 is a Government amendment, we have lost two. I

      541
      hope that my hon. Friend will assure me that we shall not lose two beds at this late stage.
      Mrs. Chalker: This group of amendments refers to an area which in one sense is not unlike the Isle of Wight. The peninsula of Wirral is surrounded on three sides by water, and communications through the tunnels to Liverpool sometimes take longer than in many other areas of the country where transportation is also difficult.
      Within the Wirral there is a special hospital which carries out radiology treatment for many women who are suffering from increasing cancer. These women come from all over the Mersey hospital region and not solely from the Wirral or the connected land up from Cheshire.
      Amendment No. 103, which seeks to reduce from seven to four the number of private beds which will be taken out of the Wirral, is very important in this respect. The Minister will not he unaware of the increasing incidence of cancer among women in middle age. This can be retarded by radiology treatment. Therefore, it is essential that the facilities which are offered within the Wirral to the whole region are easily accessible to the patients and that they shall get the best care. It is also the sort of illness which is highly embarrassing to large numbers of women and there are not enough amenity beds to give them the privacy they need.
      9.0 p.m.
      It was with considerable regret that I saw no movement on the part of the Department on this issue. It does not intend to look at the very real problems which this one speciality—and I could mention many others—will face as the number of private beds is reduced still further in this particular area.
      There is the difficulty of locality and proximity. We ask, because of the difficult locations, that specialists should live in the areas. This is an increasing problem which is being exacerbated by the action of this Government. This is one of the major hospitals in our region and people who need treatment come from a wide area to use its facilities. This matter is a disgrace.
      Mr. Moyle: Only one major point which has not been considered before in
      542
      earlier debates has emerged from this discussion and that was the suggestion by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) that the whole of the phasing out of pay beds, including the first tranche of 1,000, should be referred to the Health Services Board.
      In fact, as the law stands, the Secretary of State already has full powers to phase out any number of private beds at the moment. This exercise of phasing out 1,000 beds is an exercise in principle which has taken place before. There is nothing new in this. It is a matter of concession on the part of the Secretary of State that he has set up the Health Services Board to supervise the phasing out of the remainder of private beds. To that extent he is making a substantial curtailment of his normal powers by bringing this Bill to the House at all.
      The hon. Member for Reading, South raised detailed points about the Cheshire area and he asked how many pay beds existed in this area health authority. The area health authority has told us that the existing number of beds is 68, but my departmental officials have carried out their own researches and have come to the conclusion that the number of private pay beds is, in fact, 70 as set out in Schedule 2. We have submitted evidence of our conclusions to the AHA which is free to comment on them if it wishes. Distribution of reductions in the authority's area is a matter for it. My right hon. Friend has said that he is prepared to consider granting group authorisation if any particular AHA asks for it.
      I will vary the theme which has come from this side of the House in commenting on recent groups of amendments by saying that my right hon. Friend accepts Amendment No. 108 in respect of the Tameside Health Authority. He has looked at the case it has submitted. In his view it is not a clear-cut case by any means, but he thinks that possibly the application of the criteria in the formula is a little too harsh in this particular area. I know that Conservatives do not necessarily accept the validity of that formula but it is the one on which we are working, and we are satisfied that it is the best available. Therefore, Amendment No. 108 will be accepted.

      543
      The Government have moved some other amendments resulting from the review which was concluded on 30th September. I would not like the House to think that there is much earth movement involved here, but it does mean that we have decided to readjust as a result of the review.
      We have checked and rechecked our calculations and looked carefully at the discrepancies pointed out by health authorities. We have particularly studied the cases drawn to our attention in Committee to make sure that there have been no mistakes. We have found only four instances in which we think we could propose modifications. Those modifications are on the Amendment Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend.
      The South Tyneside Area Health Authority—Amendment No. 114—has only six pay beds. The Bill proposes a reduction of four. That would require an occupancy rate of 85 per cent. to be achieved. We think that this is probably unrealistic, particularly as there are no alternative facilities. If the reduction in beds is only three, then percentage occupancy drops to 56 per cent., but this lower rate would be more in keeping with the general approach in the Northern region as a whole. For example, the neighbouring area of North Tyneside has a target occupancy of only 47 per cent. A reduction of three would be in line with the Independent Hospital Group's suggestions.
      In Amendment No. 115 we turn to the Barnsley Area Medical Advisory Committee's contentions that there are no alternative facilities within 15 miles of Barnsley. There is some justification, therefore, in its complaint that the proposed reduction is too harsh. Schedule 2 proposes a reduction of three beds—from five to two. The Independent Hospital Group thinks that a reduction of one would be fairer, and the Opposition supported that suggestion in Committee. Because of the small number of existing beds, small variations in numbers, as will be readily appreciated, produce disproportionate changes in target occupancy rates. Because of the lack of alternative facilities, the area should be rated as about 70 per cent. occupancy. However, the Schedule 2 reduction of three beds would require an occupancy of 85 per
      544
      cent. Alternatively, a reduction of two beds would set a target of only 56 per cent. Clearly the amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee would go too far; but, on reflection, I believe that it would be fairer to make the amendment now proposed.
      I turn now to Amendment No. 116 which deals with the preserved boards. We originally proposed a reduction of 47 beds from the present total of 227, but this was subsequently reduced to 30. In Committee, the Opposition brought to light an anomaly which we thought it right to consider.
      The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said:
      "Even more curious is the fact that inner London, which has a higher proportion of beds in independent facilities outside the NHS, is being treated less harshly than outer London.…I do not understand this."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 28th July 1976; c. 1407.]
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) supported that point of view. Indeed, he went on to contend that the imbalance needed restoring, although the Opposition thought that the way to solve the problem was to seek fewer reductions in the outer London areas.
      We have looked at this problem again and concluded that the Opposition were right in drawing attention to the imbalance. Our aim generally was to secure reductions which would have required remaining beds to be used at a notional occupancy rate of about 95 per cent. However, the effect of the reductions in Schedule 2 would have raised occupancy in the post-graduate teaching hospitals to only 92 per cent. The amendment which we are now proposing will increase this to 94 per cent. and will restore the balance in London and in the schedule as a whole.
      I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) that Amendment No. 109 is not a Government amendment.
      The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) referred to her district and some difficulties for women in securing appropriate treatment in certain cases of cancer. I do not know the details of the circumstances to which she referred. If she would

      545
      care to make representations on a solution to the problem or on any discrepancies or deficiencies in her area, we will do our best to ensure that the NHS provides all the facilities necessary for curing these diseases and for maintaining a first-class service for her constituents.
      Dr. Vaughan: We welcome very much what the Minister has just said. There were signs of flexibility and even an indication that a little chink of local in-information is getting through to the Department. We particularly welcome his remarks about Tameside—that cockpit of freedom. First an education victory, now a health victory.
      Tameside had been unfairly treated. It lost two of its six pay beds last year and under the present proposals was about to lose another. The district made the strong point that the occupancy rate of 50 per cent. was based on figures taken at a time when industrial action was being carried out by local technicians and laundry staff. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that the occupancy figures now being used were based on 1972–73 and not on a time when industrial action was being taken.
      We welcome what has been said about Barnsley and Tameside.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Paul Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'one thousand' and insert 'nine hundred and eighty-eight'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:

      No. 90, in Schedule 2, page 31, line 32, column 3, leave out '16' and insert '10'.

      No. 93, in page 31, line 38, column 3, leave out '6' and insert 'Nil'.

      Mr. Dean: Amendment No. 12 is a paving amendment for Nos. 90 and 93 which deal with the problem in Wiltshire and Avon. We have less than 20 minutes before the guillotine falls on a large number of undiscussed amendments. I shall be brief because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), whose amendment is next on the Order Paper, is particularly anxious to make representations about the position in Wales, especially in North Wales.
      546
      Amendment No. 90 relates to Wiltshire where the local medical committee feels there is a lack of alternative facilities in the Salisbury and Swindon districts. In the Bath district, private nursing homes have an occupancy rate of 85 per cent. The committee says, justifiably, that the criteria for phasing out have not been met because adequate alternative facilities are not available.
      The local medical committee at Swindon is concerned at the possibility of any reduction in the number of pay beds since, when the new hospital was built, medical staff were encouraged to utilise private beds and this resulted in the closure of the local private hospital. The committee also points out that the occupancy of pay beds in the National Health Service hospital is such that it is impossible to obtain a pay bed on an emergency basis.
      When we discussed this matter briefly in Committee the then Minister of State said:
      "I am not in a position to answer the specific point which the hon. Gentleman put to me about the new hospital at Swindon,"
      I hope that the Minister of State will answer that specific point tonight.
      The Salisbury Medical Advisory Committee considers that the four pay beds at the Plastics and Maxillo Facial Centre should not be included in the total of pay beds for the area because this is a regional unit and the beds are fully committed with a six-month waiting list. When we discussed this matter briefly in Committee the then Minister of State said:
      "We shall have to try to make an arrangement".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 29th July 1976, c. 1502.]
      I hope that today the Minister of State will be able to assure me that a satisfactory arrangement has been made.
      9.15 p.m.
      I turn briefly to Avon and Amendment No. 93, which proposes that there should be no reduction instead of a reduction of six. The general point is that we are dealing with a teaching area health authority with universities at Bristol and Bath, with centres of medical excellence and teaching which are known not only throughout the region but throughout the country. In that

      547
      general context two points are made by the local medical committees. They say that there are very few pay beds in Avon anyway—in fact there are only 23—and that they are used substantially for high technology medicine and regional specialities. They are used by teaching hospitals. We have had no assurance so far that this vital work will be able to continue uninterrupted if we get the proposed reductions. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give some assurance tonight.
      The next issue concerns the Weston district. The local medical committee justifiably makes the point that there should be no reduction because of an absence of alternative facilities and inadequate road communications. There is considerable concern in the area about medical facilities generally.
      Those are the particular points that I have had to describe all too briefly. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give some assurance to the two regions.
      Mr. Moyle: In spite of the way in which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) moved this group of amendments, I must say that as a result of the rounds of consultation the Government see no grounds for accepting any change in the regions to which the hon. Gentleman has addressed himself, either in Wessex, to which he addressed himself mainly, or even in the South-West, which comes within this group of regional health authorities.
      Clearly the first amendment is of a paving nature. Therefore, I turn to Amendments Nos. 90 and 93. The total reduction for the two regions is 91. That is about 23 per cent. of their existing number. The regions have 9 per cent. of the existing number of pay beds, and their share of the 1,000 reduction is also 9 per cent. It seems that overall they are making their fair contribution.
      Both the amendments would introduce a lower number of reductions than that represented to us as reasonable by the Independent Hospitals Group. For example, in the Avon area the amendment seeks to ensure that there is no withdrawal of pay beds when the private sector itself suggested a reduction of seven. I think that the Government are
      548
      exercising the benefit of the doubt towards pay beds rather than against them. Throughout these debates I believe there has been a remarkable degree of consistency between the Independent Hospital Group's list and Schedule 2 when considering the two regions.
      I propose that we reject both amendments. In the latest round of consultations the Wiltshire Area Health Authority has repeated earlier comments about the lack of alternative facilities, especially in the Swindon and Salisbury districts. Schedule 2 proposes a reduction from 57 to 41. The Independent Hospital Group is again in agreement with that reduction, although in Committee right hon. Members of the Opposition proposed a reduction of only 10 beds, similar to the reduction that they are proposing now.
      The present proposals assume a target occupancy rate for the remaining beds of 70 per cent. That was the lowest level of target occupancy generally applied in this exercise. Full account has been taken by the Government in their consultations with regard to alternative facilities, and even though there are some private facilities in Bath, as the area health authority itself has acknowledged, 28 per cent. of the existing pay beds are now in the Bath district and occupancy has fallen from 40 per cent. in 1972 to 20 per cent. in 1975.
      On balance, therefore, the Government feel that in respect of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman it is erring on the side of generosity and therefore we cannot accept the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'one thousand' and insert 'nine hundred and ninety-one'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:

      No. 110, in Schedule 2, page 32, line 28, column 3, leave out '5' and insert 'Nil'.

      No. 111, in page 32, line 31, column 3, leave out '3' and insert 'Nil'.

      No. 112, in page 32, line 34, column 3, leave out '1' and insert 'Nil'.

      Mr. Roberts: This paving amendment and the consequential amendments were ably moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West

      549
      (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). They were defeated by the Government, like so many other amendments in Committee, with the aid of the Chairman's casting vote.
      The purpose of the amendments is to reduce the number of pay beds to be done away with by nine. Nine out of 1,000 does not appear to be too many for the Government to concede, especially as the entire concession relates to Wales, which even now has only 60 pay beds in all for a population of 2·7 million.
      Amendment No. 110 relates to the Clwyd area, where there are now 22 pay beds, which the Government propose to reduce by five. Amendment No. 111 relates to my own county of Gwynedd, where there are 13 pay beds, which the Government propose to reduce by three. Amendment No. 112 relates to West Glamorgan, where there are four pay beds, which the Government propose to reduce by one. Our amendments seek to eliminate those reductions altogether and to preserve those beds, largely on the grounds that there are no alternative facilities available, as in Gwynedd, or that there are insufficient alternative facilities available as in Clwyd and West Glamorgan.
      The area health authorities concerned, consultants and members of the public feel strongly on this issue. I have received numerous letters of protest from constituents and members of the medical profession against this gratuitous deprivation, which reduces the health facilities available in these areas and makes them less attractive as areas of settlement. The Government must remember that Wales is always threatened with some cut-back or other, and that this cut-back in health facilities will be lumped with others—threatened cut-backs in transport, and so on—which all conspire to hinder our development, both social and economic.
      In Committee the Secretary of State argued that the low number of pay beds in Wales reflected the lack of public interest in them. I do not believe that that is so. I am told that about 50 per cent. of acute admissions cannot get a private bed, as they would wish to do, and that many areas have more private patients than they can cope with. The Government also argue from the low bed occupancy figures for pay beds in Wales
      550
      as compared with those in England—46 per cent. in 1972 for Wales as compared with 52 per cent. in England.
      Let us look at Gwynedd, my own county. There was a 49 per cent. bed occupancy rate last year, and that was with the 13 beds scattered throughout the area—four at the C and A Hospital, Bangor, two at St. David's, Bangor, four at Llandudno General Hospital, and one at each of three other hospitals. The Secretary of State knows only too well that bed occupancy figures are bound to be low in these circumstances where the pay beds themselves are scattered.
      The Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear to all area health authorities that he is willing to consider applications for "grouped authorisations" to give greater flexibility of use, and the Secretary of State for Social Services believes that that will ease whatever problems there may be. Would it not be wise to allow such grouping in the first place, see how it works, and then reduce the figure if a reduction is justified? That would be the proper way to go about making a reduction if a reduction is called for.
      I urge that course particularly in view of the situation that exists now, which is that half the acute admissions requiring pay beds are unable to get them. That fact seems to be far more relevant than bed occupancy statistics which, as the Secretary of State knows, are very misleading. Some of the most active hospital units have low occupancy rates because of their high turnover of patients.
      My basic argument against these reductions is that Wales is being deprived of yet another facility, one that is a valuable attraction to incoming industry and incoming settlers of all kinds as well as to the people already there.
      Mr. Moyle: One of the attractive features about the debates on this Bill is that they allow me to trespass outside my bailiwick into Wales.
      These amendments are designed to reduce the Government's proposals in respect of three health districts—Clwyd, Gwyned and West Glamorgan. The Government cannot accept the case that has been argued by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). There are at

      551
      present 60 pay beds in Wales, and the Government's proposal is that 13 of them should be withdrawn. I confirm that our information is that the average use of pay beds in Wales is generally low compared with that in England, and has been falling. I believe that the hon. Gentleman put forward figures of 46 per cent. in 1972, 44 per cent. in 1973 and 35 per cent. in 1975, which is the latest figure. By comparison, the figures for England are 52 per cent., 49 per cent. and 44 per cent., so there is a substantial discrepancy. The occupancy of the small number of pay beds in Wales is therefore much lower than the occupancy of pay beds in England but, even so, we are proposing a marginally smaller reduction in Wales than in England, to the extent that the reduction will be a little under 22 per cent. in Wales, compared with 22 per cent. for England.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that withdrawing pay beds may be a partial inducement to consultants to leave practice in Wales altogether?
      Mr. Moyle: That argument has been put in general terms throughout the debate, and it has been replied to in general terms. We do not believe that that will happen to a substantial extent.
      The same criteria have been used for a reduction in England as have been used for Wales. I do not think that the hon. Member for Conway can make a case for a particularly greater burden—if that is the right word to use—of deprivation in Wales by the removal of pay beds than will be the case in England. There are probably some hon. Members from that part of the world who would regard the situation as an improvement
      There is a problem that pay beds are spread over a fairly wide area.
      It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July, 3rd August and the Resolution yesterday] to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the said Orders and Resolution to put forthwith the Questions on the
      552
      Amendments to the Bill, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

    Clause 4

      FUNCTIONS OF BOARD AS REGARDS WITHDRAWAL OF NHS FACILITIES FROM PRIVATE PATIENTS.
      Amendment made:
      No. 28, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
      '(6) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the Board shall, as regards the revocation of authorisations under sections 2(1) of the 1968 Act, submit separate proposals under this section relating to—

      (a) accommodation and services available for the specialities other than radiotherapy mentioned in subsection (5)(b) above; and

      (b) other accommodation and services available for diagnostic purposes,

      and shall do so not later than the end of the twelve months following the initial period (or, if a period longer than the initial period is allowed under subsection (2;(a) above for the submission of the Board's first proposals under this section, the twelve months following that longer period,'—[Mr. Ennals.]

    Clause 16

      REGULATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PROVISIONS OF PART III
      Amendment made:
      No. 59, in page 19, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Ennals.]

    Clause 21

      GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS
      Amendment made:
      No. 61, in page 22, line 38, leave out '8' and insert '10'.—[Mr. Ennals.]

    Clause 23

      CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made:
      No. 62, in page 24, line 9, leave out from 'and' to the end of line 17 and insert—
      'Part II of this Act—

      (a) so far as it applies to England and Wales, shall be included among the enactments which may be cited together as the

      553
      National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1976; and

      (b) so far as it applies to Scotland, shall be included among the enactments which may be cited together as the National Health Service (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1976.'.

      No. 65, in page 24, line 22 leave out
      'or the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975'.—[Mr. Ennals.]

  Schedule 1

    THE HEALTH SERVICES BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES
    Amendments made:
    No. 70, in page 30, line 3, leave out from '1975' to 'there' in line 5 and insert
    'bodies of which all members are disqualified under that Act'.
    No. 71, in page 30, line 9, at end insert—

  'PART V

    LIABILITY OF BOARD AND WELSH COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATION BY HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS
    25. Part III of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 (the Health Service Commissioners for England and Wales) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
    26.—(1) In section 34(1) of the said Act of 1973 (definition of "relevant body"), after paragraph (j) insert—
    "(k)the Health Services Board and its Welsh Committee,".
    (2) In section 34(2) of that Act (relevant bodies in respect of which the Health Service Commissioners for England and Wales respectively are not empowered to conduct investigations) after "the Welsh Hospital Board" insert "the Welsh Committee of the Health Services Board,".
    (3) In section 37 of that Act (reports of Commissioners), after subsection (5) add—
    "(6) In the case of the Health Services Board or its Welsh Committee, the preceding provisions of this section have effect subject to paragraphs 27 and 28 of Schedule 1 to the Health Services Act 1976".
    27. Section 37 (reports by Commissioners) of the said Act of 1973 shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

    (a) in relation to an investigation conducted under the said Part III in respect of the Board or the Welsh Committee—

    (i) paragraph (d) of subsection (1) (report to be sent to Secretary of State) shall not apply, but the Commissioner who conducted the investigation may, if
    554
    he thinks fit, publish his report under that subsection; and

    (ii) subsection (3) (special reports) shall have effect with the substitution for the words from "make a special report to the Secretary of State" to the end of the subsection of the words "lay before each House of Parliament a special report";

    (b) without prejudice to paragraph 28 below, the reference in subsection (4) (annual and other reports to Secretary of State) to a Commissioner's functions under the said Part III shall not include his functions there-under in respect of the Board or the Welsh Committee;

    (c) subsection (5) (privilege) shall have effect as if the reference to subsection (4) included a reference to paragraph 28 below.

    28. Each of the Commissioners mentioned in subsection (4) of the said section 37 shall annually lay before each House of Parliament a general report on the performance of his functions under the said Part III in respect of the Board and the Welsh Committee, and may from time to time lay before each House of Parliament such other reports with respect to his said functions under that Part as he thinks fit.

  PART VI

    LIABILITY OF SCOTTISH COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATION BY HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND
    29. Part VII of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 (the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
    30.—(1) In section 45(1) of the said Act of 1972 (definition of "body subject to investigation"), after paragraph (e) add—
    "(f) the Scottish Committee of the Health Services Board."
    (2) In section 48 of that Act (reports by Commissioner), after subsection (5) add—
    "(6) In the case of the Scottish Committee of the Health Services Board, the preceding provisions of this section have effect subject to paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 1 to the Health Services Act 1976".
    31. Section 48 (reports by Commissioner of the said Act of 1972 shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

    (a) in relation to an investigation conducted under the said Part VII in respect of the Scottish Committee—

    (i) paragraph (d) of subsection (1) (report to be sent to Secretary of State) shall not apply, but the Health Commissioner for Scotland may, if he thinks fit, publish his report under that subsection; and

    (ii) subsection (3) (special report) shall have effect with the substitution for the words from "make a special report to the Secretary of State" to the end of the subsection of the words "lay before each House of Parliament a special report";

    555

    (b) without prejudice to paragraph 32 below, the references in subsection (4) (annual and other reports to Secretary of State) to the Commissioner's functions, under the said Part VII shall not include his functions there-under in respect of the Scottish Committee;

    (c) subsection (5) (privilege) shall have effect as if paragraph 32 below were contained in the said section 48.

    32. The Health Service Commissioner for Scotland shall annually lay before each House of Parliament a general report on the performance of his functions under the said Part VII in respect of the Scottish Committee, and may from time to time lay before each House of Parliament such other reports with respect to his said functions under that Part as he thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Ennals.]

  Schedule 2

    AUTHORITIES AND GROUP OF BOARDS WITHIN SECTION 3
    Amendments made:
    No. 114, in page 30, line 26, column 3, leave out '4' and insert '3'.
    No. 115, in page 30, line 39, column 3, leave out '3' and insert '2'.
    No. 108, in page 32, line 21, column 3, leave out '1' and insert 'Nil'.—[Mr. Ennals.]
    Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 32, line 25, column 3, leave out '30' and insert '33'.—[Mr. Ennals.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 193.

    Division No. 319]

    AYES

    [9.30 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Ennals, David

    Kerr, Russell

    Allaun, Frank

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Anderson, Donald

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Lambie, David

    Ashley, Jack

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Lamborn, Harry

    Ashton, Joe

    Flannery, Martin

    Lamond, James

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Atkinson, Norman

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lee, John

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Ford, Ben

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Bates, Alt

    Forrester, John

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockpon N)

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

    Litterick, Tom

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    George, Bruce

    Luard, Evan

    Boardman, H.

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Golding, John

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Bradley, Tom

    Gould, Bryan

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bray, Or Jeremy

    Gourlay, Harry

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Graham, Ted

    McElhone, Frank

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Buchan, Norman

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Buchanan, Richaru

    Grocott, Bruce

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Cant, R. B.

    Hardy, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Carter-Jones Lewis

    Harper, Joseph

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Cartwright, John

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Hatton, Frank

    Madden, Max

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Magee, Bryan

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Hooley, Frank

    Mahon, Simon

    Cohen, Stanley

    Horam, John

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Concannon, J. D.

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

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Huckfield, Les

    Mendelson, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Moonman, Eric

    Cronin, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hunter, Adam

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Davidson Arthur

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Moyle, Roland

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Janner, Greville

    Newens, Stanley

    Davis Clinton (Hackney C)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Noble, Mike

    Deakins, Eric

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Oakes, Gordon

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Ogden, Eric

    Dempsey, James

    John, Brynmor

    Orbach, Maurice

    Doig Peter

    Johnson James (Hull West)

    Ovenden, John

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Park, George

    Dutfy, A. E. P.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Parker, John

    Dunnett, Jack

    Judd, Frank

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Edge, Geoff

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Pendry, Tom

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Kelley, Richard

    Perry, Ernest

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Watkins, David

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Watkinson, John

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Stoddart, David

    Wellbeloved, James

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Stott, Roger

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Strang, Gavin

    White, James (Pollok)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Swain, Thomas

    Whitlock, William

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooker, J. W.

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Roper, John

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Ryman, John

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Tierney, Sydney

    Wilson, William( Coventry SE)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tinn, James

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Tomlinson, John

    Woodall, Alec

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Tomney, Frank

    Woof, Robert

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Torney, Tom

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Silverman, Julius

    Urwin, T. W.

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Small, William

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Mr. Donald Coleman and

    Snape, Peter

    Ward, Michael

    Mr. John Ellis.

    Spearing, Nigel

    NOES

    Alison, Michael

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Arnold, Tom

    Gray, Hamish

    Moate, Roger

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Awdry, Daniel

    Grist, Ian

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Beith, A. J.

    Grylls, Michael

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Bell, Ronald

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Morgan, Geraint

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Benyon, W.

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Biffen, John

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Mudd, David

    Blaker, Peter

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neave, Alrey

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Nelson, Anthony

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hicks, Robert

    Neubert, Michael

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Newton, Tony

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Holland, Philip

    Nott, John

    Brittan, Leon

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Onslow, Cranley

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Brotherton, Michael

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Pardoe, John

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Penhaligon, David

    Buck, Antony

    Hurd, Douglas

    Percival, Ian

    Budgen, Nick

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Bulmer, Esmond

    James, David

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Burden, F. A.

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

    Rathbone, Tim

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Channon, Paul

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Jopling, Michael

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Kilfedder, James

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Clegg, Walter

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cockcroft, John

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Cope, John

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Corrie, John

    Knox, David

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Costain, A. P.

    Lamont, Norman

    Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Lane, David

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Dunlop, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Durant, Tony

    Lloyd, Ian

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Luce, Richard

    Speed, Keith

    Eyre, Reginald

    McCrindle, Robert

    Spence, John

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Sproat, lain

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Madel, David

    Stainton, Keith

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fox, Marcus

    Marten, Nell

    Stanley, John

    Fry, Peter

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Mawby, Ray

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stokes, John

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Gorst, John

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Mills, Peter

    Tebbit, Norman

    558

    559

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wakeham, John

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margarat

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Younger, Hon George

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Wall, Patrick

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Warren, Kenneth

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Vaughan, Dr Gerald

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Mr. Carol Mather and

    Viggers, Peter

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Mr. Fred Silvester.

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Schedule 5

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED
    Amendment made: No. 113, in page 34, line 9, column 3, before 'Section 43(2)' insert—
    'In section 34(1)(i), the word "and".'.—[Mr. Ennals.]
    Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Gentleman to move the Third Reading, may I make a brief appeal to hon. Members? We have one-and-a-quarter hours of debate on Third Reading and a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I appeal to all Back Bench Members—and I am sure that my words will also be heard by those on the Front Benches—to recognise that other hon. Members wish to make contributions.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ennals: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    It is almost six months since the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill, and almost a year since my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) worked out with representatives of the medical and dental professions, through the intermediary of Lord Goodman, the principles by which we would give effect to our manifesto commitment to
    "phase out private practice from the hospital service."
    Those were the words in our February manifesto. We stand by them. What we were prepared to discuss was the mechanism for achieving our essential aim: that is what the Goodman compromise proposals were all about. They were a compromise; a middle course. And since those proposals were drawn up I have stuck firmly to the middle of the road—though I am increasingly con-
    560
    scious of the fact that the middle of the road is a place where one is liable to get hit by traffic coming both ways.
    The Government have been criticised on the one hand by those who wish to see an immediate separation of private practice and, in some cases, its complete abolition and, on the other, by those who would prefer to defend a position of privilege. We have met these criticisms from the firm and unshakeable position that, as a Government, we stand by the undertaking given last December: that if the Goodman proposals proved acceptable to the profession as a basis for legislation, we would incorporate them in statute, recognising that the profession would reserve its right to try to influence Parliament's decision on the principle of phasing out. It has sought to do that, assisted by the Opposition. That is what we said we would do. That is what we have done.
    I have constantly upheld the principles and spirit of the Goodman proposals but, as I said on Second Reading, I would not adopt an unbending attitude to amendments genuinely designed to improve the Bill. On that, too, the Government have kept their word.
    I need hardly remind the House of the very long and careful scrutiny which the Bill received in Standing Committee D during the summer. In all, the Committee met 29 times and, as a result of its labours and the further examination the House has given yesterday and today, I think we can confidently claim that the Bill has been appreciably improved.
    I suspect from his statements and hints that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has been paving his way to saying that the Bill has not had adequate attention because of the timetable motion. Had there not been a timetable motion we would not have had the opportunity we had in Committee of careful examination—we even had the final sitting left over. On Report, but for so many Second Reading speeches from Conservative Members, we should have been able to deal with far

    561
    more amendments than we have dealt with today.
    Before asking the House to give the Bill a Third Reading I should like briefly to remind hon. Members what the Bill seeks to do and—just as important—what it does not seek to do. It is not and never has been this Government's policy to abolish private medical practice. What we promised the electorate—in two General Elections—was that we would separate private practice from the National Health Service. We were convinced, and we remain convinced, that the co-existence of private practice and NHS practice in our hospitals would not be a peaceful co-existence. On the contrary, it had become a constant source of grievance, recrimination and sometimes serious industrial unrest, with action and counteraction by the medical profession and other health service employees. All this meant damage to the health service and risk to the lives and health of the patients it exists to serve. No responsible Government could allow such a situation to continue.
    Some hon. Members opposite may think the problem could be solved by ignoring it—that is the talk they often pursue. That is their favourite policy prescription. Like their defence of privilege, it is the essence of Conservatism. But we were determined to deal with this festering sore once and for all, so that we could protect the interests of patients, put an end to industrial unrest and restore the morale of the service.
    Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I have spent time in hospital recently, and what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is far from the truth. The medical profession looks after people fairly and reasonably. He is making a complete exaggeration of what is happening in hospitals.
    Mr. Ennals: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has just joined the debate. I am glad that he has recovered from his illness. I am sure that he had excellent treatment from the doctors. Several hon. Members spent some time in hospital during the Summer Recess and they all received excellent treatment, as I have done myself. I have said nothing against the treatment given in our hospitals, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his strange intervention.
    562
    None of this could be achieved unless we phased out pay beds and ended the scandal of queue jumping. But from the very start my right hon. Friend and predecessor the Member for Blackburn made it clear that it was in the interests of patients and the service that the separation should take place in a reasonable and orderly manner. In the Government's view, the Goodman proposals will do precisely that.
    First, they provide for the early elimination of the many pay beds which have been seriously under-used—1,000 beds will be phased out in the first six months. Secondly, they provide for the progressive withdrawal of the remaining beds on the recommendation of an independent board working within the principles approved by Parliament—principles which leave reasonable time for those who wish to do so to make alternative arrangements for private practice, but outside the NHS. Thirdly, the Goodman proposals—proposals which, as I said, have been embodied in this Bill—were acceptable as a basis for legislation to the majority of those who participated in the consultants' ballot, although the majority also opposed phasing out on principle.
    These points, taken together, mean that we can achieve, in an orderly way, our aim of removing a major source of dissension and dispute from the health service. That is the answer to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford and his hon. Friends when they say that the Bill is irrelevant to the needs of the NHS. On the contrary, it is essential to those needs.
    I said earlier that the Government had been taken to task from both sides of the House. I know that some of my hon. Friends feel that the Bill does not go far enough, in particular that it should set a time limit on the separation of pay beds—they stated their view quite clearly in the Division Lobby yesterday. They fear that, without a final date, pay beds may continue indefinitely in our hospitals, especially if the private sector is slow to make alternative arrangements But the Bill is quite clear.
    Clause 2 makes the purpose of the Bill and the task of the board crystal clear—the progressive withdrawal and separation of private practice from NHS hospitals. The board has a duty to supervise this phasing out and to make regular reports

    563
    which will be available to the House. Clause 4 provides the board with guidelines which leave no doubt that if the private sector fails to take reasonable steps to provide alternative facilities, that failure in itself is ground for phasing out the particular private facilities concerned.
    So my hon. Friends may rest assured that our intentions will not be frustrated. We are determined to uphold the principles on which the National Health Service was founded—the principle that health care is not a commodity like any other to be sold in the market place to the highest bidder, but that it is a human right to be enjoyed equally by all without regard to their financial power, the principle that health care should be free at the point of use and available equally to all on the basis of medical priority alone; the principle that there should not be one standard of care for the rich and another for the poor, but that there should be one standard. That is what we mean by a national health service.
    We will no longer endure the injustice of queue jumping. It is a scandal that has gone on long enough, and that is why Clause 6 lays a duty on the board to make recommendations to the Secretary of State within six months on achieving a common waiting list for NHS and private patients. The pay beds will go, but for the temporary period while some remain those who use them must be admitted on the same basis of medical priority as all other patients. Varicose veins and hernias hurt the poor just as much as the rich. That simple truth underpins this Bill.
    The professions have reserved the right to oppose the principles of the Bill and the Government have recognised that right. But, equally, the professions will recognise that they must accept the decision of Parliament that private medical practice will from now on be separated from NHS hospitals. That is our policy. It has been endorsed twice by the electorate and I commend it to the House both because it is right in principle and because it offers the opportunity for doctors and all other staff in our hospitals to work together in a spirit of co-operation, providing the highest possible standard of health care for our people
    564
    in what we can at last truly call a National Health Service.
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I had not intended to refer to the guillotine under which we have debated a large part of the Committee stage and the whole of the Report stage, but the Secretary of State's remarks leave me with no option. He said that in the Committee stage we finished with a sitting left over at the end. If that is how he uses it, that is the last time I shall make a bargain with him. We agreed at his request that we should finish the last sitting at lunch time. The debates on the new clauses were extremely short in order to enable the Government to complete the Committee stage by lunch time.
    We have now finished the Report stage with over 50 amendments totally undiscussed, including some of the Government amendments—which certainly in one case made a substantial change in the Bill—and most of the amendments which were debated in Committee and defeated only by the Chairman's casting vote. We have not had a word about any of those.
    As to the Secretary of State's comment about Second Reading speeches, we spent five hours yesterday, one for one, from either side of the debate, on the amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). The guillotine has undoubtedly severely curtailed debate on the Bill. No doubt note of this will be taken in another place.
    But a Third Reading is a welcome occasion because it provides the opportunity to express thanks to one's hon. Friends who have played a very notable part in the proceedings on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), who brings not only a deep humanity but a very considerable knowledge to the subject. I am sure that my other hon. Friends will forgive me if I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who acted also as Whip on the Committee and made a most valuable contribution to the debates.
    I thank, too, the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), because they served

    565
    throughout our proceedings as the headlight beaming ahead down the wrong road, showing us where we would go if we followed their recipes.
    Mr. Thorne: That is praise indeed.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may take it as he wishes. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent, South, who provided us with one of the new concepts coming from the Labour Benches. He has never been slow to remind us how many years of study he has made of health matters. He coined the remarkable classification of patients not as National Health Service and private patients but as deserving and undeserving patients. From the Labour Benches we now have, in addition to the undeserving poor, the undeserving sick.
    It is right that I should set out in the Third Reading my party's view on the Bill. We believe that on balance it has been to the advantage of the National Health Service and of the ordinary National Health Service patient that consultants have been able to treat their private patients in the same hospitals as they treat their NHS patients. We believe, therefore, that the system should continue.
    We believe, too, that at a time when the acute services in the NHS are under very great strain due to the virtual standstill on resources, it is an act of consummate folly deliberately to throw away the revenue which pay beds bring in.
    More fundamentally, we believe that the concept which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller) described as "medical apartheid"—the concept embodied in the Bill—inevitably will lead to just those double standards which the Secretary of State said that it was his intention to avoid. We shall have a vigorous, efficient, well-equipped private sector financed by the market through the growth of provident funds contrasting with a struggling, inadequate and overburdened public sector financed by taxation. As the gap widens, as inevitably it will, so will the best talent not only of doctors but of nurses, radiographers, therapists and others be attracted into the private sector. Success will create its own momentum, and the process will intensify. Within a few years, this system of medical apart-
    566
    heid will have returned this country to the pre-1948 situation when the voluntary hospitals provided first-class care and attracted first-class talent while the municipal hospitals were almost always the poor relations.
    This dilemma is there, and the gut Socialist reaction to it has been to ban independent medicine altogether. The House will remember that yesterday, in speech after speech by Government supporters sitting below the Gangway, they advocated precisely that authoritarian Marxist solution. It is also the policy which has been adopted repeatedly by Labour Party Conferences. The Government's answer was a different one. Although not going as far as an outright ban, their initial reaction was to put an absolute ceiling on the size of the private sector at its March 1974 level. Something else which is sometimes forgotten is that they also proposed to ban advertising of independent medical, surgical or maternity facilities to the general public.
    Even the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was forced to concede that that was not compatible with the kind of free society in which she at any rate believes. It would make the provision of additional medical care outside the National Health Service a criminal offence like trafficking in narcotics or selling pornography to juveniles.
    Instead, we have in the Bill the watered-down Socialism of Part III—a new quantity licensing system which Ministers justify wholly on account of the need to protect the health service. But what can one think of a philosophy of medicine which is viable only if citizens of this country who already pay their full taxes for the National Health Service have to go on bended knee to the authorities for permission to make separate health provision above a certain size?
    Of course, there must be quality control. No one disputes that. But quantity control is just one more nail in the coffin of the plural society about which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) spoke earlier this year.
    Yet without restraint, the dilemma remains—a steadily widening gap between standards of care in private medicine and standards in the National Health Service.

    567
    It is no accident that today a growing number of the new subscribers to the provident funds are people who have had an unhappy experience as National Health Service patients and are determined to avoid a repetition.
    What is the way ahead? Surely it must be to abandon the concept of medical apartheid. This Bill goes diametrically in the wrong direction. As The Times said after the publication of the right hon. Lady's consultative document in August 1975,
    "The wiser course has always been to interweave them if anything more closely so that they could share, with a proper division of cost, the use of scarce resources both of facilities and manpower. In that way private medicine could benefit from some of the specialised facilities of the NHS, and the money flowing into private medicine might be used to irrigate the British medical system more generally."
    We agree with that philosophy.
    A future Conservative Government will therefore reverse the policy of phasing out pay beds. We want to keep the best consultants in the National Health Service and not drive them out. We want to increase the flow of money to the National Health Service hospitals, not to reduce it. We want to ensure that the best care for all National Health Service patients is available in National Health Service hospitals.
    We have heard much about queue-jumping, by which in practice one means having two queues, one for private patients and one for National Health Service patients. The Tribune Group's remedy is simple—have only one queue. In the view of its members all private medicine must be outlawed. Although it is wholly abhorrent to those who believe in a plural society and a free society, that remedy has a certain cold logic.
    The Government's remedy is wholly without logic. What they say is that two queues are all right provided they are at different hospitals. That amounts to the old doctrine of "Out of sight, out of mind". Provided the other queue is somewhere down the road, it does not matter how many people jump it. What is offensive, according to the Government, is not that one patient should be treated ahead of another—that will certainly happen under the Bill—but that people
    568
    should see that that patient is being treated ahead of another. That is nothing more nor less than the politics of envy. That is what the Bill is all about.
    We on the Conservative Benches are not interested in envy. The real evil is the size of the waiting lists. No other country suffers waiting lists like ours. No other country faces the prospect of waiting lists growing longer and longer month by month. For us, therefore, the real question about two queues is how to shorten the waiting lists for everybody. One way not to do it is to shorten the number of hours that consultants spend in National Health Service hospitals, which is one certain effect of the Bill.
    The remedies lie not in pandering to the politics of envy but in improving the efficiency of hospitals, cutting down the length of hospital stays and increasing bed usage, all of which must depend, in some measure at least, on creating the right pressures and incentives within the NHS to ensure the most effective use of resources. For that reason we are examining in some depth how other EEC countries and developed Commonwealth countries deal with these problems. We are examining alternative methods of health financing, perhaps involving greater dependence on insurance.
    Clearly, major changes must await the Royal Commission, but it is already clear that if the health service is to survive and to go on making its vital contribution to the nation's health, we must recognise that changes are needed. The assumption on which Lord Beveridge and Aneurin Bevan based their proposals—that as the nation's health improved demand would be reduced—has not been borne out. Instead we have what is called the infinity of demand having to be met by finite resources.
    Of one thing we can be sure, that the Bill is wholly irrelevant to these major questions that confront the health service. It is nothing less than tragedy that so much of the energy of Ministers, officials, Parliament, trade unions and others should have been expended on such a fruitless effort, a product of nothing more than blind prejudice. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Bill when the guillotine falls.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mrs. Castle: It is obviously a matter of very great pleasure to me that a Bill which saw the light of day under my administration should now be reaching the end of its journey through the House. I want very sincerely to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on standing firm behind the principles which inspired the Bill.
    I am sure that he will be the first to join me in congratulating also, in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who did such a brilliant job in Committee—as I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees—in carrying all the detailed work. I am well aware of what I owe to him as my right-hand man when I was Secretary of State. It is only right to place on record the great debt that the National Health Service owes to him.
    We have reached the end of one of the most protracted discussions on any Bill of similar length that I have known in my 31 years in Parliament. We have had a guillotine so generous that it has exceeded life itself. It has given us a massive amount of time and full opportunity to explore every nook and cranny of the Bill. Indeed, those of us who served on the Standing Committee know that during the Report stage we have been retracing ground which was exhaustively covered in detail in Committee. In fact, we have retraced that ground to the point of utter tedium to Members on both sides who served on the Committee. I fully accept the right of other hon. Members who did not serve to join in the discussions, but I would point out that tedious repetition has been caused by the procedures of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I inform the right hon. Lady, because I made the selection of amendments, that 56 amendments were carried in Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman? In these circumstances, it is customary to call such amendments on Report.
    Mrs. Castle: Out of my eternal and deep respect for you, Mr. Speaker, I was going to make that point and say that because of the procedures of the House this repetition was an inescapable necessity because decisions in Committee were made by the casting vote of the Chairman.
    570
    Under our curious procedures we were level-pegging in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) admitted earlier this evening, rather regretfully I thought, that, now that the Bill has been brought back into the gladiatorial contest on the Floor of the House, the majorities have been larger than they were in Committee. It has been extremely interesting to note the votes tonight. We have had three Divisions and we could have had a great many more if the Opposition had dared to continue to put the issues to the test. In the three Divisions we had, the majorities on the Floor of the House were all higher than the majority on Second Reading, which shows that as a result of the exhaustive examination of the Bill the House has become more convinced of its merit, and not less convinced. All the efforts of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who led for the Opposition with such passion, have resulted merely in convincing more hon. Members that he is wrong.
    Support for the Bill has increased, not diminished, as it has gone through the parliamentary process. Earlier this evening there was a very significant vote on the major principle embodied in Clause 2—the principle of phasing out. That principle of separation was endorsed by the House by 29 votes. I hope very much that this fact will be noted in another place. The right hon. Gentleman, with his customary incendiary tendencies, tried to insult another place with pathetic pleas that we had not properly considered this measure and that it had not been properly dealt with by this House. A majority of 29 can hardly be called a minority attitude of this House.
    We all know that on Report, as a result of the lengthy discussions at earlier stages, we have not, to my intense regret, had a rediscussion of Part III, which deals with licensing. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford is already calculating in his brain how he can persuade their Lordships, when it comes to their turn, that there has not been proper discussion of the principle of licensing of the private sector, that it was not in the Labour Party's manifesto and that their Lordships ought to throw it out.
    Therefore, through the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to remind their

    571
    Lordships that we had adequate discussion in Committee of the licensing sections of the Bill. Indeed, so adequate was the discussion that the Opposition ran out of arguments before we ran out of time. We had a situation in Committee when, under the guillotine, another half day of discussion would have been available. Some of my hon. Friends, including me, pleaded to be allowed to go to the full span of time. Unfortunately, there was not enough argument left in the Opposition's lockers to keep the Committee going for the full length of the guillotine. Therefore, I say advisedly to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford that he should not try any incendiary nonsense about any part of the Bill not having been adequately discussed or backed by adequate majorities.
    I repeat, we are talking about a bargain. This House has endorsed the bargain. Nothing has been included in the Bill that was not included in the bargain that was struck. When the Opposition try to throw out the licensing provisions, let them remember that part of the bargain. The authenticity of those provisions comes from the Goodman proposals. That is what validates them. When we—I, as my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State—discussed how to reconcile the Government's commitment to phase pay beds out of National Health Service hospitals with our desire to do it peaceably by democratic means, we struck a bargain. I made great compromises. Of course, I would have preferred my consultative document. All my hon. Friends know that. But I made sacrifices for the sake of a peaceful acceptance by the medical profession that this was a matter for Parliament to decide. It is odd that we should have to make major policy compromises to persuade the medical profession to leave the decision to Parliament, but that is what we had to do. I did it for the sake of the NHS because I knew that it was being torn in two.
    The Opposition have talked about the interests of patients. It was I who, in that situation, put the interests of patients and peace in the NHS first. I warn the Opposition that, if they carry on this battle as though that bargain had not been struck, they will be jeopardising
    572
    peace and setting law and order at naught. I say that advisedly to those who may be contemplating such action in another place.
    I should like to remind the House of the terms of the bargain that was struck. I quote from paragraph 3 of the Goodman proposals:
    "Despite its continuing opposition"—
    fair enough; nobody objects to that—
    "the medical and dental professions acknowledge that the phasing out of pay beds in NHS hospitals may, through legislation, become the will of Parliament. In that event the phasing out should he subject to the safeguards outlined below".
    Every one of those safeguards—nothing else—is embodied in the Bill. I ask both Houses to think seriously on that. The will of Parliament has been clearly expressed.
    The safeguards stand or fall as a whole. One is that the Government need to be satisfied that the development of the private sector will not jeopardise the interests of NHS patients. If someone attempts to split the safeguards and pick and choose, the whole issue of war or peace will be opened again. The message going out from here tonight is that this democratically-elected House of our Parliament has said that it believes the time has come to phase pay beds out of NHS hospitals and that, in doing so, it wishes not to abolish private practice but to make it stand on its own feet.
    The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford made great play of the fear that the Bill would result in the development of two standards in medicine and the creation of a medical apartheid. But there has been a financial apartheid written into the heart of our NHS. There have always been two standards.
    We all know of people close to us who have been worried not about a major crisis or emergency operation but about an important operation which could have enduring effects if it were not carried out rapidly and who have been told that they would have to wait two or three years under the NHS but that they could have the operation done next week if they were willing to pay.
    The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said that our philosophy on private practice was "out of sight, out

    573
    of mind". Private practice has been bolstered by the massive resources of the NHS, and the proper epigram should be "out of subsidy, out of existence".
    I do not believe that the separation of pay beds from the NHS will lead to the building up of a great separate private health service. The people of this country could not afford the economic cost of meeting their whole medical care without the sustenance of the public financed NHS. Perhaps a few Arab potentates or, dare I say it, Lady Beaverbrook might be able to afford it. Those people might fill the London Clinic and other such places, but 99 per cent. of our people have depended on the National Health Service, free at the point of use, and will continue to do so. When they get into an inconvenient or uncomfortable situation, perhaps with tonsillitis or a hernia, they have to take their turn in a medical queue.
    We believe that is the only way to unify society, and in the present acute economic emergency society must be unified or it will fall.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. Thompson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on guiding the Bill through the House, but I cannot say the same for Labour Members from Scotland. They have not been much in evidence in our debates. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and I have constituted the Scottish representation on the Bill most of the time.
    The Bill does not take away from the wealthy or the less wealthy the freedom to pay for private medical practice if they wish to spend their money in this way. The Bill accords well with SNP policy. Our stated health policy is to phase out pay beds within the Scottish health service. But we envisage a separate private sector that is serviced by part-time consultants. I do not think that Scotland could support full-time consultants in private practice, a private sector having minimum standards of staffing and facilities prescribed for it to ensure the proper care of private patients. I very much hope that after independence our Scottish health service will be so good that the desire for private treatment will
    574
    decrease over the years and perhaps in the end fade away entirely.
    The SNP was accused yesterday of having the expectation that manna will fall from Heaven and that the millennium will be ushered in by the attainment of Scottish independence. That is not so. I do not share the Utopian expectations of the Marxists. If we are bidden by William Blake to strive to build the new Jerusalem here below, I rather incline to the opinion of St. John the Divine that the new Jerusalem will in part at least come down from Heaven. I believe, however, that we must strive, and the Bill seems to be part of the striving, to bring fair treatment to the common folk of our respective countries.
    I have several times said during our debates on the Bill that it has a special relevance to England. That is because Scotland has relatively few pay beds. Galloway, which is my own constituency, has none. If, in helping in the phasing out of pay beds in Scotland, we have helped forward the cause of the common folk of England in their struggle against privilege, and if there is a politics of envy, there is also a politics of privilege that is represented by the Tory Party. If we see that we have helped on the cause of the common folk of England, that gives an added pleasure to the work we have accomplished on the Bill. My hon. Friends and I will support it on Third Reading.
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. Thorne: I approached the Bill some time ago in the expectation that a real attack on privilege was to be made. However, on reading the Bill before it went into Committee it was apparent that that was not to be the case in the terms that some of us had envisaged. Therefore, in the early stages in Committee we approached various problems with mixed feelings. We were concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and myself in particular—about the apparent support for private medicine that appeared to be contained within the Bill. We were anxious to proceed with the phasing out of pay beds as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. That was a manifesto commitment. Unhappily, the Bill had

    575
    no target date—nor did the manifesto. We have already debated that during the past 48 hours.
    We all know that the Bill now refers to 1,000 beds that have been largely under-used recently. It seems that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall have to be concerned with two major areas. We shall have to apply considerable vigilance if we are to achieve even the modicum of advance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has always argued will be possible should we accept the Bill. The two specific areas relate to the activities of the board in phasing out the further beds following the 1,000. It seems that the House will continually have to address itself to the progress that is being made by the board in that task.
    As has been said before, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I point out to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we shall need to apply that vigilance to the board's progress.
    I am also concerned—I do not think I am on my own—about the Bill's contents relating to private medicine. I believe that we could well see a mushrooming of private medicine. Here I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. I think that it is possible for certain organisations, individuals and collectivities within Britain to amass enough capital to give a considerable fillip to private medicine in Britain. I believe that it can stand on its own feet. What I deplore is that the resources that will then be used by that amassed capital are resources that should go to the NHS for the use of the majority of the people.
    It is in those two areas that I feel a certain degree of scepticism. Hope springs eternal. I have promised to be brief. I am a little sad in saying that probably hope is all that some of us have left in regard to the Bill. It is only hope that will persuade me to vote for the Third Reading—and then urge upon my hon. Friends, as I have said, the maximum vigilance about the progress of the Health Services Board in carrying out its tasks.
    10.31 p.m.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to express gratefulness to the Secretary of State for one amendment that
    576
    was accepted in Committee—that account be taken of representations made by interested parties in Scotland to the Scottish Committee. I am at least thankful for small mercies.
    I should like to tell the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that half of the area health boards in Scotland have pay beds. They are much in use. In 1974–75 more than £500,000 of income came as a result of them.
    One problem that has been raised by the Bill is the prospect of loss of money for research purposes. A few days ago the Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) saying that at least £50,000 would be lost. He did not give any evidence in his letter. It may well be that the figure will be very much higher, because, as hon. Members appreciate, consultants give some of their fees towards research in teaching hospitals, and it seems that many private patients give a lot of money as well.
    One of the most poignant matters mentioned in the debate was when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that a family had taken out a mortgage to get an operation. He said that if he were in a similar situation he might put aside his principles and do the same thing.
    The essence of our case can be summed up in one sentence. Rather than restrict opportunity, we want more opportunity for more people.
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Pavitt: Most hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will heave a sigh of relief at the passing of the Third Reading stage. Of all the Committees on which I have served, the Committee on this Bill was unique. I have previously been in situations in which there has been a majority of one on the Government side. This was the first time I served on a Committee which was exactly even. The result of that was that on one occasion when, under the rules of procedure, the Chairman had to give a casting vote, it meant that the normal procedures for further sittings was defeated and we had to keep going on. One of the results of that was that we had more Second Reading speeches on amendments than have been made in

    577
    Committee on any other Bill with which I have been concerned.
    However, we continued with the Bill. I pay tribute to the Opposition's acting unpaid Whip, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), and to our paid Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I also add the customary tribute to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), the Chairman of the Committee, because he had to sit at his place, with good humour, and listen to more nonsense than I have ever heard in relation to any other Bill.
    I want to put this matter in to perspective. We have been talking about a majority and a minority. The majority are the cases in the NHS, which in 1975 totalled 5,296,136. The minority sector which has been the subject of all the argument and conversation, in Committee, in the corridors, in the House and in the country, is the sector of privilege in which 97,641 cases were dealt with last year. I appreciate the fact that minorities always have rights, but the majority have more rights than the minority. That is what the Bill is about, and that is what the Third Reading has been about.
    The Opposition have argued strongly on the question of something being done about waiting lists and the ending of waiting lists. Clause 6 contains provisions for that. I hope that the medical profession will reverse its original decision. We pleaded with its members to do what we proposed, but they refused. I hope that the Opposition will add their voice and persuade the medical profession to implement this proposal.
    There will be a lot of talk over the next six months while 1,000 pay beds are being phased out, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) is well taken. In six months' time we shall want to see progress, and six months after that we shall want to see more progress. I have been speaking for only two minutes tonight, but I assure the House that I shall speak a lot more unless we get the kind of results that we expect from the passage of the Bill.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and add to his tribute to our right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I admired the way in which he steered so
    578
    much of the Bill through the Committee because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to be at Cabinet meetings. The House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport.
    10.36 p.m.
    Sir George Young: The House listened with interest to the threat that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made publicly to her husband in another place. While he may respond to it, I very much hope that others of their Lordships will not, because there is a fund of medical knowledge in the other place which should be focused on the Bill.
    I should like to put right something that was implied about support for the Bill. On Second Reading there was a majority of 20 in favour of it. Since then there have been by-elections, and tonight there have been majorities of between 25 and 29 in favour of the measure. I do not think it can be said that there has been a great tide of support for the Bill since the earlier occasion.
    I refer to the principles of the Bill which the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading. He said:
    "The separation of pay beds from the Service is the only solution that will end tension and conflict within the service."—[Official Report, 27th April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 204.]
    If I believed the right hon. Gentleman to be right I should not be so uneasy about the passage of the Bill, but he is wrong. I say that for two reasons. First, in the speeches of some of his hon. Friends yesterday we heard disgraceful language about the medical profession, and I propose to give some examples.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that
    "the medical profession has always played politics with the lives of its patients when it comes to the question of resource management in the NHS."
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said:
    "they wish to capitalise on the sickness of their fellow human beings."
    Finally, there was the disgraceful speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who referred to some consultants as
    "holding the sick to ransom,"
    being
    "more concerned with lining their own pockets, than they are with the health and welfare of,

    579
    their patients."—[Official Report, 12th October 1976; Vol. 917, cc. 325–39.]
    The hon. Gentleman referred finally to the "excrescence" of private practice in the National Health Service.
    If the Secretary of State believes that that provides a foundation for the resolution of tension and conflict—
    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir G. Young: No. These are the professional medical practitioners upon whom the Secretary of State has to rely if he is to build the service up to the standards that he wishes to see, and it is clear that there will be no resolution of tension and conflict while the medical profession continues to be attacked in the way that it has been by Labour Members below the Gangway.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose—
    Sir G. Young: No. I wish to conclude my speech quickly.
    The second reason why this is not the end of the story is to be found in the peroration of the Secretary of State, when he said that he hoped the Bill would lead to the end of dual standards. It will do no such thing, because private practice will continue and there will be pressure on the right hon. Gentleman from his hon. Friends to curtail private practice. This is not the end of the story, but the beginning of another story, and there will be more tension and conflict because of the Bill than there would have been without it. The right hon. Gentleman is polarising dual standards to a far greater extent than would otherwise be the case. That is why I am sad that the Bill is going through. It is not the end of the story but is the beginning of another story.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mrs. Renée Short: I was not one of those fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] Yes, it was a shame. I should have been glad to be there with the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, the House has been able to hear the Opposition today and yesterday. I sat through most of yesterday's debate but was not able to
    580
    be called. One gets somewhat concerned at the repetition of certain tedious and jejune arguments by Conservative Members such as references to the politics of envy and a Marxist philosophy.
    The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) for his remarks about the attitude of certain consultants. No one on this side is saying that all consultants are rogues and rascals. What we are saying, and what we have documented evidence for, in spite of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said yesterday, is that certain doctors are taking a good deal of advantage of the situation to make considerable amounts of money at patients' expense. By eliminating a number of private beds, we are restricting that opportunity to make money at the patients' expense.
    The fact that private practice is available and that waiting lists can be, have been and are being built up means that there is an incentive to allow waiting lists to expand in order to pressurise patients into going private and paying considerable fees. We have evidence of elderly patients with cataract, for example, being 18 months on the waiting lists, and of doctors saying "I am building up my waiting lists so that they will eventually go private."
    The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) had all that evidence, just as I had and all the other members of the Select Committee had, yet he chooses to say that all this evidence should be discounted and that it is not true. But the evidence came from members of his own profession. One supposes that, as a doctor, he assumes that all members of his profession are honourable men and that the evidence they submit should therefore be taken into account.
    We welcome this reduction in the number of pay beds. Opposition Members have made great play in recent days about public expenditure. One is surprised that they are not concerned that the NHS has been deprived of some money in return for the services it provides for consultants working with their private patients. We have evidence of the junior hospital doctors' time which is wasted. We have evidence of the time and resources of pathology laboratories

    581
    in hospitals being devoted to testing the samples of private patients. We have evidence about the use of out-patient departments. This is all without charge to the private patients but a burden on the NHS. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course they pay."] No—hon. Members have not read the evidence. There is provision in the regulations for separate billing for all these services, but there is also a good deal of evidence that hospital administrators do not pursue the matter and that private patients do not pay for these additional services.
    I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said, that we need to take a careful look at the way in which the board operates and private beds are phased out. Unless we are very careful, we shall see a two-tier service developing again and the clock put back to the position before the National Health Service was established if private practice is allowed to expand. We need to be vigilant.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman hopes to begin his reply at 10 minutes to 11 o'clock.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mrs. Knight: I shall confine myself to two points raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). The first point I wish to make is that the passage of the Bill will make no difference at all to the waiting lists and may even make them worse because money is being diverted elsewhere. I detest the fact that in Birmingham, and I am sure in many other areas, people have to wait a quite unconscionable time before undergoing even simple operations. It will now take six months, or even nine months, for someone to receive care from a skin consultant in my area. During that time a person will be away from work. A child who needs a heart operation may have to wait so long that his life is endangered. None of these things will be altered by the passage of the Bill, and it is nonsense to suggest the contrary.
    Private patients have paid into the National Health Service as much as any other patients. The way some Labour Members talk, one would think that private patients do not pay tax. Private
    582
    patients have paid all, and more, than the ordinary NHS patient has paid. To talk about the facilities being available to those people as if there was something wrong with that is quite unjust and totally wrong.
    This is a sad day for the British medical profession and a sad day for the National Health Service. What we are doing tonight has nothing whatever to do with the welfare of patients. This is what we should be concerning ourselves with, not this politically-motivated load of rubbish that the Government have given us.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. Crouch: I do not feel terribly strongly about the question of private beds. The House must know this. I do feel strongly, however, about the preservation and improvement of the National Health Service. This tiny piddling Bill, which has lasted so long, will harm the service and the public it serves. In this brief intervention I cannot change the way the House will vote. It is difficult enough to cope with the Secretary of State. It is like trying to wrestle with a shadow. It is even more difficult to cope with a second shadow behind the right hon. Gentleman who makes an even longer speech.
    This measure will not improve the service in the care it gives to the sick. This is what upsets me most of all. The Bill seeks to bring about the removal of 1,000 beds now—and perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 later by regulation—from the private sector so as to produce a Socialist purge of the National Health Service. It I could believe that this would produce a better service for the sick and suffering, I would support the Bill. The Bill will do positive harm to the service. It will create a new private sector health service which will rob the National Health Service, which we should all be seeking to serve and improve, whether we were originally supporters of Aneurin Bevan or supporters of the Joseph proposals. This measure will do harm, and that is why I am against it.
    10.49 p.m.
    Dr. Vaughan: Nothing could have demonstrated more clearly the disruptive, unfeeling views which have so damaged the National Health Service in recent months and the arrogant disregard for undertakings entered into than the words

    583
    we heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) tonight. However strident her cries, the plain fact is that over 50 amendments which resulted in a tied vote in Committee have not been debated tonight because of the guillotine. That is a disgraceful reflection on the way in which an issue such as this is handled these days.
    Nothing that has been said in this debate could possibly change our view that the Bill is totally irrelevant to the real needs of the National Health Service. With low morale, a desperate lack of resources and staff leaving in ever-increasing numbers, the Bill will increase, not decrease, those problems in the NHS.
    The words of Nye Bevan have rightly rung round the Chamber several times in this debate. The right hon. Member for Blackburn said that Nye Bevan would have welcomed the Bill. He would not. He would not have welcomed it because he recognised what the right hon. Lady does not—namely, the danger if health care is split into two separate services, a State service at one level and a private service at another. Is this what Labour Members want?
    Mrs. Renée Short: No.
    Dr. Vaughan: It is certainly not what the majority of people in the National Health Service want but it is certainly the situation that will be brought about by the Bill. Nye Bevan would have seen such a Bill as a measure that would cause great damage in the service, and that is how we regard the Bill.
    What has come out of this debate more clearly than anything else is the appalling gap between the views of Labour Members and the views of the majority of people working in the Service. Labour Members do not like to accept that truth, but they are not members of a party which concerns itself with the care of patients and for high standards. They are members of a party which displays envy and a desire for destruction and prejudice in the health field, and they know it.
    The Secretary of State was asked on Second Reading and again yesterday to say who will benefit from the Bill, but he did not answer. Indeed, he could not answer—or certainly did not want to.
    584
    It is certainly not the patients who will benefit from the Bill. The overwhelming opinion in National Health Service circles is that patient care will suffer very seriously indeed. That was the opinion of the Presidents of the Royal Colleges, and they are careful not to take a party political view. Their charge is to look after the standards of the service. They see great dangers for the care of patients.
    The majority of union members, as we know from the opinion polls, also do not believe that the Bill will bring any great benefits. Indeed, trade union members believe that the Bill will increase rather than decrease unemployment in the National Health Service. A factor has arisen which has not reared its head before—namely, a shortage of nurses in certain parts of the country and a surplus of nurses elsewhere.
    The truth is that only the militants will welcome the Bill. It is interesting to note when one listens to the most militant militants that they are people who have only recently come to this country from overseas or people who admit that they have never worked in a hospital. Those are the people who lead the revolt.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Name them.
    Dr. Vaughan: Certainly the Bill will not help the Chancellor of the Exchequer. An extra sum of £12 million or £15 million will have to be found to pay for the administration of the Bill—money to be found at a time when £40 million of private money will be lost to the National Health Service and at a time when the basic standards of the service are falling rapidly. It will certainly not help the Exchequer in any way at all. The damage done by this purely political Bill will be deep and widespread.
    The Bill will certainly not help professional people working in the service. Labour Members have repeatedly tried to say that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I represent only the views of the doctors. That is blatantly untrue. We represent the views of the dentists, the nurses, the physiotherapists, the radiographers, the porters and the ward maids. If Labour Members are honest with themselves, they will accept that the majority of people in the service see the

    585
    Bill as a major intrusion into their professional freedom.
    Mr. Ennals: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the considered view of the National Health Service unions and of the Royal College of Nursing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] It is not rubbish. A deputation came to see me to record the views of the Royal College in support of the measures the Government were taking to phase out pay beds. It is the considered view of the vast majority of those working in the National Health Service that this measure is essential and that it will bring peace to the service.
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept that. What the Secretary of State has said is totally untrue, and he is misrepresenting the views of the nurses. Labour Members' speeches will have increased fears over freedom. The Bill will not sow peace. It will sow the seeds of resentment which will continue for years to come.
    Labour Members will come to regret the Bill. It is a squalid, vindictive

    Division No. 320.]

    AYES

    [11.00 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Cohen, Stanley

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Allaun, Frank

    Coleman, Donald

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Anderson, Donald

    Concannon, J. D.

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Archer, Peter

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ford, Ben

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Forrester, John

    Ashley, Jack

    Corbett, Robin

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Ashton, Joe

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

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

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Crawford, Douglas

    Freeson, Reginald

    Atkinson, Norman

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T

    Cronin, John

    George, Bruce

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Barnett, Ht Hon Joel (Peywood)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Golding, John

    Bates, Alf

    Cryer, Bob

    Gould, Bryan

    Bean, R. E.

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Graham, Ted

    Bernett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Bishop E. S.

    Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Boardman, H.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Hardy, Peter

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Deakins, Eric

    Harper, Joseph

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Bradley, Tom

    Dempsey, James

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Doig, Peter

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Halton, Frank

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Buchan, Norman

    Dunnett, Jack

    Henderson, Douglas

    Buchanan, Richard

    Eadle, Alex

    Hooley, Frank

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Edge, Geoff

    Horam, John

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

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

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Campbell, Ian

    Ennals, David

    Huckfield, Les

    Cant, R. B.

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Carter, Ray

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Hunter, Adam

    Cartwright, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Flannery, Martin

    Janner, Greville

    irrelevance, pushed through by people who do not understand what they are doing. We will reverse that policy. We will encourage private skills into health care. We will develop schemes for reintroducing private resources into the National Health Service so that we may free State money to be better spent in other areas, such as on the young, the old and the chronically sick. Ours is a policy of compassion.
    People in the National Health Service who are afraid for their freedom and for the freedom of their patients are quite right to be concerned and to see the Bill as an attack on their future. They are right to believe that Labour Members care more for ideology than for patients. We believe in freedom in all areas. We believe in freedom in the National Health Service. The Bill will reduce freedom, and we shall unhesitatingly vote against it.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 264.

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Moonman, Eric

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Stoddart, David

    John, Brynmor

    Moyle, Roland

    Stott, Roger

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Strang, Gavin

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Newens, Stanley

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Noble, Mike

    Swain, Thomas

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Judd, Frank

    Ogden, Eric

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Kelley, Richard

    Orbach, Maurice

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Kerr, Russell

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Ovenden, John

    Thompson, George

    Kinnock, Neil

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Lambie, David

    Padley, Walter

    Tierney, Sydney

    Lamborn, Harry

    Palmer, Arthur

    Tinn, James

    Lamond, James

    Park, George

    Tomlinson, John

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Parker, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Torney, Tom

    Lee, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Urwin, T. W.

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Perry, Ernest

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

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

    Lipton, Marcus

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Litterick, Tom

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Ward, Michael

    Loyden, Eddie

    Reid, George

    Watkins, David

    Luard, Evan

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Watkinson, John

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Weetch, Ken

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Weltzman, David

    McCartney, Hugh

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wellbeloved, James

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Welsh, Andrew

    McElhone, Frank

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    White, James (Pollok)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Whitlock, William

    MacKenzie, Gregor

    Roper, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Rose, Paul B.

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ryman, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Madden, Max

    Sandelson, Neville

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Magee, Bryan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)

    Mahon, Simon

    Selby, Harry

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Marquand, David

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Woodall, Alec

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Woof, Robert

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Silverman, Julius

    Young, David (Bolton F)

    Meacher, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mendelson, John

    Small, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Mr. Frank R. White and

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Snape, Peter

    Mr. Thomas Cox.

    Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Brotherton, Michael

    Crouch, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Alison, Michael

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Tom

    Buck, Antony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Budgen, Nick

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Awdry, Daniel

    Bulmer, Esmond

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Baker Kenneth

    Burden, F. A.

    Dunlop, John

    Beith, A. J.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Durant, Tony

    Bell, Ronald

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Channon, Paul

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Benyon, W.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Elliott, Sir William

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Clark, Alan (Flymouth, Sutton)

    Emery, Peter

    Biffen, John

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Blaker, Peter

    Clegg, Walter

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Body, Richard

    Cockcroft, John

    Fell, Anthony

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Bottomley, Peter

    Cope, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Cordle, John H.

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Forman, Nigel

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Corrle, John

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Costain, A. P.

    Fox, Marcus

    Brittan, Loon

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Brocklabank-Fowler, C.

    Critchley, Julian

    Fry, Peter

    588

    589

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Loveridge, John

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Luce, Richard

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Goodhart, Philip

    McCrindle, Robert

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Goodhew, Victor

    McCusker, H.

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Gorst, John

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Madel, David

    Shepherd, Colin

    Gray, Hamish

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shersby, Michael

    Grieve, Percy

    Marten, Neil

    Silvester, Fred

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Mather, Carol

    Sims, Roger

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Maude, Angus

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Grist, Ian

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Grylls, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Hall, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Speed, Keith

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spence, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Hannam, John

    Mills, Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stainton, Keith

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Stanley, John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Molyneaux, James

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Monro, Hector

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Stokes, John

    Hicks, Robert

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morgan, Geraint

    Tapsell, Peter

    Holland, Philip

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Hordern, Peter

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mudd, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Neave, Alrey

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Neubert, Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Newton, Tony

    Trotter, Neville

    Hurd, Douglas

    Nott, John

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Onslow, Cranley

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Vaughan, Dr Gerald

    James, David

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Viggers, Peter

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

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Wakeham, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinslead)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Penhaligon, David

    Wall, Patrick

    Jopling, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Walters, Dennis

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Wells, John

    Kilfedder, James

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Wiggin, Jerry

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Raison, Timothy

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rathbone, Tim

    Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Knox, David

    Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Younger, Hon George

    Lamont, Norman

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Lane, David

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

  HARTLEPOOL (EMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: What I have to say in this debate about the problems in my constituency is bound
  590
  to take into account the realities of the economic situation in the United Kingdom and throughout the international industrial trading world. I have a responsibility to be objective, for the greatest help I can afford my constituents is to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister an appraisal of the facts. We are still fighting to bring down inflation. We are still faced with the attack on the pound. We are still in the trough of the worst international economic recession for 40 years.

  591
  Our basic troubles did not start a few months ago or even two years ago. More than one authority has pinpointed the manner in which this country failed to face the rising economic storm. More recently, comments in the Investors Chronicle included the following observations:
  "To see it in perspective we need to go back to 1973. In that year money supply on the broader definition increased by not far short of 30 per cent.… In other words, not only was Britain pointing in the wrong direction in almost every aspect of its economic management but the country was determined to move even faster down the wrong road.… Most of the figures—wage increases, inflation rates, and above all Government borowing requirement— are still frightening. But three years ago they were all in the wrong direction. Most of them are now moving in the right direction."
  Certainly our economic strategy is beginning to show signs of turning the tide. The rate is not as we would like, and it must be conceded that, taking recent monthly figures separately, the position can be said to be erratic. Our general position is related to a worldwide hesitation in growth during the second quarter of this year. A report in the Financial Times this morning states:
  "While growth has slowed down throughout the world in the second and third quarters, the check to the recovery in the United Kingdom is more marked and it is clearly disturbing that it even occurred before the latest crisis."
  We must be on guard, in the knowledge that our strategy hopes can quickly be blown off course. Strategy changes in these circumstances will be needed.
  There is, however, a trend in industrial output showing in the latest quarterly recorded figures a rise of 1·4 per cent. That is an annual rate of 6 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Monday, this increase has led to an increase in employment. Other indicators show that at least we are developing the right priorities. The rise in export volume for the past 12 months is approximately 10 per cent. Chemicals, metals and principal manufactures are up by 20 per cent. Exports to Germany have jumped by 24 per cent. in real deutschemark terms since 1975. There are new engineering orders rising at the rate of 20 per cent. during
  592
  the year. This also applies to chemical exports.
  Sixty per cent. of our foreign customers have already declared satisfaction at our improvement of delivery dates. A CBI survey shows that 88 per cent. of our customers have acknowledged that British prices are competitive. Our exports to the Middle East have improved. During my visit there recently I was exceptionally impressed by the growing British involvement. All this points to a substantial shift of gross domestic product into exports.
  I therefore approach the Government with the problems of my constituency, fully acknowledging the formidable tasks they had to face on coming to office. Among these I include the highly costly form of local government introduced by the previous Conservative Administration, the unsatisfactory reorganisation of the National Health Service and the economic damage which had been done by that Government's policies of confrontation. I also acknowledge the present Government's measures since coming to office.
  But my constituency has suffered sorely. Unemployment and a denial of the standard of public and personal servicing which we once enjoyed are burdens my constituents should not be asked to bear. The registered unemployed in Hartlepool in September this year totalled 4,623, representing 10·9 per cent. unemployed. Some 1,065 females are out of work, and in addition 274 girl school leavers have not had either a first offer or an offer which has kept them off the unemployment register. We also have 3,284 men and boys wholly unemployed. This is 12·3 per cent. of the male working population. In fact, the total unemployed has risen by nearly 300 in one month.
  These are not acceptable figures. They are a much higher proportion than those of the region. The figure for men is 3 per cent. higher and for women it is 2·3 per cent. higher. Our total figure of 10·9 per cent. out of work, compared with 5·5 per cent. for Britain as a whole, in-dictates a measure of the gravity of the problem.
  But that is not the complete story. We still have steel closure proposals, involving about 4,000 jobs, which we must

  593
  fight. If we place that fact against the recorded increase of unemployment of 1,200 people since January, we have the spectacle of a trend which, if not halted, will be damaging to the social fabric of my constituency. I ask the Minister to call urgently upon the Secretary of State —indeed, the Cabinet as well—to examine the case for special treatment. My close experience with the industrial trends, the economy and the social life of my constituency over more than a quarter of a century must be heard against the prognostications of planners who during the same period have had a remarkable track record of being proved wrong.
  Unless steps are taken over matters where the Government have control, the unemployment levels could rise in the short term to the alarming figure of about 20 per cent., and 25 per cent. for men. Now is the time for action. If the Government's own argument this week is that we have the strategy right, within that strategy at least one factor is beginning to show. Our regional figures are slightly improving, but those of Hartlepool are worsening. This is linked with the likelihood of a major industry leaving the constituency. The job multiplier for Hartlepool has been assessed, and the full meaning of this is that for every job lost in Hartlepool in the basic industries 1·3 other jobs are lost. In other words, 1,000 jobs lost in this way means the loss of another 1,300 elsewhere in the town where the immediate impact is on ancillary and supply services.
  Some of this can be taken up either by migration of labour or by other job provisions being made available. But in a town where the net redundancy figures are of the order of about 500 per year the latter is academic and the former a serious loss of skills which could take years to replace.
  But we also have the loss of purchasing power in the community which will be harmful to the retail trade, our commercial prospects, our forward planning and, in fact, the aspirations of all councillors seeking to provide, through local government, essential amenities to provide the right conditons for the people they represent.
  The continuation of the present trend will involve the loss of apprenticeships. These will be very difficult to replace. At
  594
  the other end of the scale, men and women over 55 years of age have little hope of either new training facilities or a job. These groups, and the centre core of workers still bringing up their families, have a right to expect something better. There are grave social and psychological considerations to be taken into account where traditional industries have played such a great part in developing the character and nature of a town.
  Certainly a number of Government measures have helped. The temporary employment subsidy, the job creation programme, the more recently announced work experience programme and the job release scheme have brought out of unemployment many thousands of men and young people throughout the country. I know that many officers, trade union officials, employers and others are doing sterling work under these schemes in Hartlepool and the North. They are to be commended for their approach to a very difficult task. Nevertheless, Hartlepool has not fared as well as it might have done, and in any case there is a need to consider to what extent in the circumstances we are merely creating palliatives and even dead-end jobs.
  As I understand it, the Government are satisfied that the level of training for industry, both in house training and that provided in Government training centres, has been maintained to the level established in the boom years. That may be so, but are we providing the right kind of training to meet the requirements of a rapidly changing society? There is no point in having a training course and raising expectations if at the end of the course the person trained is either not wanted or no vacancy is available. This only produces a waste of public money on the one hand and disillusionment for the people affected on the other.
  The same is true of professional training. I fail to understand the logic, or indeed any argument, which supports conditions where teachers and students are in the same dole queue. There must be something wrong with our society when trained nurses and other hospital trained staff, as well as patients, are kept out of hospitals. The social cost of this state of affairs is both a waste and a tragedy. I put it to the House that we cannot afford to lose skills of this kind. Indeed,

  595
  it raises the very question of the total costs of keeping people idle. In thousands of cases it is a well-known fact that it is more costly to keep a man or woman out of work than in work.
  In describing the levels of unemployment in my constituency, it can be seen already that I must enter the wider field of matters other than the dramatic statistics. I have referred to nurses, teachers and lost opportunities following industrial training. But I cannot forget the need to measure other losses. There has been a downturn in the provision of home helps. Many old people's homes are overcrowded and the staffs are overworked to a point where some danger may exist. Our social workers in the field are strained to the utmost and most of the staffs closest to the public requirement are overtaxed. I am not surprised to find a great deal of discontent in local government. But, for what it is worth, there is a need to tackle waste, to get better value for money by concentrating on the grass roots provision of services, and to ask ourselves whether the present system provides the right balance for efficiency.
  The director of social services in Cleveland has kindly given me his observations though at short notice. He states that rising unemployment will cause greater distress than already exists in the community. I accept that that claim can be made by many, but I am dealing with a special case where the developing situation is critical and industrial inquiries for development are fewer.
  The director of social services adds that the effect on families will be to cause stress factors which may result in an increased need for medical and social work care. Many families are unable to adjust to a reduced income. Increasing debts add to the appeals for social services and social security at a time when the departments concerned are fully stretched. He expects an increase in mental illness and delinquency. The rise in unemployment will make it more difficult to place handicapped people of many categories in gainful employment. These are costly consequences providing pressures on our services which are bound to mean that for many there cannot be a service.
  596
  I have sought the considered opinion of our probation and after-care service. I am informed that there is no difficulty here in identifying people who have suffered through loss of work. There are instances when debts accumulate with rent and hire-purchase commitments and people fall into increasing arrears followed by fines and maintenance payments. Gas and electricity bills have increased markedly in recent months. These provide added pressures on the unemployed and, in fact, on all low-income groups.
  The probation service states that there is some worry now about the emotional effects of unemployment. While there are varying degrees of motivation to work, those who are highly motivated are suffering excessive frustration where unemployment experience has become chronic. I am informed that people looked after by the service experience a number of problems—material, emotional, psychological and social—which interact and are mutually influential. In this context, a high unemployment rate can be seen as an additional problem which the staff and their clients could well do without.
  I am informed that there is a problem arising from pressures on accommodation to deal with the number of care orders. Accommodation is needed where, as I understand the position, the magistrates are not happy if the present stretched position causes young offenders to be sent to remand homes and places where they will have to mix with adult prisoners.
  I have examined the number of care orders, supervision orders and attendance care orders. The comparative figures over the years, while showing some decline, only illustrate the concern of magistrates and the tendency of the police to caution more than bring offenders to court. This may be a desirable social tendency, but in the light of the reasons for it—namely, overcrowding—I can only conclude that the magistrates ought to be thanked for their expressed worries and the police for the excellent work they are doing in this field.
  Finally, I want to bring urgently to my hon. Friend the Minister one social consequence which is heart-rending. The wives and mothers struggling to meet the many problems facing their families suffer extremely the daily worry of sustaining

  597
  their husbands and sons and daughters, Family morale is of the highest importance. These are the people making the greatest sacrifice even when their families are considerate. But wife-battering is not unrelated to unemployment, frustration, and all the consequent friction which boils up in a world where costs are rising and the means of meeting them are perpetually in doubt. Broken homes and lives are there for us all to see, and from personal experience I can tell the Minister that I am ashamed that even today it is the woman who is hardest hit when this happens.
  I should like to end by expressing my appreciation of this opportunity to raise the problems of my constituency and of the co-operation I have received from every Government Department with which I have discussed these matters from time to time. I enjoy good relations with my hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate, and I am sure he will convey to the Secretary of State not only this factual account of the situation in my constituency but my personal request for some early action on matters over which I am sure that the Government have some control. I shall appreciate an undertaking from my hon. Friend that there will be continuing discussions to deal with this matter.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) for raising the serious matter of unemployment in Hartlepool in a most moving and lucid speech. I begin by assuring him that we constantly have under review the problem of unemployment throughout the country and we shall certainly pay attention to Hartlepool.
  No one can exaggerate the seriousness of the situation, both in terms of loss to the community and in the damaging effect described so graphically by my hon. Friend on the unemployed workers and their families. We share with him a deep concern for all those affected. The problem is due both to the general recession and to the decline in the area of those industries which have in the past been so important to the town—iron and steel, shipbuilding and ship repairing.
  598
  The reduction in the amount of employment in the iron and steel-making industry has posed serious problems for Hartlepool. The relatively high level of unemployment in the area was, of course, one of the reasons which led the Government to decide to give Hartlepool special treatment and to grant it special development area status. This in itself is evidence of the high priority which the Government give to attracting new jobs to the area. We try to encourage and persuade firms to go to Hartlepool and are able to offer the full range of regional financial incentives to prospective employers. These include the regional employment premium, regional development grants and Government factories with rent-free periods of up to three years.
  The Government advance factory programme has, in fact, played a big part in attracting employers to the area. Altogether there are now seven factories already occupied and another 11 under construction, and the Department of Industry is currently looking for more land for factory building. The ready availability of these advance factories should be a particularly attractive proposition for employers who will be looking for room to expand when the upturn in the economy comes. Employers may also be eligible for selective assistance in the form of loans and interest relief grants, and so far under this heading alone £2½ million has been well spent in Hartlepool in creating some 2,200 additional jobs.
  We recognise that from all points of view Hartlepool has many advantages to offer employers, not the least of which is hard-working workpeople.
  To help mitigate some of the worst effects of the present situation, the Government have introduced a number of special measures to save and create jobs —the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation programme and the recruitment subsidy for school leavers. There is also a community industry project in Hartlepool. Together, these schemes have secured some 450 jobs in Hartlepool. It will be known that we have now introduced a work experience scheme to provide young people under the age of 19 who might otherwise be unemployed with a realistic introduction to working life. We have introduced the youth employment subsidy, under which a £10 weekly

  599
  allowance can be paid for up to 26 weeks to employers who engage young people under 20 who have been continuously registered as unemployed for a period of six months or more.
  I ask my hon. Friend to do all that he can to bring to the attention of employers in Hartlepool the importance of playing their part by recruiting young people and by making it possible for the work experience scheme to be the great success we expect it to be.
  For the reasons which my hon. Friend has outlined, we recognise that we have a special responsibility to the young, but we have not neglected the needs of all others. We are aware of the problem of older workers to which my hon. Friend referred. We are particularly concerned to see the success of the job release scheme under which men over 64 years of age and women over 59 in full-time employment in assisted areas will be offered an allowance of £23 per week free of tax until they reach pensionable age, provided that they leave their jobs and are replaced by unemployed workers or if unemployed people agree to cease looking for work. This scheme should give help in Hartlepool where many manual workers have led a very arduous working life, and it will also help to provide jobs for younger men and women who would otherwise remain unemployed.
  My hon. Friend says that we are satisfied with the level of training. The Government have allocated additional funds to the Manpower Services Commission so that it can provide extra training facilities to enable more workers to fit themselves for jobs in skilled trades and in the expanding industries which we aim to encourage to take the place of those in decline.
  We cannot say yet that we are satisfied with the level of industrial training. We realise, moreover, that these special measures do not provide the regular jobs which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool is seeking for his constituents.
  600
  We believe that these will be stimulated by our industrial strategy and aided by regional policy. Already there are encouraging signs that additional regular work will be coming available for building workers. There is the new BSC benzole plant, the ICI micro-organism animal feed stock plant, and new plants for Monsanto Chemicals and W. R. Grace. These projects, all in the Billingham area, are expected to provide about 1,500 jobs, many of which will be taken by workers from Hartlepool. For other workers in Hartlepool we believe that a total of 1,350 new jobs will appear in the next two years if the expansion plans of various local employers are put into effect.
  This, of course magnified, is the solution to this general problem. Only through the improvement of our industrial performance can we bring down and keep down the present intolerable level of unemployment. Defeating inflation is the essential condition for that improvement, and the social contract has given us the means to do that. The next step, which depends, as so much else does, on bringing inflation down to the level of that of our competitors, is the regeneration of industry. This is the strategy to which the Government pledged themselves along with the TUC and CBI at Chequers last November and which we are now developing in the National Economic Development Council.
  As the TUC's "Economic Review" says,
  "The aim of the strategy is to put Britain on the path to a high wage, high output, full employment economy, by improving productive potential and the performance of manufacturing industry in particular with a priority for industrial development over other objectives."
  Reducing unemployment in Hartlepool, as elsewhere in Britain, which we very much want to do, means making a success of that policy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Royal Parks (Refreshment Prices)
  Royal Parks (Refreshment Prices)
  Merseyside (Housing Finance)
  Merseyside (Housing Finance)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Caravans (Rate Charges)
  Caravans (Rate Charges)
  Urban Blight
  Urban Blight
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Layfield Committee (Evidence)
  Layfield Committee (Evidence)
TRANSPORT
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  A27 (Alternative Routes)
  A27 (Alternative Routes)
  Driving Tests (Fees)
  Driving Tests (Fees)
  Road Charges
  Road Charges
  M25 (A12-A13)
  M25 (A12-A13)
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Lomé Convention
  Lomé Convention
  African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries
  African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries
  STABEX (Allocations)
  STABEX (Allocations)
  International Development Authority
  International Development Authority
  World Bank
  World Bank
SCOTLAND
  Ross and Cromarty
  Ross and Cromarty
  Economic Trends Assessment
  Economic Trends Assessment
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Transport Group
  Scottish Transport Group
  Dundee
  Dundee
  Isle of Mull
  Isle of Mull
  Sheep Dipping
  Sheep Dipping
  Educational Statistics
  Educational Statistics
  Stonehouse New Town Employees
  Stonehouse New Town Employees
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Truancy and Indiscipline in Schools (Report)
  Truancy and Indiscipline in Schools (Report)
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Re-entry Visa Applications
  Re-entry Visa Applications
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Nuclear Material and Weapons
  Nuclear Material and Weapons
  Richard Brand
  Richard Brand
  USSR (British Subject Arrested)
  USSR (British Subject Arrested)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Direct Elections
  Direct Elections
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Mr. Jens Jorgen Thorsen
  Mr. Jens Jorgen Thorsen
ENERGY
  Oil Rig Construction (Hunterston)
  Oil Rig Construction (Hunterston)
  Conservation (Roof Insulation)
  Conservation (Roof Insulation)
  Selby Coalfield
  Selby Coalfield
DEFENCE
  Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands
  Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Firemen's Dispute
  Firemen's Dispute
  Judges' Rules
  Judges' Rules
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
INDUSTRY
  Greenwell's Shipyard, Sunderland
  Greenwell's Shipyard, Sunderland
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Cable and Wireless Limited
  Mobil Oil Company Limited
  Mobil Oil Company Limited
  Government Ownership
  Government Ownership
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Steel
  Steel
TRADE
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Slater Walker Securities
  Slater Walker Securities
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Pilotage and Trinity House
  Pilotage and Trinity House
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Chloracne
  Chloracne
  Benefits and Means Tests
  Benefits and Means Tests
  Maternity Services (Sussex)
  Maternity Services (Sussex)
  Occupational Pensions Board
  Occupational Pensions Board
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Slater Walker Securities
  Slater Walker Securities
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Protection
  Employment Protection
  Chemical Hazards
  Chemical Hazards
  Benefits and Means Tests
  Benefits and Means Tests
  Industrial Accidents (Psychological Factors)
  Industrial Accidents (Psychological Factors)
  Footwear
  Footwear

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

NORTHERN IRELAND: IRA DAMAGE
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: 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, in view of the BBC report on 11th August that £¾ million worth of damage to property and vehicles et cetera had been done in Northern Ireland on that one day by the IRA, what their estimate is of the total amount of like damage done there in the last seven years.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, when dealing with compensation claims for damage to property it is not possible to distinguish between damage caused by the IRA and that caused by any other unlawful group. The total compensation already paid, together with the estimated amount still to be paid, in respect of damage to property under the Northern Ireland Criminal Injury Acts in the period 1st April 1969 to 30th September 1976 is about £190 million.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him how these repairs or replacements are paid for? If they are paid for by an insurance scheme, who pays the premiums? If it is the United Kingdom Treasury, could I ask the noble Lord whether that sum was included in the Written Answer that his noble friend gave to me on 29th July?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the sums are paid by the United Kingdom Treasury. I am afraid I could not say whether they were covered in a particular Written Answer without being told what was said in that Answer.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that he could not give an estimate of the amount of damage which was done by the IRA as opposed to that done by other criminal groups? Is he really saying that it is totally impossible to know what the IRA have done as opposed to what the Ulster Right-Wing terrorists have done? Could he possibly be more forth-coming on that point?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, under the terms of the legislation governing compensation for damage to property caused by unlawful organisations such as the IRA, the Chief Constable is empowered to issue a certificate that in his opinion—that is, in the Chief Constable's opinion—the act causing the damage was committed maliciously by a person acting on behalf of or in connection with an unlawful organisation. The Act does not require the Chief Constable to attribute the damage to a particular unlawful organisation; and I think it is perfectly clear that to ask the Chief Constable to attempt to do that would, first of all, place a very considerable burden upon him, and secondly, of course, would not always be practicable in a particular instance.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this particular Question asks for something which it is almost impossible to assess when we look back over the period of time since these troubles first started in Northern Ireland? I think my noble friend has done his best to give an answer in a positive way to the Question which has been asked, and I hope the noble Lord, when he gives it further consideration, will accept that position.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as it seems that the cost of Northern Ireland is running at about

291
£500 million a year, may I ask what Her Majesty's Government have done to inform the inhabitants, not only of this island but of the Republic and the United States of America, inter alia, of the burden that this country is shouldering as a result of that unhappy Province?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the Government have constantly reiterated the message that the damage which has been caused to Northern Ireland by bombings, fire and so on is enormous, and that message will continue to be conveyed by Government Ministers at every possible opportunity.

SOCIAL SECURITY: DEPENDANTS ABROAD
2.40 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total of payments made under the Social Security Acts to alleged "dependants abroad" for the last convenient period.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, records are not kept which would enable the figure which the noble Lord requests to be calculated. The general rules permit payment for a child who is abroad where it has already been in this country and is abroad only temporarily, and for a wife only where she can be regarded as residing with the claimant, which naturally involves evidence that she will rejoin her husband in the foreseeable future.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the grave concern that there is in the country about the possible abuses of the distribution of these social security benefits, and is it not regrettable that there is no record kept of the amount that is paid, along right or wrong lines, to the overseas dependants of immigrants into this country? Because it must add to the large amount which is being continually remitted abroad out of earnings and other receipts of the non-white residents in this country.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not think I am unkind, but I think he has not taken into account the full implications of my Answer. Furthermore, there is a lot of talk about abuse. The Department has frequently asked for evidence of abuse. It is a very easy allegation to make, but we have no evidence of abuse whatsoever. I have made it perfectly clear that before a claimant can get benefit in respect of a child, that child must be in this country. If it has gone abroad for a temporary period, then the dependant's benefit is paid, but only on the basis that the child is away for a short period. The claim for a wife can be sustained only if the wife is living with the claimant, although if she goes abroad for a period and it is expected that she will return, then benefit is payable; but if she does not return, the benefit is not continued. If the noble Lord asks me how long it is before that happens, it is usually about six months, and if she does not return then the benefit is discontinued. There is really little abuse.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that while the regulations may be interpreted with flexibility it is possible, within that area, for abuses to occur? Coming to the particular point that I have raised, from what the Minister has said, is it to be understood that amounts paid to dependants of immigrants here who are still abroad do not occur at all? If not, how does it come about? So many of the Asians have several wives and a great number of dependants and it must be difficult for the authorities correctly to interpret the applications for payments against the regulations that the noble Lord has said exist.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what I am saying is that if the wife is not resident in this country then the claimant cannot get benefit for her unless she is going to return to this country in the foreseeable future. I am not going to say that there are not instances here of a man claiming for his wife and she has not been in this country. What I am saying is that in that case he has to satisfy the authorities that she will be coming to this country within a comparatively short space of time. We have an

293
overseas department and I can give noble Lords the assurance that they check on this matter.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the present witch hunt about abuses is out of proportion to the abuses that actually take place? Could he say whether in this specific case mentioned it would cost more for his Department to investigate any abuses than the amount that the abuse costs?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I made the point that there have been complaints from a number of places about abuses. We have asked for evidence of abuses and we have had no evidence at all. I am not going to say that there is no abuse at all; obviously, there is. But in respect of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I am saying that the abuse is very little for the simple reason that we have a system of checking in relation to this particular matter.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that we pay benefit for only one dependant wife in the case of a polygamous marriage?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is perfectly true; but, even then, she must either be in this country or we have to be satisfied that she will be coming to this country or returning to it within a comparatively short space of time.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that any wife, even of a polygamous marriage, would be entitled to supplementary benefit—she would get the benefit of the doubt—and that she would not be allowed to go without any benefit at all?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness has now passed out of the sphere of contributory benefits into the general field of social security benefits, but supplementary benefit is not paid to anyone other than those within the family at that particular time. It cannot be paid to absent wives or children.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply apply to the wives of dependants in the Republic of Ireland?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, it does—to Ireland and Italy, in particular. But, again, it applies only if the dependant is away for a short period.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA
2.48 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state for the most recent convenient period the extent of the adverse balance of trade with Russia; and also the figure for the overall balance of trade of Russia with external countries.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the crude trade deficit with Russia in the twelve months ended August 1976 was £385 million. Figures reported to the United Nations show that in 1975 (the latest period available) Russia had an overall deficit on visible trade of £1,648 million.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, those figures take a little digesting. Arising out of that reply, may I ask whether it is to be understood that the exports that go from this country to Russia are mainly against long-term credits and that therefore the change in the value of sterling can he a disadvantage to the importer? Is it right that in the case of timber, which is understood to be the largest item in exports from Russia, those exports are all at negotiable prices, practically indexed prices, so that as sterling falls the importer has to pay more for the import? Could the noble Lord also indicate what, if anything, is being done to try to encourage importers who are swelling this large adverse balance of trade to meet their requirements in other directions where the balance of trade may be more in our favour?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in answer to part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, much is being done to encourage British exports to the Soviet Union. My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was recently

295
in Moscow, and a great deal is being done at all levels to encourage British exports to the Soviet Union. On the other part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I am not in a position to give him the answer about timber imports for which he has asked. If he will agree, I will write to him on that point.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the imbalance in trade with Russia is very small compared with the balance of trade deficiency for the Common Market of £2,800 million?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that raises a wider question. The deficit between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union arises largely because the Soviet Union is a supplier of raw materials, particularly timber, and, in recent months, crude oil. It is difficult and not always valuable to make comparisons between the deficits or surpluses between particular pairs of countries.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand that the adverse balance of trade with Russia is a demonstration of what is regarded as détente, or does it come within the category of compassion?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, trade is not conducted on political considerations.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that Sir Harold Wilson, on his last visit to Moscow, extended a large loan to Russia at interest rates which are almost inconceivable when we think of what is happening in this country at the moment? What has happened to the will of the Russians to buy British?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the terms of that line of credit were not out of line with those available to the Soviet Union from our major competitors. The rate at which that line of credit has been taken up has been disappointing. Until this date only some £42 million has been taken up. I can assure the noble Lord that there is a substantial number of Soviet inquiries currently with British companies and the value of those will exceed the total value of the credit agreement.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the fact that some of this cheap British loan is being used to build up the Soviet textile industry which is then competing directly with our own hard pressed industry?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the export of textile machinery is a very encouraging part of our exports to the Soviet Union. It is true that they are building up their textile industry, and one has to weigh one aspect of this against the other. It is very desirable that the export of textile machinery should be encouraged and facilitated by this line of credit.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not true that the Soviet Union is now in debt to the West by more than the total of their annual exports to the entire world? Could the noble Lord tell us when it will start repaying these debts to us and to others?
Lord ORAM: Without notice, my Lords, I have no information on the point which the noble Lord raised.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend arrange that we might export to Russia some literature on the subject of democracy?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, possibly my noble friend would consider making a visit to the Soviet Union. I am sure that there his words would be listened to avidly.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the massive adverse balance which the Minister referred to in his original reply, will he see that respect for these figures is given in the appropriate quarter where, admittedly, they are given consideration? Some action has been strongly urged regarding imports from Russia or other countries of goods which are necessarily at prices which reflect a political and not commercial character.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that these figures are constantly being studied. The action I indicated earlier in reply to questions is undertaken on the basis of careful consideration of the facts and figures concerned.

NEB: TENDERING FOR DUBAI PROJECT
2.55 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement as to why the National Enterprise Board together with other members of the consortium of Rio Tinto-Zinc and GEC was unable to compete with the price submitted by the Mitsubishi Electric Company of Japan for the construction of a power station and desalination plant near Dubai.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the pricing of the British tender for this contract was not a matter for the Government; it was entirely for the commercial judgment of the consortium. This is a highly competitive field and there can be many reasons why tender prices may cover a wide range.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that this is a very important contract? Unfortunately we missed it. Can no further arrangements be made to get other partners in the consortium with the National Enterprise Board to further efforts in this direction?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it was a large contract and I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a great pity the consortium's bid was not accepted. Certainly the National Enterprise Board, on my understanding, would be ready—if their commercial judgment considered it a wise move—to go in for similar consortia in the future.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, could we be told the value of this contract and whether delivery dates had any effect on the Japanese success in this direction?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, this was not a matter for the Government. I am not aware of the value of the contract under consideration. I have no information
298
that would suggest that the delivery date affected the outcome of the tender one way or the other.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
2.57 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reconstitution of Board as body corporate]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("sixteen").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at the same time. They are a series of Amendments. The first proposes to amend the Bill so far as the National Dock Labour Board is concerned. The port users believe that representation, as laid down in the Bill, will be inadequate. The main purpose of the three Amendments is to ensure that additional members may be appointed or nominated to the Board, and that these members will be able to represent interests other than those already represented through the National Joint Council. The dock and cargo handling industry has expanded greatly, not just over the past 30 years but considerably over the past nine or ten years. These Amendments we hope cover users of the ports and other operators in the ports who might become involved in the scope of the Bill as it stands at the moment.
We hope that the membership can be broadened to take in representatives of other workers who would not be covered by the statutory trade union representation. We believe that four representatives are not enough. The classification of dock work, as set out in the Bill, is going to be much broader than was at first apparent. Every effort must be made to remove the

299
plain fifty/fifty, port employer/port union structure for the Board, while at the same time ensuring a balanced and even structure. There is, we understand, one recent precedent which has been expressed by the Plowden Inquiry into the electricity supply industry, and we hope that the Government will see their way clear to consider that precedent in relation to the National Dock Labour Board.
We also believe that it is essential to have a substantial number of members of the Board who are knowledgeable of the problems of industry outside the docks and as it will be affected by this Scheme if it comes into operation. At the same time, the powers of these representatives, as laid down in. the Scheme, are not, we believe, as full or as wide as we could hope. There will be many whose jobs and whose businesses will be affected by possible future classification and that is the main reason for moving this series of Amendments.
There are also the workers' representatives, and there will be other unions beyond the docker section of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The impact of the Bill will be much wider than just on port employees and on port employers—indeed all of us here, as laymen, can be considered to be interested in port work and in cargo handling. There will be a great effect on prices, on consumers, on industry and on other workers all over the country. That is why we believe that the interests of employers, of employees and of outside interests should be protected and represented in a Scheme and with a Dock Labour Board of this nature.
We believe also that the local and National dock labour boards should work in harmony, but at all times these boards must reflect interests as may be necessary. We should be grateful to have the Government's view on how the National Dock Labour Board are going to administer the Scheme and whether or not that Board will be able to extend their jurisdiction to other matters which are not immediately apparent in these Amendments, or indeed in the Bill. We believe that this series of three Amendments is very germane to the entire Scheme. It is for those reasons that I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord WIGODER: May I, from these Benches, support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to the extent that we believe that it would be desirable that the Board should be larger than is at the moment contemplated. Indeed, it is desirable that the eight members appointed on the nomination of the National Joint Council in subsection (3) of the Bill should not automatically be in a majority as against the other members.
Having said that about Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, may I venture to add a caveat so far as concerns Amendment No. 3, which I hope it will not be considered necessary following upon Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The caveat is simply that it seems to us that there is a growing, tendency, which ought to be resisted, for national bodies which are appointed to administer a national industry in the national interest to become more and more comprised of members nominated or appointed to represent specific interests rather than the interests of the community as a whole. In the docks industry particularly we have seen in recent years that disciplinary problems have arisen because of the automatic division of the tribunal trying any disciplinary problem into representatives of the employers and representatives of the employees, and in the result they line up automatically on either side, whatever the merits of the specific dispute.
Amendment No. 3 now proposes that there should be four further members of the Board nominated by the CBI and four nominated by the TUC. We venture to suggest that that is undesirable. It is undesirable because the CBI does not represent all the employers any more than the TUC represents the whole of the work force. It is undesirable because neither the CBI nor the TUC is a statutory body. They may or may not exist in their present form in a year or two's time when it is proposed that provisions of this sort should take effect. Without wanting to exaggerate the matter, we suggest that this proposal—for example in subsection (3) of Clause 1—that there should be four members of the Board representing dock employers and four representing the dock workers, and now under Amendment No. 3 four representing the CBI and four representing the TUC is really all

301
part of the general drift in these days towards the corporate state which ought to be resisted.
We on these Benches are all in favour of the Secretary of State's consulting in the widest possible direction the widest possible variety of bodies in order to make his appointments to the Board, but we suggest that it is far better, after he has made those appointments, that the members of the Board should consider themselves free to act as they see the proper interest of the Board as a whole and the community as a whole, rather than that they should be there as nominees of a particular organisation or body of people with an obvious duty to promote a sectional interest.
Lord JACQUES: The Government could not accept these Amendments for three reasons. First of all, if these Amendments were carried the Board would be unnecessarily large in number. At the present time the National Dock Labour Board consists of 10 members. We propose under the Bill that there should be four additional members to represent outside interests, making 14. The Amendments would increase that number to 18. There is a consensus of opinion that a Board of this size should have something like 10 to 15 members, and we agree with that consensus. As the noble Lord will be aware, his right honourable friend Mr. Prior led for the Opposition on this Bill in the other place, and in Committee he said at column 26 of the Official Report on the first day:
"We felt on the whole that a Board of 14 was right."
I had my ear to the ground last week and I heard noises from Brighton which told me of the unity of the Party opposite. I hope they will demonstrate that unity by falling behind Mr. Prior on this particular subject.
There is a second reason why we cannot accept this Amendment, and that is that we think it would be unreasonable to the industry. Remember that the primary function of this Board from now will be to administer the Dock Labour Scheme. That is its primary function, and the Scheme is paid for by the industry. Consequently it would be unreasonable to expect the industry to
302
accept a minority position on the Board. At the present time the National Joint Council for the industry appoints eight out of 10. Under the Bill they will appoint eight out of 14. Under the Amendment it would be eight out of 18. They would be a minority. I say, quite bluntly, that if I were a trade union leader in the dock industry that would not be acceptable to me, and I suggest to the noble Lord that if he were an employer in the same industry, an employer paying for the Scheme, it would not be acceptable to him.
I come now to the third reason, which has been hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and it is the most powerful reason of all. All of us believe that there should be outside representation on this Board and consequently the Bill provides that there shall be four additional members appointed, not on the nomination of the TUC or the CBI but appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with those bodies. But that is not what the Amendment says. What the Amendment says is that they shall be appointed on the nomination of the CBI and the TUC, which means that they would have discretion. They could appoint people who are already in the industry and there could be no outsiders whatever under this Amendment. Indeed, they would be under pressure to do so, because the industry would be in a minority on the Board and both the CBI and the TUC would be under pressure to appoint people from within the industry so that the industry would have a majority on the Board. I hope with that, the noble Lord will take into account the criticism I made of his Amendment and will consider withdrawing it.
Lord SHINWELL: Before we come to any conclusion about this—because if there is a Division we are expected to take part—can my noble friend say whether those additional members to whom he has just referred would be nominated not by the CBI or the TUC but by the Secretary of State? Could he say who those people will be, where they will come from and who they will represent? Will they, for example, be people representing consumers? Secondly, on the assumption that at some time or other there may be some disputation on the newly appointed Board, perhaps between the TUC and

303
CBI representatives or—and perhaps much more likely—between both those bodies and the ten members of the Dock Labour Board, who would adjudicate? Would it be the Secretary of State or would it be done by means of a tribunal?
Lord JACQUES: In answer to the first question, I can only say that the Bill will authorise the Secretary of State to make those appointments, after consultation with the CBI and the TUC. It is the intention of the Secretary of State that two shall come from the workers' side and two from the employers' side outside the industry. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot go in answering that question. I think the noble Lord had a second question.
Lord SHINWELL: The question was whether, in the event of some disputation arising on this newly appointed body, the matter would be referred to some outside body or whether it would be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Lord JACQUES: I can only have regard to what has happened in the past: in the case of such a dispute, the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State.
Lord SLATER: In rising to support my noble friend in regard to this matter, may I draw his attention to the fact that so far as the nationalised industries are concerned, and particularly the one I come from, mining, in no circumstances would the NUM make nominations as regards anybody coming to sit on the National Coal Board. My noble friend Lord Shinwell knows this to be correct, because he was the Minister who put through the Bill. The Minister could draw the attention of the union to the fact that he would like to enlarge the Board or that the Board ought to be represented by this, that or the other. I think that my noble friend, in answer to this particular issue, should say that the issue is open and that the CBI and the TUC, who are the two parent bodies, one representing the industry and the other representing the workers, is a good line of approach. They ought to be taken into consultation without being made responsible for nominations as to who should serve on the particular Board.
3.15 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am not quite certain how far we can regard what was done in an industry 30 years ago as relevant to what we are trying to do now. But apart from that, I should like to put one or two points to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because he seems to be arguing two separate things. He is saying, first, that this Board has wider responsibilities than just those who are engaged in the immediate industry and the representatives of the National Joint Council, and, on the other hand, that the National Joint Council, representing both sides of the industry, ought to have a majority on the Board. I am not quite sure how far those things are compatible.
The noble Lord referred to the four members to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and he said that two of them would come from the workers' side and two from the employers' side. But that leaves out altogether any wider representation, in the sense of representation of the public at large. If we are to have these four people nominated from the workers and the employers, and if we are not to increase the size of the Board, the eight members coming from the National Joint Council could be reduced in number. I am not certain that this might not be a better answer, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Lyell.
As we understand it, there are many more people affected than simply the dock workers and the dock employers in the whole operation of this Bill. I should have thought, in those circumstances, that it was right radically to change the composition of the Board in the kinds of proportions indicated by my noble friend. If eight and eight are too many, one could quite easily have six and six, possibly with representation from the wider interests, the consumer interests as well. I do not think the noble Lord has answered that point; and one has to remember the central fact here, that the present Dock Labour Board is essentially an administrative Board, whereas the new Dock Labour Board, it appears, will also have at any rate the possibility, if not the actual expectation, of extending its own limits and its own authority. It will be a different kind of Board altogether, and that should be very much reflected in the

305
composition of the Board. I think this should be borne in mind in deciding the composition.
3.18 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to take up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because I do not think he has fairly compared like with like. The old Dock Labour Board had administrative powers within very limited areas; but the new Bill, in some areas, is increasing the territory over which the Dock Labour Board will have power to ten times the previous territory. Taking into consideration the South-West, it increases to about 20 times the area of territory, and of course there will be firms within that territory who would be affected. Therefore I would support the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lord Lyell when they say that this ignores a very specialised and very knowledgeable representation of industries which could very well be affected by this much wider territory over which the new Board will have authority.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord who tried to compare this situation with that of the Coal Board, because here we really are not comparing like with like. The Coal Board deals only with coal in every region. This Bill will give power and authority to this Board over every type and kind of industry, and agriculture, that imports or exports, in relation to its warehousing, the transport of its goods, and so on. It really is not good enough to try to pretend that there is a fair comparison between a one-commodity industry such as coal and the appalling effect on all our import and export industries that could result under this Bill from the abuse of these powers, given over so wide a territory.
Lord SLATER: As the noble Baroness has made reference to the remarks I made and to the example that I gave in support of my noble friend, will she not agree that my noble friend said—and it was objected to by the noble Earl on the other side—in moving his Amendment, that the responsibility for the nomination and appointment of these new people to the Board would be given to the Secretary of State? I think that the noble Baroness has overlooked that feature. If the noble Baroness were to examine the position
306
again she would find that instead of renouncing the application within the Amendments which have been so ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on the other side and supported by the Liberal Benches, with the exception of the third Amendment, the line adopted by my noble friend in seeking to approach these Amendments, the questions which have been put to him and the answers which he has given, is the right one.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I am afraid that I cannot accept the proposition put forward by the noble Lord because I am not all that confident that the interests of the many sides of industry can be fairly represented by limited nominations, even though they are made by the Secretary of State.
3.22 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to take up with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, his opening remarks about the size of the Board, since he made a great distinction between 14 and 18. Certainly it is my experience, and I suspect that it is his, that size does not make very much difference once one gets beyond 10. It is absolutely true that if a Board is of the rough size of 10 it is much easier to handle; it can reach decisions more readily, although inevitably if it is that small it will not represent the kind of interests that the Government, let alone ourselves, are thinking about. However, once one goes beyond 10 it seems to me to be ridiculous to make a special point about whether 14 people are more manageable than 18. That is quite apart from the fact that in the case of Boards like this everybody does not turn up at each meeting; so we are speaking in practical terms of something like 16 out of 18, or 12 out of 14. I suggest that this is not a major issue and one which the noble Lord may think was not really worth putting forward.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: The point that I should like to take up with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, stems from his remark that the Board will be representative, on the one hand, of the worker and, on the other hand, of the employer. It seems to me to be quite the wrong premise upon which to start, that already we are drawing lines. On the one side of the line

307
is one group and on the other side another group. What this new Board has to do is to join forces for the betterment of everybody involved. The very expression that the noble Lord uses seems to pre-determine a position and this worries me very much. Having got, in the noble Lord's own words, these two groups, because of the numbers they cannot be representative of all the people who are involved.
If one looks at the people who are working in the dock they are represented by a large number of unions, a large number of activities. It is a great pity in general terms that one industry is represented by so many different unions. On the other side, the employers are anticipating an extension of activity within the ambit of the Bill, yet they are so poorly represented by their numbers. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, the function of the new Board will be to extend the activities. How, in an extension of activities, can all the interests be properly represented by this minimal increase in numbers?
There are new users coming into the docks activity. Whether the National Joint Council can represent all of those new users, some of which we have not yet identified, I do not know, but it would be quite wrong that we should come back to Parliament in five, six or 10 years' time in order to seek Amendments to a Bill of this kind. Surely the right thing to do is to make adequate provision in terms of representation of the various interests by having a sufficiently large number of people. Indeed, the recent technology of roll-on/roll-off boats in the South Coast ports is an illustration of this. Where can that new interest be represented? Certainly it cannot be represented in the National Joint Council which is already looking after the more traditional elements.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has ably put the point that after 10—my own figure would have been 11—the numbers are not very material, but it is important that those who work in the dock, those who employ workers in the dock and those who use the dock should at least feel that they have the avenue of representation. The numbers suggested in the Bill are inadequate to provide this representation. I think that my noble
308
friend Lord Lyell should be supported in his Amendment to give this spread of opportunity, not for that which we see today but for that which might be around the corner tomorrow.
Lord AMPTHILL: I support Amendment No. 1 and consequentially Amendment No. 2, for it introduces the first step in providing the possibility that the consumer will be represented on the Board. It has been accepted by the whole Committee that the effect of the Bill must cause an increase in prices, although the Government will not so admit. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it can be helpful only if the country as a whole should have a voice in the deliberations of the Board and that its membership should not be restricted to those from within the industry. I mildly regret the increase in the size of the Board, for slimmer ones work better, but a balanced reduction of the other representatives might have been an alternative solution. However, it is imperative that the consumer has the chance to mitigate the harm which is being done and I urge your Lordships to support the Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord replies to these many points which have been made, may I put one other to him. Will he explain the comment that he made in reply to his noble friend Lord Shinwell in which, if I heard him aright, he suggested that if there were a dispute in the Board it would be settled by the Secretary of State? I should have thought that that was (a) quite undesirable and (b) not included in the Bill.
3.29 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: If I may reply to the last point first, I did not suggest that it was included in the Bill. I said that, being guided by past practice, I should imagine that the reference would be to the Secretary of State rather than to some kind of public inquiry. The principal function of this Board, as of the present Board, will be to administer the Dock Labour Scheme. That is to be their primary function: the industry provides the money and this Board spends it upon the administration of the Scheme. For example, it handles severance pay for the industry, deals with recruitment, and so on.

309
It would be quite unreasonable to expect the industry, when it pays for the administration of a Scheme which will apply to that industry and that industry only, to accept the position that the Board should have a majority of people upon it who did not come from the industry. I suggest, as I suggested earlier, that if I were associated with that industry I should not accept that position and, let us be quite candid about it, there are very few people in this Committee who would do so, either. It depends upon which side of the fence you are on.
It is true that under the Bill the Board will have wider responsibilities in connection with the spreading of the Scheme to the non-Scheme ports and certain other classification of work. It is for that reason that the Government have insisted that there should be four additional members from outside the industry. These four additional members will be consumers just as much as everybody in this Committee is a consumer. It may well be that two will be workers and two employers, but they will not have the worker or the employer interest of that industry; they will be outside that industry and therefore they could as well represent the consumer interest as anyone else.
As to the size of the Board, I think it is important that we should try to get the right size and from the quotation that I gave your Lordships, Mr. Prior, leading for the Opposition in the other place, thought it was important that we should get the right size. He went further and said that we had got the right size in the Bill. I believe that the right size for a Board of this kind is somewhere between 10 and 15. Once you get over 15 it is burdensome. I believe a Board of 18 would be burdensome.
I would also remind your Lordships that since the inception of the Scheme, the National Joint Council of the industry have had eight representatives. Ultimately, the Scheme will be a much wider Scheme, but they are to continue to have only eight representatives—not more than eight. Consequently, they are being curtailed and the extension is entirely for people outside the industry. I feel that the provisions of the Bill fit the problem as well as it can be fitted and I certainly could not give any promise to go back and advocate a larger Board.
3.32 p.m.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful to the noble Lord for his observations and thankful for the courteous way in which he put them over, but we are not entirely satisfied. However, the noble Lord did start by quoting what my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Prior, said on Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord will take it from me that Mr. Prior mentioned this position when he came to consider the Bill in another place on Report, and I am sure that if the noble Lord cares to look at the Report in Hansard of 26th July' in another place, he will find that Mr. Prior said:
"What is important, as we have stressed all through, is that the National Dock Labour Board should take into account the interests of consumers, the interests of users of the port, the interests of workers other than dock workers, and the interests particularly of employers other than dock employers."—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/76; col. 37.]
That is what I was stressing in putting forward this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, raised a second point, that trade union leaders and employers who are involved in the dock industry would not accept the increased size of the Board. Speaker after speaker all round the House has said that the dock and cargo handling industry is so large that it covers far more than the mere interests of that industry. The noble Lord mentioned that there was nomination by the TUC and the CBI. So far as we can see, the alternative as advocated in the Bill is possibly nomination by another term—perhaps we might call it patronage by the Secretary of State—but we still do not believe that there will be adequate protection of all interests without the Amendment, which we believe to be reasonably necessary.
We have heard much about the consumer's interests. We believe that those interests must be adequately protected, and "consumers" covers a very wide band of the population. It is not just housewives, or consumer associations or anybody like that. It is industries and anybody who is importing or exporting through the ports and, indeed, many other trades and skills apart from what we understand as cargo handling and dock work. We are not entirely satisfied

311
with the noble Lord's reply to these Amendments. He may be surprised to hear that certainly we do not wish to wreck the Bill at this early stage. After all, we have been discussing it for under thirty minutes. I must say that the Government's attitude on this series of Amendments is not entirely promising, particularly in view of what the noble Lord said about my right honourable friend in another place, and how he believed that 14, 16 or 18 was or was not the right number. Yet my right honourable friend, who is, I believe, an entirely consistent man, pointed out that other interests had to be taken into account when composing this Board.
Lord JACQUES: Other interests have been taken into account. The Bill provides that there shall be four additional Members representing outside interests and the Amendment provides for eight to be nominated by the CBI and the TUC, but there is no guarantee that they will represent outside interests. Those bodies could be under pressure to appoint from within the industry, and they would be.
Lord LYELL: Would the noble Lord take it that the same argument goes for the four just as for the eight?
Lord JACQUES: No, I am sorry; it does not, because in the case of the four the CBI and the TUC are simply consulted. The Secretary of State makes the appointments and he will see that they are outside people. Under the Amendment, the additional members are nominated by the CBI and the TUC and they will be under very strong pressure to nominate from within the industry, if the Board has a minority in the industry. They will obviously seek to get a majority through the trade associations and the trade unions.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for just one moment? I am not thrilled at all about the Secretary of State having those powers.
Lord JACQUES: I should have expected that.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord
312
Jacques, but really we believe that even though these eight are to be nominated they will obtain a wider spread of interests than the mere nomination or patronage, as I call it, of four people even though the Secretary of State may wish to make up his own mind and use his own judgment. We on these Benches believe that the pressures on the Secretary of State will be just the same as they are from the two respective sides of the port employers and the port employees. Nevertheless, we think that in view of the very wide-ranging debate that has gone on we should like to consult further. That is why, albeit fairly reluctantly, I would seek to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is a paving Amendment and it happens that it paves the way not only for my Amendment No. 5, but also for the Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that is to say, Amendment No. 6.
While being very disappointed in the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to the last group of Amendments, I am none the less fortified in the reaction to the proposals that he may be able to see his way clear to a more accommodating attitude to this Amendment. The warehousing industry is very widely represented at docks and docksides, both on waterways as defined in a later stage in the Bill and also, of course, at the many harbours.
It is impossible to imagine, apart from the shipping companies themselves, an industry more intimately involved in the activities of ports and harbours than the warehousing industry, and I put it to your Lordships that they above all people ought to be consulted concerning representation on the Board that we are establishing in this clause. The National Association of Warehousekeepers is not a particularly well organised body from the point of view of trade unions. Although the TUC no doubt have many members who work in warehouses, they are not

313
the same union at all as the Transport and General Workers and in general they do not follow the same lines. It is for that reason that I am suggesting to your Lordships that the Association so intimately involved in the matters and proposals in this Bill ought really to be consulted on the membership of the Board. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to support my noble friend very briefly in this Amendment because I think these people do an extremely important service to the country. So far as I understand it, they own 70 per cent. of the total warehouse space. I mentioned this, in column 618 of the Official Report, at Second Reading. I was thinking particularly then of the foodstuffs in the warehouses and cold stores. As I understand it, it is essential that these be kept at correct temperatures because if that is not done this can ruin the contents in these warehouses and cold stores. These men are experts in their job and I gather that at the present time 70 per cent. of the area occupied by the Association's members falls in the handling zone so this will make it very difficult for them to continue their normal work.
Also, as I understand it, public warehouses operated for many centuries in this country before the dock workers were registered. It is a very old industry going back to Roman history. It is for these reasons which I have put very briefly—the absolute necessity for our food and other commodities to be kept in the right temperatures, which can be done, I suggest, only by these real experts, and that it is not a new industry but has served a purpose over many centuries—that I beg to support my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: I believe that these people have a further function and that is in the re-export trade, which is vitally important to this country. The breaking of bulk imports and the re-export in smaller vessels to the continent of Europe, and so on, has long been a great tradition of this country. If the working of the ports becomes so expensive that Antwerp and Rotterdam become cheaper, the great ships will sail to Rotterdam and Antwerp, bulk will be broken there and those countries will get the benefit of the
314
re-export trade. For that reason these people have a very vital interest in keeping the handling of our ports at the cheapest possible level so that we can compete in the international re-export trade.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: As I believe warehousemen will be well represented under the terms of the Bill, could we be told what the membership of this Association is and what proportion of warehousemen it actually represents?
Lord TREFGARNE: By leave of the Committee, may I intervene once more? My information is that about 70 per cent. of all the warehouses in operation in the United Kingdom are members of this Association and about 70 per cent. of those are to be found within the regions which will be covered by this Bill if it goes through Parliament as at present drafted.
Lord JACQUES: I think I should just remind the Committee that the National Dock Labour Board is not going to manage the industry. All that the Board is going to do is to manage the Scheme and the object of the Scheme is to decasualise work. While some of the work undertaken by members of the National Association of Warehousekeepers is certainly among the work which could be classified under the Bill, there are a number of other employers' associations in a similar position—for example, the National Cold Store Federation. It would not be practical to require consultation with all such associations before appointing these members of the Board. The employers in question will almost all be individually or through their trade association in membership of the CBI and their interests can therefore be adquately represented through the CBI. I would add that if we were forced to consult individual trade associations on the employers' side it would not end there. Then each trade union would want to be consulted instead of just the TUC.
Lord TREFGARNE: Of course trade unions are consulted. They only have to go on strike and any one of them can be consulted.
Lord JACQUES: I do not think that strikes have anything to do with this question. It is not practical, and this has

315
been the position when the Opposition have been in power and have had similar Bills. They have told us time after time that it is not practical to consult the individual trade associations and the individual trade unions. These trade unions are affiliated to the TUC and the employers' associations to the CBI and it is practical to consult two bodies and to get their opinions and take them into account, but not to consult every trade association of employers and every trade union of employees. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Amendment on the ground that it is not a practical proposition.
Lord LYELL: Is the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, really satisfied that every trade association should be consulted? Is he aware that there is very widespread concern throughout this industry and in warehouses which have been described by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and indeed by others, and that there are three very substantial trade unions which are concerned in this industry? Maybe the noble Lord does not believe it, but we can produce evidence—perhaps even within minutes, if he wishes—which has been presented to us that members of these three large trade unions are not entirely satisfied with their position and their employment prospects under the Bill as it stands. Would the noble Lord accept that?
Lord JACQUES: I would not accept that. I would tell the noble Lord that the TUC, representing all those trade unions, including those referred to by the noble Lord—and some of them are on the Council of the TUC—is quite happy with the Bill as it stands.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am not going to pursue the argument on consultation with the trade unions. My Amendment has nothing to do with that. I am simply saying that consultation ought to be required with one of the principal employers in the dock areas. There are, I have no doubt, other employers as well and very likely they ought to be consulted too, but I am not moving an Amendment on that at this point. I am simply endeavouring to rectify one defect in this Bill. There are numerous defects in this Bill, to my mind, and it is not possible for me personally to move Amendments to rectify
316
every single defect. My noble friends Lord Lyell and Lord Gowrie are moving a whole string of Amendments to this Bill which we all hope will rectify some of the worst defects, but this is a Government Bill and it is the Government who should rectify the defects in it, not us. However, here is one defect which I am trying to rectify.
Lord SHINWELL: May I ask my noble friend a question? Is it within his knowledge that when this matter was considered by the TUC and also by the CBI, because both bodies are very much concerned, in the case of the TUC they must have consulted those other unions which are interested and similarly, so far as the CBI were concerned and involved, they must have consulted a variety of other interests which are associated with the CBI in one form or another? Is that within his knowledge because, if the TUC consulted a variety of similar interests and were satisfied, and if the CBI, representing other interests, were also consulted and were quite satisfied, is not that all the consultation that is required?
Lord JACQUES: I may say that in the case of the TUC there were such consultations as my noble friend has mentioned. I am not aware of the procedure in the CBI, but if there is going to be a Division on this Amendment let me point out—
Lord TREFGARNE: On a point of order, is the noble Lord allowed to continue his speech?
Lord JACQUES: There cannot be a point of order. This is a Committee stage and when an Amendment is moved that initiates a discussion. It does not end the discussion; it initiates it. I just want to point out that if there is to be a Division I hope we shall get it straight that when the Opposition are in Government they insist that it is not practicable to consult individual trade associations of employers and individual trade unions. They have done that time after time. This is not new to us. We are just doing what previous Conservative Governments have done, and if noble Lords opposite vote for this Amendment they will be acting very inconsistently.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Good gracious!
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Moyne, L.

Amory, V.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Platt, L.

Avebury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Powis, E.

Balerno, L.

Glasgow, E.

Radnor, E.

Banks, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V.

Redesdale, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Rochdale, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Sackville, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Birdwood, L.

Grey, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bledisloe, V.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Boothby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brentford, V.

Hankey, L.

Sharples, B.

Burnham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Simon, V.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Caccia, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Cairns, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Spens, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe, E.

Stamp, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ilchester, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Clancarty, E.

Kimberley, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathspey, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sudeley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thomas, L.

Cromartie, E.

Loudoun, C.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Trevelyan, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vickers, B.

Deramore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

McNair, L.

Wade, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Marley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dudley, B.

Middleton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Duncan-Sandys, L,

Monck, V.

Westbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Young, B.

Eccles, V.

Morris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bacon, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Snow, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Oram, L.

Williamson, L.

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

Paget of Northampton, L.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pannell, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Fulton, L.

Pargiter, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wooton of Abinger, B.

Garner, L.

Raglan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

4.2 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("and the National Association of Warehousekeepers").
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment for which we have just paved the way. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("and the National Consumer Council").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which is a modest Amendment designed to add the National Consumer Council to the list of bodies in subsection (4) of Clause 1 which are to be consulted by the Secretary of State when he appoints the remaining four members of the Board. The object of this Amendment is to give recognition to the fact that this Bill not only creates a situation in which there is a cosy carve-up within the docks of a domestic area of activity between employers and employees, but creates also matters which are of vital importance to the consumer as a whole. That is an issue which has already been raised in some of the observations when Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were debated.
If I may say so, I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, say that the existing National Dock Labour Scheme was paid for by the industry. I do not accept that at all. It is not paid for by the industry; it is paid for by the consumer. It is paid for every time a housewife goes to do her shopping. What concerns us on these Benches about the Bill is that it will very materially add to the burden that the housewife will have to bear in future. If that be so, it is only common sense that the consumers, through the only appropriate body, which I think is the National Consumer Council, should be among those consulted by the Secretary of State.
When I say that this Bill will increase the burden to be borne by the consumer, I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, one or two questions, of which I gave him what little notice I could this morning. First of all, does the noble Lord seriously dispute that the result of this
320
Bill will be that employers who are not at present paying the levy will in future have to do so? If so, must that not inevitably to some extent increase costs? Can the noble Lord give us some estimate of the amount by which costs are thus to be increased? Secondly, does the Bill not inevitably mean that some employees in future will be paid for doing a week's work even when they are not actually doing a week's work? One understands that that is the situation in the docks, and one understands well the historical reasons why that extraordinary situation has arisen. But does that not mean that costs will increase? If so, can the noble Lord tell us what the estimate of the Government is of how much is involved in that direction?
Thirdly, this Bill, if it is passed into law, will extend the Scheme to small, non-Scheme ports where, at the moment, there is a very limited amount of casual labour perfectly happily and contentedly employed. If the Bill is brought into force, does it not mean either that those small non-Scheme ports will have to close down, with a consequent increase in the cost of distribution of foodstuffs in the vicinity of those ports, or alternatively that they will be put to substantially increased expense in employing full-time labour in accordance with the Scheme? If that is so, can the noble Lord give some indication of the amount of money thus to be spent in that direction? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that the National Cold Storage Federation has estimated that if this Scheme is implemented it will increase the costs of handling goods by as much as £6 per ton? Have the Government made any investigation into those figures? Can they either confirm that they are correct or, alternatively, indicate what, in the Government's estimate, the correct figures will be? If, in all these circumstances, a substantial extra burden will be placed on the consumer, it is at least common sense that the consumer should have a still, small voice and be consulted when the Board is established. I beg to move.
Lord SHINWELL: I agree with almost every argument that has been adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. His argument was impeccable, but I reject his conclusion. I reject it because almost everything for which the noble Lord is

321
asking—and he has a right to ask—is contained in Clause 2. If one examines Clause 2, one discovers that the Board is responsible for the administration and for the general conduct of the organisation. The Board has to take into account almost every consideration affecting the national interests, affecting the workers themselves and affecting those associated with the business. I must confess to having some doubts about the effectiveness of consumer councils. We have a number of these consumer councils. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who is Chairman of the Post Office Consumer Council is not present, because I would rather say this in his presence than behind his back. This Consumer Council has been operating for quite a long time and the longer it operates the worse the service of the Post Office becomes. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and his Consumer Council because of it, but the fact of the matter is that these consumer councils talk and talk. I am not objecting to talking—I am a bit of a talker myself, and I do not denigrate the profession. But that is really all it amounts to. What we want is action. The action is contained in Clause 2, because those who are to be responsible for the administration and the conduct of affairs are explicitly told what is expected of them.
So I repeat that although I think the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, were supreme and presented in his usual remarkable forensic manner, I believe that really he is flogging a dead horse, and the last thing I should like to see is the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indulging in an escapade of that kind. I advise my noble friend on the Front Bench—perhaps he will not agree with me, but I cannot help that because I am quite satisfied that I am right—that we must concern ourselves with the national interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, rightly said, we are concerned about consumer aspects. There is no question about it. By the time it is referred to the Consumer Council, referred to the CBI, referred to the TUC—and these bodies will refer it to their affiliated organisations—there will be so much consultation that in point of fact nothing will be done that is of the slightest use to the industry at all. So I suggest that, although the noble Lord has ex
322
pressed himself remarkably well, his conclusion should be rejected.
Viscount AMORY: The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said that he believes the obligations laid on the Board under Clause 2 provide a satisfactory answer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I would ask the noble Lord whether, in the light of experience of nationalised boards to date, he really thinks that the obligations there provide a satisfactory answer to the very relevant questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It seems very difficult to belive that they do.
Lord SHINWELL: I am bound to say this to my noble friend—I will call him my noble friend because we were colleagues in another place for quite a long time, although I arrived there accidentally before be was born—that If I were to embark on a dissertation on nationalisation and nationalised boards I would occupy your Lordships' time to too great an extent. I have got very many things to say on the subject, and perhaps I might be invited at some time to give a lecture on it, but not now.
4.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: Had we thought there was a substantial consumer interest we should certainly have been happy to consult with a consumer organisation, and it almost certainly would have been the Consumer Council. But we are of the opinion that there is not a substantial consumer interest. Remember that the object of the whole Scheme is decasualisation of labour. That does not necessarily involve higher costs.
Lord WIGODER: Would the noble Lord forgive me? Could he please indicate how many casual workers this Scheme will decasualise? Is not the figure something over 300?
Lord JACQUES: I could not give a figure, because we do not yet know what work is going to be classified. We have no figures of that kind. I certainly have no figure of 300. The whole object of this Scheme, particularly since 1967, has been decasualisation of labour; that is its primary function. In fact it is very little else but decasualisation of labour. And

323
decasualisation of labour does not necessarily increase costs. It has been my experience over the years that when you have part-time labour, to come at your request at the time you want it, you have to pay more for it per hour than you pay for full-time labour. So it does not necessarily mean that you would reduce costs.
There would, in the case of the dock industry, in our opinion, be some saving in costs, because of improved industrial relations. Remember the strikes of the early 1970s? They were all about the problems with which this Bill is dealing. Up to 1970 we had never had a comprehensive dock strike other than the General Strike. In 1970 and in 1972, for the first time we had comprehensive dock strikes, because of the problems with which this Bill is dealing. Then we had an unofficial strike in London immediately afterwards. After the strike the ACAS had an inquiry. The inquiry committee reported that the best thing that could be done to prevent a repetition was for the present Government to go forward as speedily as possible with their proposals for dock work regulation. We were recommended by the inquiry committee to go ahead with it. Therefore, there is an independent opinion, completely outside the Government, that this Bill will improve industrial relations in the docks. It will therefore reduce the losses that we get from strikes, and, therefore, in fact might be of benefit to consumers rather than a hindrance.
I would also point out that the Dock Labour Board is not concerned with negotiation of wages. Wages are negotiated in the National Joint Council. That is not the function of the Board at all. I further point out that although a good deal has been made of the cost of redundancy or severance pay in the industry, in general the cost of services by the employers for the employees in the dock industry is not high. As I said on Second Reading, the cost to the dock employer under the scheme for pensions, redundancy and all the other benefits for employees for which he pays, is 11 per cent., and of course the greater part of that is severance. The whole lot is 11 per cent. of wages. In the chemical industry, which I took as an example, it is 10·3 per cent., and for white collar workers in the chemical industry it is 15 per cent. So that we cannot say that
324
the Scheme is going to inflict very high additional costs.
On the questions that were put specifically: if there are new employers brought within the Scheme, will they have to pay the levy? Yes, but that would mean that the levy is more than it has been. There will be more levy only if there is more severance; it is mostly for severance pay. The levy is at a different rate at the different ports; it varies between 4 and 5 per cent. according to the port. But the amount of the levy will not increase because of this Bill. The amount of the levy that has to be paid by the industry will increase if the costs increase, and the biggest cost is severance pay.
Viscount SIMON: Would the noble Lord allow me to put one question? Is he saying that although the new Board will be operating over a much wider field, its administrative expenses will be no larger than those of the present Board?
Lord JACQUES: I certainly did not intend to say that. I think it is a good question. I would say, if it is operating over a larger field with, as will be the case, local Boards, there is bound to be some increase in administrative expenses. I would think that would be negligible. That is not a substantial consumer interest. Severance pay is a substantial consumer interest, and I answered the question with that in mind.
So far as the minimum wage is concerned, I think if a man is on call he should be paid his wage. The Dock Labour Scheme has not been necessarily wasteful. It has very largely meant that instead of a large number of people being employed part-time a smaller number are employed full-time. So far as the small ports are concerned, the small ports will be brought within the Scheme only if they are found to come within the criteria laid down in the Bill; for example, where there is casual labour and it is necessary for the purposes of the port to have a full-time staff. The criteria are quite clearly laid down in the Bill, and it follows from that that all the small ports will not be dragged in.
I have no knowledge of the £6 per ton. I certainly would not accept it. Having regard to what has happened with this kind of thing in the past, I would say it

325
is a bit of propaganda. It is the kind of propaganda that goes on—it has gone on with the aircraft Bill—and it will go on with this Bill and any other Bill of the same kind.
Lord WIGODER: May I intervene again to ask whether, if the noble Lord rejects that as propaganda, the Government have done their sums and what figure do they reach?
Lord JACQUES: I am not aware of any figure, and I should imagine that no figure is available because the scheme has not been drafted; we do not know how far we are going with classification, with bringing in ports. It will be a long time before the questions can be answered. I do not think that any reliable estimate can be made at the moment. That is one reason why I suspect that this is propaganda.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Would not the noble Lord agree that it is rather irresponsible, in view of the debate which took place in another place yesterday and the general state of the country, for the Government to put forward a Bill which is going to cost money—and the noble Lord has not refuted that—when they have not bothered to make even an estimate of figures in order to see whether this money is going to be well spent? is not that something the Government should get on with and try to provide an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, at a later stage of the Bill when it is convenient?
Lord JACQUES: As I said, I should imagine that any estimate put forward at the moment could not be considered to be very reliable because it has yet to be decided within the criteria of the Bill what work will, and what work will not, be classified. The additional cost, if any, will depend upon what additional work is classified. We have got a long way to go before we ever reach an answer to that question.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Would the noble Lord not agree that these sums ought to have been done? The noble Lord is a very experienced and very skilful businessman himself, and he will have had experience of many occasions on which some sort of estimates have to be made against just as
326
doubtful a background as he is indicating in relation to this Bill, and one has to get on with it in a businesslike way in order to have some idea of where the money is going to be spent and where it has to be found from. I strongly suggest that it is only reasonable that these sums should be done, and that the Government Department should get to work and do them.
Lord JACQUES: Estimates should be based upon facts, and in so far as they are not based on facts they are very rough estimates indeed. I would say that you could make estimates on assumptions which may not in due course be the facts, but that is the only way in which you could do it. Those figures may in fact be available so far as I know, and if they are available I should be very pleased to convey them to the noble Lord, but I should be extremely doubtful whether they are available. It is because of the difficulties there that I have had some suspicion of this. In conclusion, may I say that if we did think that there was a real and substantial consumer interest we would not have any doubt in accepting this Amendment, but we do not think there is a substantial consumer interest; nor do we think that the case that there is has been established.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Would the noble Lord not agree that, with 50 per cent. of our food coming in as imports into this country, and the handling and warehousing of it being of prime importance, we could not have a greater consumer interest?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I add, in reply to what the noble Lord said, that in his previous speech on another Amendment with which he did not agree he said that everybody was a consumer. So if everybody is a consumer there must be a consumer interest. I find this just a little odd. It may well be that the National Consumer Council protects, or at any rate tries to protect, consumers who perhaps are not so argumentative as I and a few other people are; and many people who are really interested and knowledgeable about the Scheme would be able, through the trade unions and the CBI and all the rest of them, to have the consumer interest considered. But the National Consumer

327
Council tries to look after people who find it extremely difficult to know where to go to have their interests protected. The noble Lord must not be annoyed if I say that I think that it is absolutely fantastic that, first of all he says everybody has a consumer interest, and then says that if he really thought there was a consumer interest he would be willing to accept the Amendment. It is just dotty.
Lord JACQUES: I am not surprised. Of course we are all consumers—I think we all accept that—but whether or not there is a consumer interest in this particular case depends on two things: first, whether the operation of this new Scheme under the Bill will add substantially to the prices paid by consumers, and, secondly, whether it will affect supplies. I think those are the two questions. We must examine those two questions if we are going to decide whether there is a substantial consumer interest. We are of the opinion, as I have explained in some detail, that there will not he any perceptible increase in prices arising out of the operation of the new Dock Labour Scheme. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Any increase in prices will be negligible as a result of the operation of this scheme.
So far as shortages are concerned, might I point out that before any work can be classified, first it has to be third party handling—that is to say, if a firm is handling its own goods, or the goods of an associated company, then it does not come within this scheme at all. It has to be third party handling, and third party handling only. Secondly, it has to be within 5 miles of the high-water mark. It has to be within the five mile zone. Thirdly, the warehouse, or whatever, must be handling imports or exports. If it was handling only or substantially only home produced foods then it would not be involved. This Bill is concerned with the handling of imports and exports. Fourthly, a most elaborate two-stage procedure is set out in Schedule 4 before any work can be classified. It is a most elaborate two-stage procedure. In addition, there have to be consultations with the Minister of Agriculture. There are so many obstacles that in our opinion there is no likelihood whatever of the
328
extension of the Dock Labour Scheme having any effect at all on food suppliers.
Viscount SIMON: Could not the noble Lord come a little closer to us over this? Nothing very much is involved. He has said that if he was satisfied that there was a large consumer interest he would readily agree. All the Amendment is asking is that the Consumer Council shall be consulted before an appointment is made. As his noble friend Lord Shinwell says, it is not as though they have to be consulted about every decision of the Board; it is only about an appointment to the Board. Once that has been done somebody is appointed, and until he dies, or something like that, and a successor has to be appointed, there is nothing more to be done. This is such a small thing and there is a feeling, I am sure through the country, that they would feel very much happier if there was this consultation. It amounts to so little. Could not the noble Lord meet us on this point?
Lord JACQUES: I am prepared to consult with my right honourable friend and see whether it is possible for further consideration to be given to it. It is not new. It is not being raised for the first time. I am quite prepared to find out whether there is some way in which we can meet the point of view which has been put forward, but without any commitment.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: I wonder whether my noble friend would do that because there is a very relevant point here. I know my noble friend's interest in the consumer and the Cooperative movement, and that is not in doubt—it goes back a long time—but those of us who take a great interest in the consumer movement at the present time hope that at last we are moving into a new sphere. For a long time when we wanted to get a consumer body recognised we were told, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, said, that we were all consumers. That is not really the point. I do not feel that we shall make a great deal of progress in the best ways of the consumer movement until the movement itself is accepted, whether or not one considers it to be one of the powers or estates in the land, and I should have thought that if the TUC and the

329
CBI were consulted they would agree that it was eminently reasonable to say (I appreciate that the Amendment refers to the National Consumer Council) that such a body should be consulted, too.
I take it from what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, that it would not mean that the Consumer Council would have the right to have somebody on the committee; it is a question of consultation. Until we break this barrier we shall not get far. On "Neddy" we—if I may use the word "we" in this context—have at last managed to get the chairman of the National Consumer Council sitting in there, and that is at least a step forward. I hope that my noble friend will be able to look at the matter purely from that point of view, because I am sure that the Government believe in the best type of progress for the consumer, and I should hate to be disappointed. I hope that my noble friend will do as he has suggested and look at the matter again.
Lord JACQUES: My problem is that I believe that there is no substantial consumer interest involved. However, I very much agree with the principle expounded by my noble friend that if one can do anything to further that principle one should try to do it. Largely for that reason I have said that I will take the matter back, and I will write to the noble Lord in good time to enable him, if he is dissatisfied, to table an Amendment on Report.
Lord WIGODER: We seem to be embarking on a state of ever-increasing bewilderment, because when the Bill was first drafted it was widely trumpeted in dockland as being a measure to provide new job opportunities for existing registered dockers. That was its purpose. As a result of protests, which are fully understood, from other unions, safeguards have been written into the Bill. It was conceded after long argument in Committee in another place and then on Second Reading here that the Bill did not provide any new jobs at all for registered dockers in the immediate future, although it might provide a handful in the years to come, but nothing like sufficient to cope with the existing surplus of labour in the docks. We have therefore had a different justification for the Bill put forward; namely, that it is to deal with the decasualisation
330
of labour. It is the first time I have heard that put forward, as the prime object of the Bill. What casual labour is being decasualised we shall have to discover as our Committee proceedings proceed. As I understand it, the only casual labour that might be affected by the Bill is the existing casual labour in the small non-scheme ports, where I think the figure for the whole country is 327; it might be 357, and I would not go to the stake on either figure. That the Bill is seriously being introduced to provide all this elaborate machinery to deal with 357 people who are contentedly doing a part-time job in the small non-scheme ports flabbergasts me.
However, that hardly arises out of this limited and modest Amendment, which was intended as a token one to draw attention to the consumer interest. The area has been widened by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, asking whether there was a substantial consumer interest involved in the Bill. Eventually the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry—and I am grateful for her assistance in this matter—clearly had rather more effect on the Minister than any noble Lords who spoke from this side of the Committee. Lord Jacques said that he would undertake to look at the matter again and notify us before the next stage of the Bill. We are grateful to him for that and it would be ungracious, at any rate at this time, not to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General duty of the Board]:
4.37 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 11, after ("Board") insert (", having regard to the public interest,").
The noble Lord said: This is concerned broadly with the same subject as the last Amendment. We have indeed been encouraged by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to that Amendment and we feel that much of what he said is relevant to this one. Lord Jacques admitted that we were all consumers. There were differences of opinion on how far the consumer interest was affected by the Bill and those opinions will be stronger on one side of the Committee than on the other. The intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, was welcome. We are pleased to see that not

331
only is there support for this concept in the Committee but that it is spreading, and we hope that this concept of the consumer interest, and indeed the public interest, can be spread a little more widely.
I referred to this matter when we discussed the first three Amendments; I spoke of how the Bill would expand the spheres of activity covered by the Dock Labour Scheme and by everything we know as dock work, and I explained how it would increasingly affect industry and consumers. All of us are consumers. It will affect all of us as consumers of food and imports; it will affect those of us who are workers and are involved in the export trade; it will involve so many of us that it will concern the vast majority of people. We believe that the Bill will be particularly relevant to port services and people working therein and in warehouses, and of course the Bill will affect the cold storage industry.
We have heard from Lord Jacques that he will endeavour to see how the interests of the consumer can be incorporated in the Bill. We believe that the Board should be required to give further and due consideration to the public interest in addition to the more limited interests which might be affected by the provisions of the Bill. This is not a completely radical concept and, having been encouraged by what Lord Jacques said on the last Amendment, we look forward with interest to hearing what the Government have to say about the slightly wider concept raised by this Amendment; namely, not merely the interests of consumers, because we believe that the public interest could involve other interests as well.
Lord ORAM: I suggest to the Committee that it would not be appropriate to adopt the Amendment. I make that suggestion because the Board which is to be set up under the Bill will be a responsible body. Noble Lords were perhaps disappointed in not getting the Board's constitution changed in accordance with earlier Amendments. Nevertheless, I think they will concede that, as provided by the Bill, it will be an entirely responsible body and that there is no reason to assume that if this Amendment is not accepted, then when the Board undertakes reviews under
332
the clause it will make suggestions or put forward proposals which could be considered contrary to or not taking account of the public interest. As a responsible body they would recognise that the public interest was the major interest for them to serve.
Although the noble Lord did not, I think, quite make this point, an idea which no doubt underlies this Amendment is that, in considering whether to make proposals under the later subsections of this clause, the Board should be required to take due account of a broader public interest if this appeared to conflict with the particular interests of dock workers and dock employers. Such a conflicting public interest would, however, be something incapable, I suggest, of precise definition. We were talking just now about the consumer interest, and over many years I have taken some interest in the expression "the defence of the consumer interest". That in itself, I think we should all concede, is difficult enough to define, but a precise definition of "the public interest", as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, is wider than that issue which we were considering just now, and is even more difficult of precise definition. What I think is far more important is that under subsection (5) of the clause the Board is required to maintain regular consultations with a very wide variety of bodies and interests which are concerned with dock work so that it can listen to what they have to say and take account of their views.
I would suggest one further point to your Lordships. Clause 2 places on the Board only a broad general requirement to keep the overall situation under review, and, if and when they think it appropriate, to make proposals to the Secretary of State. This clause does not give the Board specific powers. The Secretary of State would himself want to consider any proposals made in the light of all the relevant factors, which would include the public interest, and if he thought, on balance, that any particular proposal was contrary to the public interest I think it is clear, since he is responsible to Parliamentary scrutiny, that he would obviously not act upon such a proposal. For these reasons, I am afraid that, on behalf of the Government, I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: I should like, from these Benches, to support this Amendment, and I am very disappointed with the reply which has been given by the noble Lord. It does not seem to me really consistent with the attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was taking on the earlier Amendments, when we were pressing for wider representation on the Board. He then said that it was inappropriate because the Board was dealing only with very narrow matters. It is just because the Board is dealing with very narrow matters that I should have thought it was desirable that, in the Statute, their attention should be called—it may not amount to very much, but that their attention should be called—to the need to have regard to the public interest.
The noble Lord referred to subsection (5), which asks them to maintain regular consultation with the National Ports Council and, "others appearing to the Board to be concerned". The National Ports Council is of course concerned through its association with the ports, and I should have read that clause to mean other, similar bodies which are concerned in that sort of field, and not the broad bodies which are concerned with the public interest. So, for myself, I feel it is a great pity that the Government are not prepared to put in these, if I may say so, rather harmless words, but words which will continuously remind the Board that it must look at a wider horizon than just the ports and warehouses with which it is directly concerned.
Lord SHINWELL: I doubt whether there is anybody in your Lordships' Committee who could specifically define what is meant by "the public interest". To take a few examples, if we asked the Liberal Party how they would define it they would say, "Let us have electoral reform; that is in the public interest". If we asked the Conservative Party what was their definition of "the public interest", they would say, "Get rid of the Labour Government as soon as possible". The public interest is quite incapable of definition specifically. Almost every one of us has used the term. I have used it myself on innumerable occasions, particularly on the election platform, at the hustings; but, quite frankly, I was not quite sure what I was talking about. The public interest varies so much, and there are so many
334
ramifications, there are so many possible interpretations of the public interest, that, quite frankly, to insert it into a Bill would be to insert a cliché, and, heaven knows!, we have far too many clichés without embodying this one in legislation.
This reminds me of the debate we had a little while ago about consumer interests. The same applies to consumer interests. When my noble friend Lady Burton made one of her innumerable, eloquent speeches on the subject of consumer interests, it occurred to me that for many years she has been concerned about consumer interests in connection with aircraft and travelling by air, but in point of fact she has been more effective when she has been presenting the case personally than any consumer council associated with that subject could be. Almost every Member of your Lordships' House can be an advocate of some particular consumer interest or some particular public interest. Of course we can. What is the point of inserting a cliché of this kind? It is of no value whatever; and I must confess—
Lord WIGODER: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I was going to ask him, before he sits down, whether he agrees that it would be very much easier for us to define "the public interest" if only we could find out what the purpose of the Bill was.
Lord SHINWELL: That does not at all vitiate anything that I have said about the matter. It is a very interesting point, but I never bother about interruptions, anyhow, particularly when I am not capable of replying to them effectively. The fact of the matter is that we are making a bit of a farce of this business. Here is a situation—and let us face it, because I do not want to bother much more about it—where something new is being imposed on our industrial organisation. In point of fact, if I may say so—and perhaps I have as much knowledge of the docks as anybody in your Lordships' Committee because I was for a long time associated with the docks when I was connected with the seafarers, and I know every dock in the country; there is not a dock I have not visited at some time or other, not altogether to my advantage—it has nothing to do with decasualisation, either. The subject of decasualisation has already been dealt with. This is something quite different.

335
The purpose of the Bill is to provide dockers who perhaps may be unemployed but who are at the same time receiving all the remuneration, to which they are not entitled—I do not want to get into trouble because of what I have just said—with an opportunity to engage in work about five miles away from the actual scene of operations. If I may say so, it is a cock-eyed piece of legislation; but, of course, sometimes such legislation has to be introduced for one reason or another—sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes because we want to placate a particular organisation or a group of organisations. There are all sorts of reasons for proposing legislation, although whether it is passed is another matter. No, no! Let us not make a fuss of this "in the public interest". I am quite satisfied that nobody could specify meticulously, without offering a whole series of interpretations and assumptions and all the rest, this matter of public interest. I suggest that we forget about it and get on with the Bill.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Although I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, generally that clichés are not desirable and "public interest" is hard to define, in this particular case it is not so. There is a public interest with regard to the docks where there is not in many other cases. That is because every day of every year, half the country's food supplies come through the docks. If the activities of the docks are impeded for any reason over a period of a couple of days some people will starve. It is as blunt as that. I think there is a public interest in this regard which is very special to the docks. There would not be public interest in many other respects as, for instance, a general impeding of all the bus companies or even the railways, but the docks are unique and public interest is paramount.
There are two points which stem from that. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that we have a responsible Board appointed here—and he did not say, but might have said, that it might have been more responsible if my noble friend's Amendment had been taken earlier. But it is a responsible Board; therefore why do we want to qualify this instructionary paragraph? My answer is that, if the Board is a responsible Board—and I applaud the
336
idea of Government expecting responsibility on the part of subordinated bodies (and we have been talking about that in relation to another Bill)—what is the need to have this paragraph to tell it what to do? The Government think it necessary to guide it. They guide it—and if noble Lords will bear with me and look at the Bill they will find various unqualified subjective statements—with such phrases as that in line 16, subsection 2(a):
"classifications are satisfactory".
Satisfactory in what way? And in the following line:
"could with advantage".
With advantage to whom? Going on to line 25:
"dock workers are adequately deployed".
What is "adequately"?
There is no overriding guiding phrase to show the Board what is to be at the background of its thinking when it uses these subjective phrases in making its decisions and recommendations. I suggest that this particular phrase of "having regard to the public interest" is a very useful background guidance to a Board which will essentially in the main consist of people actually working there. This will be guidance that they can be conscious of when they arrive at the decisions. It will enable them to provide background definitions to these subjective phrases that I have mentioned. I suggest therefore to my noble friend that this is certainly an Amendment which is worth pressing "in the public interest".
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: This is one of the occasions when those on the Front Benches simply act in some way as referees or spectators of duels on the Back Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, sent up a lob and my noble friend (before I was able to do so and more effectively) smashed it right home. Obviously, in any trading economy like Britain's, the docks are a vital sector of the public interest not merely on food, although that is the most important as the staff of life, but also on every kind of economic activity. I am prepared to accept, as was I think my noble friend Lord Mottistone, some literary criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he castigated us for setting down a cliché, particularly as his literary criticism went

337
on to describe the entire Bill as a cockeyed and placatory piece of legislation. By placatory legislation, I think he meant a piece of legislation which was there to cater for or placate one special interest. That we much agree with.
I do not agree with him, as my noble friend does not agree with him, that you cannot define "public interest" by an appeal to common sense. You have an appeal to common sense as to the public interest where docks are concerned regarding food and consumer interests. But we are apt sometimes to assume that public interest and consumer interests are absolutely identical. There are other interests involved publicly here. I am concerned, as one interested in the port users' associations, as to the interests of those who use ports, those whose livelihood and commercial activities—and thereby indirectly the commercial activities of the country as a whole—depend on good relations and a secure situation vis-à-vis the ports. We are worried all through this Bill, a piece of legislation whose motives we disapprove of but which we can understand—and in my wider debate on the need for public inquiry a little later I hope to go into this—that a special arrangement has been made between the Government and some principals involved which might (to put it mildy) have not as one of its foremost concerns the public interest.
Since this Part of the Bill is not concerned with the Dock Scheme but with the setting up of the Board, we want the Board set up with reference to these wider interests. I must apologise to your Lordships because, since there is so much legislation, I had to attend a brief meeting on another Bill during the last debate; but I understand from my noble friend, Lord Lyell, that the Government were more co-operative there. I appeal to the Government to accept that, while it may be that this is inelegantly phrased and something of a cliché we need something of the kind and I hope that they will look at this again.
Lord ORAM: We have had a very interesting number of points brought forward, but I must say that nothing that has been advanced diverts me from the original suggestion I made that the phrase "public interest" is too imprecise to justify writing it into the Bill. My noble
338
friend Lord Shinwell made a speech which was most helpful in parts but there were other parts about which I had some doubts. But on this particular point I welcomed what he had to say. He followed the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who used one or two phrases which I thought in fact backed up—although he did not intend this—the points that I was making. He said that all that was wanted was just to call the attention of the Board to the public interest, and that they were harmless phrases. I suggest that we want to avoid writing into legislation phrases simply because they are harmless. A phrase in an Amendment must have some purpose and not be merely harmless. It is because this phrase seems to me to be unnecessary, as well as too imprecise, that I feel I must resist the suggestion that it be accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was rather stronger in thinking that it was an important phrase, not a harmless one. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, backed up the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who thought that it was something of greater significance than seemed to he suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, then went on to say that it is possible to exercise common sense in weighing up what we mean by public interest. Of course it is. Of course the Board, when it is appointed, will reach judgment on what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, called subjective phrases. The Board will comprise people capable of exercising judgment on these phrases. That is why they will be appointed; that is their purpose, and they will know that. They will know, without the Bill having to tell them, that one of their main purposes in serving on the Board is to serve the public interest. I am not denying that there is not a public interest involved in this Bill; of course there is. The point is that it is quite unnecessary to insert it into the Bill.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Would the noble Lord not agree that, in the nature of things, in any Board of this kind—and he must have had much experience in this field, as I have—the different bodies within the Board have different interests? All these Boards are constituted of so many people taken from one source and so many from another source, and they all have

339
different interests. Is it not wise to try to harness those interests in some way or other—and the words here are not ideal—so that their diverse interests are reminded within the Bill? It is all very well to say, as the noble Lord did, that the Bill is in the public interest and that is part of its purpose; but it does not say so anywhere. Would it not be a good plan if it did, because of the fact that the Board members will all have diverse interests?
Lord ORAM: I have had a short experience on one public board. There there were no interests in that sense. I accept that in this particular case some of the members come forward because they have special interests; others are there in an independent capacity. It is my experience in committee work, even though you have representatives of special interests, given an independent chairman and given a building up of the right spirit in their discussions, a board which is properly constituted of representatives of special interests can take a general view, can take the public interest into account. In this instance, given the nature of Clause 2 in general, I do not think that there will be any dubiety at all that they will act in that way.
Before the noble Lord rose, I was going to refer to one remaining point which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, made. He was on to this special interest. He said that the Bill was very much designed to serve special interests. I do not deny—indeed, it is clear as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—that the special interests of dock workers and employers are of course involved. As was explained at Second Reading and spelt out again by my noble friend Lord Jacques in connection with the discussion we had on the consumer interests, right through the Bill there are safeguards, so that through the exercise of those safeguards it will not be possible for the special interests—though I admit that they are there—to exercise powers to the detriment of the public at large. Therefore it is not that I am against the general tone of the debate of this issue, but I rest on the fact that these words are unnecessary and imprecise. It would be unwise to put in words simply with as little justification as that put forward. That is why I suggest that we pass on without accepting this Amendment.
5.8 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: I came into the Committee late and apologise for that. Inevitably, I have missed much of the debate. I hope your Lordships will nevertheless forgive me, because I came to the Committee specially because of the intention, as I understood it, of the Government to resist these words. These words are not imprecise. These words are not unnecessary. I joined the other place in 1945 when my noble friend Lord Shinwell produced the first of the great nationalisation Bills, the details about which all of us have had second thoughts since. We always thought that it was important to make it clear that we were not introducing a syndicalist idea—which old Socialists like my noble friend and I will understand—but we were trying to move ownership from sectional interests to the people. The public interest means just exactly that.
The way that this Bill has been conceived and has had birth is, let us all be clear, to satisfy one particular sectional interest. It happens to be a sectional interest to which I personally belong. I have a fully paid-up card in my pocket to show that I do. But it makes it a non-necessarily public interest. The interests of this particular sectional interest might well be contrary to those of the general public. My noble friend who spent so long in the Co-operative movement, knows as well as I do the difference between sectional and general public interests. Unless it is said that is what you are after, nobody could ever challenge in a court of law or anywhere else whatever they do.
It puzzles me that a Co-operative and Labour Peer, with as long a background in the movement as my noble friend has, could read out such a brief with all the evidence of believing it. We would never take it from the Conservatives if they were to do it. We would never take it from the shipowners if they were to do it. Why do we take it just because one specific special interest on our side is saying it? There are trade union members of this House who are not here today who are as unhappy with it as I am, and I make no bones about it to the noble Lord. I want a situation to exist where, at the end of the day, what is done by the authority could be challenged on the basis that clearly it was against the public interest—that is, the consumers, the users and all the rest of us—although it

341
might well have been in the interests of the specific special interest.
I repeat, no nationalisation Bill was ever put through between 1945 when I entered the House, and 1970 when I was ejected, withoug the saving words, "it must be in the public interest". If the noble Lord persists in that, then I hope that other noble Lords in this House will join with me, a Socialist, in saying I am not a syndicalist. I am not a trade union hack. I believe many things are better done publicly owned than privately owned, but I want it to be shown that they are done in the interests of the public, all of us, the rest of us, and not just in the interests of the Transport and General Workers' Union.
I apologise again for coming late but I simply wanted to put this view as strongly as I could, as a Socialist, as a trade unionist. It would be terrible if we started to write legislation like they did in the Duma in Russia, like the Soviets do, where it is not the peasant or the worker or the consumer who matters, it is the few who decide it is in their interests. I say to my noble friend, "Do at least persuade your colleagues to think about it again. If you do not say that, please let us carry the Amendment".
5.13 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I will not keep the Committee for more than a few moments. I did not intend to speak either, but I did intend to vote, and if I had not intended to vote when I came, then the Minister would have convinced me, I having listened to him, that I should vote against the Government, because he used some quite remarkable words. He talked about imprecision and harmless words. I share the view of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I, too, came into the House of Commons in 1945 and I, too, am a Socialist, without prefix or suffix. By that I mean that the public good must always prevail. In a democratic society industries or boards must be answerable to a Minister who in turn is answerable to Parliament in precise terms. The words that are here are as imprecise as anything could be. "There shall be reports from time to time." What does the Minister do when he gets the reports from time to time? Put them in the waste-paper basket? He has not even got to come back to the House, whereas the noble Lord, Lord George
342
Brown, made the point that from 1945 onwards the keynote of the nationalisation measures was that boards were answerable to a Minister of Parliament.
As it happens, I have had practical experience over a considerable number of years of a Bill in which Parliament laid it down in the most precise terms that activities that were carried on had to be approved. Section 25 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act says that activities and schemes must be approved by the Secretary of State. Until I became Chairman of the Levy Board that section was ignored in toto because on the Board were the Jockey Club representatives and they conceived that that legislation on the Statute Book had been enacted so that the Levy Board would collect the money and the Jockey Club would spend it. From September, 1961, until November, 1967, therefore, that provision was completely and utterly ignored. None of the reports were ever debated though they were tabled in both Houses. That meant that every act of the Levy Board over that period of six years could have been challenged in the courts, but they were not. The Minister had no positive duty to look to see whether the provision was being carried out. It was not being carried out and it took three years of very hard work to prepare a Statutory Instrument. That Statutory Instrument was not signed until May, 1970, when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary.
That is what happens when there is a measure laying down the requirement that the approval of a Minister is necessary, the Board do nothing about it, and there is nobody there to make them. Whereas with this provision about "from time to time" they may or may not tell a Minister and when the Minister is told he can please himself whether he sticks the report behind his clock, puts it in the wastepaper basket, or sends it back and refuses to take delivery. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that this is a very dangerous provision indeed, and I hope that the Minister will go back to his right honourable friends and remind them of their past, remind them, as the noble Lord says, of the measures which were enacted from 1945 onwards, and ensure that whatever the Board is—whether it is the Jockey Club, whether it

343
is plebeian in its background or aristocratic—it must be answerable to Parliament through a Minister. I do not know whether this Amendment will be put to a Division or not but I hope it is, and if it is my vote will he cast with that of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown.
Lord BOOTHBY: I want to say only one sentence. I think the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has made a very remarkable and significant speech this afternoon. I agree with every word of it. I do not know whether it will make any difference, but I should just like to say that I cannot add to his arguments but I support them in full.
The EARL of GOWRIE: I confess that until I heard the recent speeches I was disposed to hold my own fire—what your Lordships would wish to do is in your Lordships' hands, not mine—until we returned to some of the themes raised by this particular debate in my appeal later on for a public inquiry. But it seems to me that one of the purposes of a Committee stage is that one should not just nail to the mast the flag of one's particular Amendment but listen carefully to what everyone has to say. We have had three or four really remarkable interventions and my own advice to the Committee—if your Lordships would be kind enough to heed it—would be that we should ask the Minister whether he feels he could not strengthen my phrase "the public interest" to let it meet some of the strong feelings which have been so eloquently expressed here today. My feeling is that if he cannot give us this undertaking we should divide on the issue.
Lord ORAM: As the noble Lord has said, since I spoke last we have had some very remarkable and powerful interventions. I found it a little ironic, as perhaps he did too, that my noble friend Lord George-Brown, who came into the Socialist movement through the trade union movement and indeed the trade union which is very much involved with this Bill, is today speaking so powerfully in support of the general public interest, whereas I, who came into the Socialist movement through the Co-operative movement, so conscious of its consumer base in this country and of the general relationship between consumer representation and
344
public interest, should be taking a somewhat different view on this question.
I have listened to what has been said and recall that even when the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, introduced the Amendment he linked it with the previous debate on consumer representation, pointing out that there were some similarities on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, also pointed to the connection between the consumer interest, more specifically, and the general public interest. During the second part of the debate I was very conscious of the fact that my noble friend Lord Jacques had undertaken to have another look at the consumer interest aspect of this matter. Therefore, I should like to suggest to your Lordships that, in conjunction with the reconsideration of the consumer interest, we might have the opportunity also to look again at the public interest. That does not mean that I retract anything I said about the imprecise nature of this proposal, despite what was said by my noble friend Lord Wigg. It is not a phrase which is easily defined. Nevertheless, I recognise the connection between the consumer interest and the public interest, and I think it would be a little illogical for us to agree to take back the one and not the other. Therefore, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, I will give such an undertaking and hope that noble Lords opposite, on that basis, will not press their Amendment.
The EARL of GOWRIE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.24 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("disposition") and insert ("deployment").
The noble Lord said: At first sight, this Amendment seems to be only a "verbal" Amendment, but is is rather more than that. My object in moving it is, first of all, to clarify the meaning of the word "disposition" and also to clarify the intention and effect of the subsection in the context of which this word appears. We are dealing here with another matter which the Board has to keep under review, which is:
"the need (if any) to adjust the strength and disposition of the labour force:".
My Amendment would substitute the word "deployment" for "disposition". I could understand the need to adjust the strength of the labour force if I knew what the Government meant by that term. Do they mean the registered dock workers, or do they mean something else? If they mean something else, what is it that is meant? What do the words "disposition of the labour force" mean? What are the Board being asked to review? If the phrase means where the labour force is located and how it is distributed throughout the country, would not "deployment" or even "distribution" be better words? After all, "deployment" is used in the previous paragraph, so I feel entitled to ask what difference is intended between "deployment" and "distribution". If there is a difference, may we know what it is? If there is no difference, why confuse the issue by using a different word?
The third point is this: The Board are required to submit reports from time to time to the Secretary of State, together with proposals for action. If the strength of the labour force in one Dock Labour Scheme area is more than is needed, while the strength of the labour force in another Dock Labour Scheme area is less than is needed, is it envisaged that the Board would propose the transfer of registered dock workers from one area to the other? In other words, do the Government see the dock labour force as mobile, in much the same way as units of Her Majesty's Forces are mobile?
When I looked at this paragraph I was very much reminded of military parlance and history, because there is a distinctly military, if not Marxist, flavour about it. I am not thinking at the moment so much of mobility within the Dock Labour Scheme area. It is possible, though costly in terms of travelling time, to move dockers from one port to another or from one establishment to another within an area, without uprooting them from their homes. But very different considerations arise when it is a question of moving dockers from one area to another, such as the willingness of the dockers to move, the arrangements to assist them to move, what happens if they decline to move and how that would affect any redundancy rights and payments.
It would help the Committee very much in their consideration of the Bill if we could have an explanation of what is in the Government's mind so far as the phrase "disposition of the labour force" is concerned. I am assuming that "disposition" is used in the sense of deployment and not in its more common meaning of "temperament, attitude, morale". It may be that the Government intend to cover both meanings, and that the Board should report on the morale and attitude of the labour force as well as on its location. There might indeed be some good in that, too. If my assumption is wrong, would the Government make it clear that by "disposition" they mean "deployment" and not "temperament, attitude and morale"? If the latter is what they mean, would it not be better to use a word which does not have two meanings or, in other words, to use the word "deployment"?
To sum up, are the words "labour force" intended to cover registered dock workers, including perhaps the extension register, or do they have a wider meaning? Secondly, is it envisaged that the Board could make proposals for moving dock workers from a Dock Labour Scheme area where there are more dockworkers than are needed, to another area where there is a deficiency? Thirdly, what is the word "disposition" intended to mean?
Lord ORAM: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has explained that his Amendment goes rather wider than mere semantics regarding the meaning of these two words. While contemplating the Amendment, I had thought that there was not much difference between the two words. Indeed, towards the end of his speech the noble Lord returned to the point that in dictionary terms there is not much difference between the word "disposition" which is included in the Bill and the word "deployment" which he seeks to insert.
The noble Lord raised two points of substance in connection with his Amendment. My answer to him with regard to the meaning of "labour force" is that it is that group of employees which would he engaged on work which is classified under the provisions of the Bill as dock work. The Board would be able to make proposals regarding the disposition or deployment—I personally believe that there is no

347
great difference between the two words—of that labour force from one part of the country to another. That is not to say that those proposals would involve the dragooning of any groups of workers from one place to another. Included in those proposals would be the methods whereby the Board would suggest to the Secretary of State that any imbalance could be properly overcome. It would be well within the competence of the Board to examine the disposition of the labour force and to make proposals for the rectification of anything that was wrong.
If I may return to the actual use of one word or the other. if one consults all the dictionaries I do not think that there will be found to be much difference—indeed, scarcely any difference—between the meaning of the two words, but if there is any difference then I think that the balance is in favour of the word which is included in the Bill; namely, "disposition". The word "disposition" implies the current situation and it is the current situation which might need to be adjusted, whereas "deployment"—I do not make much of this—carries with it the connotation that movement of some kind has taken place. What is intended by the wording is the examination of the current situation. Therefore I return to the point that although I welcome the noble Lord's inquiries on the points that I regard as of greater substance, there is no great difference between the two words and that, in so far as there is any difference, there is virtue in retaining the word which is already printed in the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Obviously I do not want to press this Amendment to a Division and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation that he has given. It was particularly interesting to hear that the Government envisage the possibility that the National Dock Labour Board may make proposals for the transfer of dock workers from one Dock Labour Scheme area to another. This will no doubt influence our thinking, although I am not certain that there will be any occasion upon which to pursue the matter very much further until we receive the new Dock Labour Scheme.
Having said that, I am not going to press this word. However, I thought that
348
it was worth making the point that there is some possibility of the word being misunderstood and possibly even misused, and that perhaps it would have been more natural to use "deployment" instead of a rather recherché word like "disposition".
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I make one suggestion to the noble Lord the Minister. If the skills, aptitudes and experience of dock workers can be deployed, they can be deployed only if the dock workers themselves are deployed because they cannot be deployed in any other way. It seems to me that it would be worth while for the Government to look at the question of whether or not "deployment" is a better word to use, because it picks up the word from the previous paragraph. Either or both of those words may involve movement or not movement.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. It is indeed a point which I made and it seems to me that for that reason alone one should stick to the word "deployment". However, I do not feel inclined to press the Amendment to a Division. I am confident that the noble Lord will take a look at the matter because I know that all that we say is looked at again before the next stage. I am not asking the noble Lord to make any commitment whatsoever about it but merely to bear it in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Secretary of State to prepare new Scheme]:
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert—
("() if before the expiration of the sixty days referred to in paragraph (b) above an objection is received by him from any person appearing to him to be affected by the draft Scheme, and is not withdrawn, proceed in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries) to this Act; and ")
The noble Earl said: We come now to what will, I imagine, turn out to be the first of three major debates on Clause 4 which, from the point of view of those of us who sit on this side of the House, is certainly the most contentious part of a generally rather contentious Bill. Some of the remarks that I shall make during the next few minutes on the first of my set of Amendments—and I will give the numbers to your Lordships in a moment—may have been covered to some degree in the references during the debate so far to the public interest, to consumer interest and the like. However, I do not want the Committee to think that that is the particular tack which I am after. I feel that these interests will be best served by the procedure of a public inquiry into the very radical extension of dock rights and Dock Labour Schemes which we have at present, particularly because the method of public inquiry is with us at the moment in the existing scheme.
In these opening remarks I propose to address myself not only to Amendment No. 9 which has been called, but also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 66 and to the new Schedule which stands in my name and those of my colleagues and which appears after Schedule 4. As I think will be apparent from what has been said so far on this side of the Committee, we have strong reservations about the proposed composition of the National Dock Labour Board, although we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for appreciating at least some of these reservations and for his undertaking that he will look at them again. But now we come to our reservations about a different part of the Bill altogether which has nothing to do directly with the Board, although the Board will administer it. This is the Dock Labour Scheme which the Secretary of State is enabled by the huge powers that he is given under the Bill to bring about.
Not only does the Bill still give enormous power to the National Dock Labour Board and to the way that it is constituted but, as I have just said, it goes against existing legislation by which there is at least the right to a public inquiry before changes are made to the scope of the scheme. That right to public inquiry is now to he done away with and those of your Lordships who have been concerned with the
350
public interest, whether loosely or tightly defined, in my contention shoud show yourselves very reluctant that it should be done away with in this manner. I think you should be reluctant to do away with it, particularly when we are all agreed, in all parts of the House, that this is a very massive change; a massive extension of any previous Dock Labour Scheme. We shall discover just how massive when we come to the next in this series of debates, which is the debate on the five-mile limit or the zone.
I think the Committee would follow me in saying that a change of this nature in the legislative content and in the legislative procedure needs a justification of a heavy kind from the Government. If we were in this Committee tonight applying the Private Bill procedure, as opposed to the Public Bill procedure, I need hardly remind your Lordships that the situation would, of course, be different. Under the Private Bill procedure, evidence and objections could be heard by those sitting on an appropriate Committee, but this opportunity is not open under the procedure proposed in the Bill, and that means that we must consider it at some length and in considerable detail in the Committee here this evening.
Whatever the merits may be or, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, earlier, whatever the political exigencies may be about this massive extension of the dockers' corridor over a large part of the United Kingdom which is not at present generally associated with docklands, I do not think anyone can dispute that the new area over which dockers will have jurisdiction, de jure, if not, as the Secretary of State insists, always de facto, should not cause a great deal of concern to the enormous amount of differing interests, companies', consumers' and the whole gamut. It seems to me that it is wrong that this new Dock Labour Scheme—which, after all, the Bill only enables the Secretary of State to set up; we do not have the Scheme before us—should, when it appears, go through Parliament merely on Affirmative Resolution. I contend that the public inquiry route, which is the route that presently is available for extension of dock labour schemes, should obtain here as well.
Even if there are those of us, notably perhaps on the other side of the House,

351
who may approve the political principles underlying the new Scheme, or what we imagine will underlie the new Scheme, we acknowledge, I think, that the effects are great and manifold on the different bodies and interests in the entire country. Having said that, I am sensible that Committee stage is not the place for Second Reading speeches, but in a Bill which contains, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, told us and as I think the speech of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, reinforced, a great deal of political content—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Oram, also acknowledged that earlier—it will be difficult I think, for me not to make some reference to some of the political motivation behind the Bill, and I want to do so particularly because I am not altogether out of sympathy with some of the motives behind an extension of the Dock Labour Scheme.
My objections are, of course, to this particular extension, and I am asking your Lordships' Committee to take it on trust for the moment that my objection and the objections of my colleagues during the three major debates are not doctrinaire and are not on principle. All of us with any knowledge or experience of labour relations or employment matters have considerable sympathy with any group of people, wherever they should be, who have found their livelihoods changed by technological innovation. We differ, many of us, on what kind of solutions to provide, how we should respond to these changes, and I think at Second Reading—and unfortunately I was abroad and could not attend, but I have read the Report—the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches very forcefully made the point that in their view, as indeed in ours, the response to those technical and technological changes should be in the form of compensation, as presently exists, and also in retraining facilities and the like.
But we are in agreement that the recent history of the ports has seen a considerable reduction in the registered dock force—a reduction, I understand, of over 30,000 men over the Scheme as a whole in the last five years. That is obviously something of a social upheaval to those who work in the docks and we must be sympathetic and responsive to such an upheaval. I do not think anybody would make out that dockers, any more than
352
miners, or Tories, or even noble Lords, were angels on occasion, but we do acknowledge that there are elements in their past history which justify sometimes their somewhat extreme and strong views. We know from individual psychology, from our personal lives, that insecurity can make us aggressive, and the past history of casual labour is a wound, I should have thought, in the docking cycle, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, acknowledged that. But the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, also pointed out that this quarrel or this wound, was to some degree over; that we have had schemes from 1946 and again in 1967 which have tackled the casual labour problem and the present Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, acknowledged, is really a rather different thing altogether.
I want the Committee to recognise, if they will be so kind, that I follow my noble friend, Lord Aldington, and others in recognising the reality of the problem. Where I differ from noble Lords opposite, the Government, on this Bill, is in how the problem should be tackled. Against the reduction in job opportunities, and particularly industrial job opportunities which I mentioned earlier, it is not easy to see how, by merely trying to redefine dock work, as the Bill does, one can solve the problem of surplus dockers or how one can solve the problems which have hit those rather close, tightly-knit, if not politically motivated, dockland communities which dockers take pride in and which give their profession, their work, its special character.
Where we do not agree is that by taking over jobs which are at present not in the dockers' bailiwick we are really in the long term going to serve their interests; and in the short term, particularly in these days, we are certainly not going to serve the public or the national interest. There are those who believe that the preservation of traditional dock labour and of the craftsmanship and pride, the honour, if you like, of dockers, should be the major consideration in this Bill. Of course I acknowledge the importance of pride in one's profession and one's work, in good performance in that work but, again, I do not think that this kind of emotion can be catered for in a scheme which has such wide and public economic importance. We would not do that, for example, should there be a war

353
on. I do not want to use further clichés or make further appeals to the Dunkirk spirit, but I think all of us are agreed that economically at any rate our backs are to the wall at this particular time.
We shall argue that we do not think that the Bill as at present constituted will bring a necessary change in job security or make a long-term contribution to the efficiency and economic wellbeing of the docklands. We believe that if we are to get this change, the wider interests, the other interests, other port users and the like, must have their say and that the best procedure for this would be by means of a public inquiry as at present obtains.
There are other interests involved in the docks than dockers. There are also other interests involved in the docks than consumers. Let us take other groups of workers—and we shall be hearing more about this when we come to debate the zone. We on this side of the House are certain that there will be an increase in demarcation disputes. As a result of the Bill dockers will surely wish to bring to tribunals instances of jobs which they think they should have but which they are being denied, and that, it seems to me, is why there should be an overriding tribunal in the form of a public inquiry, if you like, to see whether this Bill is to function as even the Government intend it should.
I have just given an example drawn from employees, from other sets of workers. May I quickly give an example from the other side, from the employers. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the cold storage industry, which has already been mentioned this afternoon in the context of the importance to our kind of community, country and economy of the import and export of raw materials, principally the import of food. We know that this industry has also, like the dock industry generally, gone through considerable changes in recent years; that it is a hybrid industry. Its traditional trade in refrigerated cargoes, in food as a raw material, has rapidly declined. Since 1967 the cold storage industry has expanded, I understand, by nine-fold, and that is a large amount in under ten years. It is housing at present more than a million tons of the nation's food supply and it is now a long-term public cold storage industry. This industry is no longer associated even to a modest
354
degree with the traditional handling of refrigerated cargoes. Some parts of the cold storage industry, I acknowledge, still handle refrigerated cargoes, but the question of definition must be applied to the industry as a whole and we do not know what the proposed Dock Labour Scheme will do vis-a-vis this vital public industry.
It has been argued by the industry that the cold storage part of the frozen food industry, which has, as I have said, developed rapidly since 1967, is now an important part of the nation's larder and is quite separate from traditional dock handling of refrigerated cargo. Nothing in the present Bill acknowledges that this separation need be taken into account. I would agree, anticipating the response, with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that that kind of special account might not be able effectively to be written into the Bill, but it seems to me that before we can make the Bill actual we shall have to know more about what kind of vital consumer and public interests are maybe affected by the Scheme which this part of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to set up. And, surely, the way we do things at present, by public inquiry, is the best way to find out.
The ex-Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Michael Foot, seems to have acknowledged on Second Reading at any rate in another place the point I am making. He said that:
"… long-established warehousing, storage packaging and cold storage operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not be classified as dock work and, therefore, subject to the new scheme."[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/76, col. 267.]
That would seem to be encouraging, that in Committee stage in another place there seems to have been a certain degree of Ministerial backtracking on this commitment, and of course the post of Secretary of State for Employment has changed.
We on this side of the House seek a categorical assurance that the Bill will contain some kind of definition or the possibility of there being at a later stage a definition which, where a large industry is at stake, would enable an exception as important as this one—and there are other exceptions—to be made. And to clear

355
up what the then Secretary of State, Mr. Foot, meant, I think that a public inquiry would also be useful.
I want to talk finally about publicity. Normally, when we deal with a Bill in Committee, the country as a whole knows a certain amount of what the Bill is about. I would contend that this Bill conceals under a superficially reasonable desire to protect dock workers from recent technological change many very comprehensive changes affecting everybody in the country which are not at present very widely known, and we believe that a public inquiry would also have the effect of making these known.
That, in brief, is why I want the Amendment in principle and in my closing remarks I will submit to your Lordships how I suggest it might be in detail. We want to provide for the holding of a public inquiry at which reasonable objections are raised to a scheme. We consider it a retrograde step in the Bill as it now stands that this is not so. The enabling Act which the Secretary of State is seeking to replace with a more powerful measure is the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. That Act enabled provision to be made for a scheme ensuring greater regularity of employment for dock workers and for securing that an adequate number of dock workers were available for the efficient performance of their work. The provision of particular relevance to the present position is Section 2(6), which states that:
"A scheme shall not take effect until embodied in an order made by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act …"
That Schedule lays down the procedure whereby the Secretary of State prepares and publishes a draft order embodying the Scheme and allows a period of 40 days for written objections. If objections are made and not withdrawn, he must then cause inquiries to be made. After considering the result of inquiries, he may make the order either in terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he is prepared to propose. The Schedule places a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to appoint an impartial person—and your Lordships must remember that this Bill has been acknowledged to be partial as between those involved in the dock industry on both sides of the
356
industry—to conduct such inquiries and report thereon to the Minister.
The 1946 Act placed strict legal restrictions on dock work employment by giving a monopoly to registered employers and registered dock workers, and Parliament, by recognising the case for providing a right to objection and a right to public inquiry into the terms and scope of the Scheme, acknowledged already at that time that that was a far-reaching change. The changes involved this afternoon, I think we are all agreed, are even more extensive and important to our commercial and trading future, and that is why we present the case for a public inquiry into them. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord ORAM: The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, ranged very wide in the earlier part of his speech. He explained why he wished to do so, and I make no complaint about that. He explained why he was unable to be with us at the Second Reading and naturally he was anxious to preface his moving of this main Amendment with an expression of his views on the Bill as a whole. I am coming to appreciate very much the more relaxed attitude that your Lordships take to these matters, compared with the rather stringent rules with which I was familiar in another place. Indeed, during the Summer I had some responsibility for the Weights and Measures Bill which was going through your Lordships' House and I recall that we then had a Second Reading debate almost at the drop of a hat. I understand and I make no complaint about the nature of the speech made by the noble Earl, but I think he will equally understand that I shall not attempt to reply to his more general observations at this stage. I shall confine myself to the provisions of the Amendment and that part of his speech which dealt specifically with it, namely, the reasons why he and his noble friends think that the public inquiry procedure should be added to the procedures already contained in the Bill. The noble Earl indicated that in his mind this Amendment should be read—and I entirely agree with him—with the proposed new Schedule on the public inquiry, and I agree also that Amendment No. 32 needs to be taken into account when we are considering this particular Amendment to Clause 4.

357
I think the noble Earl will recognise that this Amendment is substantially the same as one which was moved at the Committee stage in another place, and that applies also to the linked Amendments. The public inquiry procedure proposed in the new Schedule closely follows that provided for in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946; and indeed the noble Earl specifically referred to the 1946 Act and regretted that the public inquiry procedure in that Act was being discontinued in this Bill. But, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said during the discussions in Committee in another place, we believe that the procedure in Clause 4 of this Bill improves on the procedure of the 1946 Act. Under that Act the Secretary of State was required to prepare a draft embodying the scheme, to give notice where copies could be obtained, to allow not less than 40 days for objections, then to appoint the public inquiry and in the light of the results of that inquiry to make an order, either in terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thought fit; and the order under the 1946 Scheme was subject—and I stress this—to the Negative Resolution procedure.
We believe that to establish such a public inquiry is no substitute for proper Parliamentary scrutiny and debate, not only on the laying of a scheme before the House but in the case of any subsequent amendment to it, and consequently the Bill provides that the draft new Scheme and any amendments later which might be made to it will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Although the Bill does not expressly provide for this, the draft of the new Scheme will in practice be drawn up after consultation with the Board and with those interests represented on it and after taking account of any views expressed by those concerned with the industry. A few bodies have already commented on matters which the Bill proposes should be for the new Scheme, and any further views of this kind would of course be welcomed. The formal procedure in the Bill for representations to be made about the draft of the Scheme to the Secretary of State and for the draft to be amended, if appropriate, gives further opportunity for the views of those who may be affected by the operation of this Scheme to be made known and to be taken
358
into account. Subsequently, as I have said, there will have to be the Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament to approve the draft Scheme.
I believe that these procedures allow full opportunity for the interests concerned to make their views known; to provide for a public inquiry in addition would make the procedure unnecessarily cumbersome. The report of a public inquiry in any case would simply be an additional factor which the Secretary of State would have to take into account in considering whether and in what way to amend the draft Scheme. He could not—and the new Schedule does not propose that he should—be obliged to make any particular changes as a result of the inquiry. He could completely disregard the views of such an inquiry. Therefore the Government believe that in this context the public inquiry procedure would be time-consuming, cumbersome and unnecessary, and it is for those reasons that I recommend your Lordships not to approve this Amendment.
Lord WIGODER: We are dealing here with a very wide range of activities which are open to the Secretary of State. They include the preparing of the draft new Dock Labour Scheme under Clause 4, with all that it entails, and we are considering also the possibility of his amending the Scheme under Clause 4(9) by altering the boundaries of the area, and so forth, which is covered by Amendment No. 32, which in a sense is, I think, consequential upon this one. It means in fact that we are dealing with a vast area where a large number of major decisions are to be taken which can, and indeed will, affect the livelihoods of a large number of people. It will mean that decisions will have to be taken by those people as to whether they should start business in a particular area, whether they should expand their business, whether they should move to a different area, whether they should close down their business. All decisions of that nature will affect not only the employers but also obviously the employees, who are vitally concerned in such decisions.
In those circumstances we would venture to support very strongly the proposal that those decisions should not be made without a public inquiry being held first, and we venture to suggest that that is

359
desirable for three reasons. The first is because a public inquiry contains the element of publicity which the present proposals do not contain—the present proposals in fact will all take place behind closed doors. Secondly, if in the result there are public inquiries and decisions are eventually arrived at, the probabilities are that there will be a consistency about the decisions, which otherwise will not be known and not appreciated. Thirdly, a public inquiry gives the opportunity which the present proposals do not give not only for putting forward representations on one's own case but for answering publicly the representations that are made on the case that is made against one, or on differing or parallel cases. In all those circumstances, we would suggest that the public inquiry proposal is a very substantial advance, and an important advance, on the proposal made in the Bill. Indeed, it would, I think, lead to people whose interests are being materially affected, both employers and employees, feeling that so far as possible justice is being seen to he done, which can never happen under the procedures which are proposed.
I make only one further comment, and that is this. It is suggested that it is an adequate safeguard that there should be approval by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I could wish that that were so, but apart from the political realities, which mean that in fact an Affirmative Resolution these days is not necessarily a protection to the rights of the individuals who are affected by the Resolution, there is, is there not, a procedural difficulty—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—in that it is not open to either House to amend an Affirmative Resolution. It must either be accepted or rejected en bloc. That would clearly be undesirable where the Resolution might contain matters of the detail that one envisages in these cases. In those circumstances, I hope your Lordships will agree that the public inquiry system is really an essential safeguard for the individuals likely to be affected by the Bill.
Lord LYELL: If it is in order to give strong support to my noble friend Lord Gowrie, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that he felt the new arrangement in
360
Clause 4 would be an improvement on the existing method of a public inquiry. The noble Lord went on to point out that there would be Parliamentary scrutiny. But I am sure he takes the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that such Parliamentary scrutiny could often mean in practice—and particularly in the Session in which we are now engaged—that a very important measure for a particular area could easily be looked at towards dawn, or very late one night. Parliamentary scrutiny is an excellent idea, but the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has really shown up the fact that the political realities of such an idea are gravely defective.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, also went on to say that the public inquiry might give the Secretary of State further insight into the conditions. Does the noble Lord regard it as likely that were such a public inquiry to be set up and to come out with a very strong recommendation, that the Secretary of State would totally reject the advice emanating from such a public inquiry? That was what I understood the noble Lord to mean, but perhaps I have got it wrong.
Lord ORAM: I said he could; I did not say he would.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful for that. Therefore, there is more than a minute possibility that the Secretary of State might do this. We feel that this is a very grave defect. Of course, in the three major speeches so far we have heard of the totally new concept of what is involved in dock work and everything to do with cargo handling. We are to believe that it would require a very radical review of everything to do with the livelihood of the many thousands of people who are concerned in what might turn out to be dock work should this Bill pass through Parliament in its present state.
I really must concur with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on this point. I believe that he produced three very good reasons for having a public inquiry. By far the strongest is the opportunity for conflicting interests to be cross-examined publicly in that particular area, geographical or elsewhere, where the interests of dock work and cargo handling is most important to those who are

361
concerned. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, thinks that this public inquiry system that he believes is written into the Bill in Clause 4 in its present form is satisfactory, because quite frankly, we cannot agree.
6.15 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: There is one point I should like to add. A draft Scheme may affect different parts of the country very differently. Surely it may be necessary to hold public inquiries in different parts of the country. I doubt whether Scotland would he happy not to have a public inquiry under the draft Scheme, and probably the same would apply for Wales. But a public inquiry would bring out these differences, these different approaches. This must be of benefit to the Secretary of State himself, because under the Bill, in subsection (2) of Clause 4, once he has made a decision and obtained the approval of Parliament as to what the Scheme should be, the Secretary of State then has to make orders bringing that Scheme into force for areas designated by the orders.
We do not know what the areas designated by the orders will be. One would hope that at any rate this would be brought out in the course of the public inquiry. In any case, it would enable the Secretary of State to see from the public inquiry which areas were suitable in which to bring the Scheme into effect. It would be a great help to him. It is clear from the Bill that it is not intended—at least, I hope it is not—to bring the Scheme into all areas at once. It would show the Secretary of State what areas it could be brought into right away, which areas with some delay, and which areas not at all. This in itself would be of great benefit to the Secretary of State. This is not a matter just of the conflicting interests of different bodies, trade unions and the like; it is a matter of the conflicting interests of the areas which have also to be taken into account.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to add to what my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have said, but in going backwards, as it were, and doing away with the previous procedure, are the Government not working against the natural feelings of the country? Do
362
not people now expect to have public inquiries for major matters which affect their lives? Does not the Dock Scheme potentially affect more people, more deeply, than, shall we say, a motorway? A motorway may displace some people's houses and may affect some farmers, but a docks scheme can make a tremendous difference to the work prospects not only of the dock workers, but more especially of the people who are not dock workers. Therefore, is it not wise, with the general feeling of the country, to think that people in localities which might be affected by major Government schemes, or schemes of Government immediate dependencies like the Dock Labour Board, should be subject to open inquiry and that all the people who might be affected should he given a chance to have a say?
As to the question of Affirmative Resolution by both Houses, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will remember that only on Monday night at supper time, he and I were facing each other across this Chamber with such an order. He may remember that at that time this was a very small thing affecting relatively far fewer people than would a dock scheme. At that time, the main point which came out—and I think other noble Lords were in agreement on this—was that there had not been enough consultation with the people principally concerned, facing each other, as they would in a public inquiry, before this order came through and therefore the order was faulty. But we could not do anything about it because it could not be amended. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that this is really something in which the Government need to keep up with the times rather than descending into the myths of past years.
Lord ORAM: Noble Lords who have taken part in this debate visibly have considerably less faith than I personally have in the value of our Parliamentary procedures. I recognise, of course, that there are difficulties in our procedures. One was mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the inability to amend an order when it is before Parliament. But I believe that many of the objectives which noble Lords are seeking through their advocacy of a public inquiry can be achieved, and better achieved, through Parliamentary scrutiny, Parliamentary debate.
The Earl of GOWRIE: May I make a point before the noble Lord moves on from that point. I am most grateful to him. How can he take this line, when scrutiny of this very Bill by another place was guillotined to the extent that something of the order of a third of the discussion on it was lost.
Lord ORAM: I can take this line because many Sittings were devoted to it; a great deal of scrutiny was given to it. But with a Parliamentary timetable such as we inevitably have—
The Earl of GOWRIE: Exactly.
Lord ORAM: —I fully admit that there are difficulties. The whole procedures of Parliament are capable of being improved. Indeed, I recall that when I first became a Member of Parliament many years ago, I had the temerity to bring about the setting up of a Committee on procedure, and some minor changes took place. We are always seeking, of course, to improve our procedures, and constantly battling against the enormously increased amount of public business that necessarily comes before Parliament. I am not denying that there are difficulties involved, as the noble Earl says, in guillotine procedures and so on. But despite all these difficulties, I claim that our Parliamentary procedures are the best way of examining Public Acts and the best way of informing the public. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked for publicity. I believe that the best publicity is that which is directed at the proceedings in Parliament.
Lord WIGODER: If the noble Lord will allow me, I am sure he appreciates that the Amendment we are supporting does not prevent the Parliamentary scrutiny that he is proposing.
Lord ORAM: Yes; I am coming to that point. I recognise that the Amendment does not eliminate that process and put the public inquiry in its place. Noble Lords want both belt and braces in this matter, and I understand their caution in these matters.
That brings me to what I believe is a major argument against accepting this proposal. As was agreed earlier, this Amendment needs to be looked at not just for what it says, but in conjunction
364
with the Schedule and in conjunction with Amendment No. 32. I am not at all sure that those who are responsible for these three suggestions have looked at the complete picture that would emerge if all three were written into the Bill.
It is worth my taking a little of your Lordships' time to explain the complex of procedures that would emerge if the Bill were to be amended in the three-fold way suggested. First, there would be the preparation in draft of the Scheme. Secondly, there would be the publication of a notice giving at least 60 days for representations to be made to the Secretary of State about the Scheme; that is the second stage. The third stage—if the Schedule were written into the Bill—would be that that procedure of the new Scheme would have to be operated; that is to say, if there were objections during the 60-day period and they were not withdrawn; that would be provided for under Amendment No. 32. That is the third stage. The fourth stage would be another publication of the Scheme—presumably that is what is intended—this time specifying a further period of 40 days within which representations may be made about it. Then would come the public inquiry, which is the main objective of this Amendment.
After all that, the Secretary of State would consider all that had gone on and publish a report; and then, and only then, would we come to the draft Scheme being before Parliament, except that even then he may make such alterations as he thinks expedient in the light of representations made during the first period of consultations. This, frankly, I believe to be laying procedure upon procedure, and would not bring about justice. It is more likely to bring about injustice. It amounts, in my view, almost to what might be called procedural sabotage of any Scheme that might be brought forward. I am not suggesting that those who have put forward these Amendments have sabotage of the Scheme as their objective, but I insist that that would be to a large extent the effect of what they are proposing.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I ask the noble Lord, before we go any further, whether he heard or has read the very powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the other day on the Parliamentary procedure which the noble Lord himself seems to be

365
in favour of? If I may say so, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had a great deal of experience in another place in a very powerful position, more experience than even the noble Lord who is answering this Amendment. In fact, I never heard the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, make a speech like that in the whole of my time in another place. He felt so strongly about it, so powerful was his speech and so powerful were his feelings about the procedure in another place that, if I remember rightly, he even voted with my Party in the Lobby. All I want to know is whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has read the speech, and whether he still feels as strongly that the procedure in the House of Commons is so suitable on a matter of this kind? If he has not read it, perhaps he will read it and do something about it.
Lord ORAM: I do not need to read it, because I had the good fortune of listening to it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Did it not affect you?
Lord ORAM: Speeches by my noble friend Lord Houghton always affect me, just as speeches by the noble Baroness always affect me. It does not mean to say that I necessarily agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton, any more than I always agree with the noble Baroness. Of course, what she says is right; anything my noble friend says on these matters needs to be listened to with great attention. But I do not think that that gainsays what I said in more general terms about Parliament itself being the best forum to ensure that the public interest is served.
6.30 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the noble Lord has looked over the records to see how often a debate on an Affirmative Resolution lasts more than an hour or two hours. Is that enough to cover this case? Can he really say that this is an adequate way of discussing a matter of this kind? If Parliament is going to do this sort of job, what very often happens is that there is a Green Paper first and we debate that, as we have been doing with prices orders on occasion, and then later we take the order itself. But merely to have an Affirmative Resolution really gets one no further at
366
all. If the subject is of that importance, it does not much matter whether it is an Affirmative or a Negative Resolution, it will get debated; but merely to rely on the Affirmative Resolution procedure is not a suitable way of dealing with a matter like this, because this is absolutely the end of the road, where there is no possibility of amendment, whereas the whole purpose of an inquiry is to suggest to the Secretary of State changes that may be made, or indeed to get the proposal withdrawn altogether. In most of the cases the inquiry results in some modifications in the proposals, and that cannot possibly be done in the case of the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
Lord ORAM: With the Affirmative Resolution procedure, the actual debate is, as the noble Lord says, the end of the road; it is the end of a process. It is the end of a Parliamentary process as well as of all the other processes which are involved in this Bill in drawing up the Scheme, publishing it, giving publicity to it, and so on. It is the final stage. Before that, as the noble Lord knows, there are plenty of opportunities for the business interests concerned to make representations through their Members of Parliament, or indeed through Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, speaking earlier, made the point that circumstances differ from area to area. Those areas have their local Members of Parliament, and during the process of preparing the order there is full opportunity for these representations to be made. I am not claiming that this procedure, or indeed any other procedure in Parliament, is perfect; what I am saying is that it is a superior procedure to that proposed by the Amendment.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Could the noble Lord clarify one point on the proposed procedure? If we are to have an order made under Affirmative Resolution it is unlikely that there is going to be a separate order for every new area and town designated. Many of those towns will be of 100,000 or 250,000 people, and there must be many thousands of communities that can, under this Bill, be brought by this procedure into the authority of the new port. It seems to me unlikely that we are going to have separate orders for every town. Therefore it is more likely that we shall have regional

367
orders saying, perhaps, that from Hull northwards, or for the whole of the West Country, the zone shall include the named towns. If, with an Affirmative Resolution order, we can only reject the whole, how on earth do we make representations where an order may include possibly 40 towns, of which the Government's proposals for the area make sense in perhaps 30 of them and absolute nonsense in the other 10? We are going to be accused of wrecking tactics when we do not accept the areas where it makes sense, and we shall find it completely impossible to try to exclude an area which makes palpable nonsense.
Lord ORAM: I suggest that the noble Baroness is ignoring a great deal of the contents of the Bill now before the Committee. This is not the time to go into it, but we shall be coming later to Clause 7 in particular and other clauses which lay down an elaborate procedure whereby all the local circumstances in relation to dock labour can be put forward and carefully examined before the Scheme is drawn up. If this Bill is enacted there is no danger at all that local considerations will not be given the fullest examination.
Viscount SIMON: What I want to say may not be very popular in your Lordships' House, but I feel that while the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is perfectly right in saying that Parliament is the best forum we have for discussing and deciding on Public Acts, when it comes to detailed matters of the sort that will have to be included in a Scheme of this nature I very much doubt whether either House of Parliament—I must be careful in what I say about another place—or whether your Lordships' House is really a suitable place in which to discuss across the Floor of the House the details of the Scheme.
It seems to me, if I may draw an analogy, that it is rather similar to what we do with Private Bills which affect a large number of private interests. We do not discuss these across the Floor of the House because we recognise that the House, sitting as a House, is not really a suitable body to discuss this sort of thing. It is far better for the details of the Scheme to be examined at a public inquiry where the various interests can make their representations and where, as some noble
368
Lords have already said, they can be cross-examined and can equally cross-examine the views of the other people, and it can be done in public. By the time a draft Scheme comes to your Lordships' House of the complexity of this Scheme, we shall no doubt debate it to the best of our ability but I very much doubt whether we are really competent to discuss it intelligently.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I really feel that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, made my case for me. He said that we wanted both belt and braces. I think that this time we have caught the Government with their pants down. The noble Lords' colleagues in another place are in a shambles with their legislative programme. Whatever one thinks of this Bill, and we do not think highly of it, it is a very important Bill. Some of the motives behind it, as I argued earlier, stemming from the Jones/Aldington Report on London, we even acknowledge, but it certainly has not had proper scrutiny in the House of Commons. I think that we do no insult or injury to ourselves to acknowledge what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said about our capabilities in going into so many regional and local divergencies in this House. That point was also made by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith.
I want to take up quickly one or two points the noble Lord made because they really show our case in a clearer light than I can. He said that there would be time before the Scheme was set up for interested parties to make their views known. Exactly, but their views are to be known, to be scrutinised, by the Secretary of State and by the Board and not by Parliament. Parliament will only have the Affirmative Resolution procedure to fall back on. Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that the Board would be required to make consultations, but he did not say with whom or what about. We have an enormous enabling Bill, giving to the Secretary of State greater powers over one area of employment than any other Bill on the Statute Book, and we are working in the dark about it. That was one of the reasons why the Bill ran into such trouble in Committee, and in another place. It is not usual for a Government Bill of this importance to achieve draws

369
in Committee in another place where the casting vote in favour of the Government is given by a Conservative Chairman. That happened in many instances on this Bill, and many union members, working people as well as employers and other interests, object to it severely.
Lord Oram said that the Secretary of State could disregard the views of such a public inquiry. Of course he could; but my noble friend Lord Lyell pounced on that point. The Minister knows very well that it would be politically much too hot for the Secretary of State absolutely to disregard such views, and of course we could make life very unpleasant for him if he did. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, will forgive me emphasising a valuable point he made when he implied that the political realities of the present day are rather different. Naturally, I believe that my honourable and right honourable friends will be returned with a splendid majority; all the indications are that way. However, one would be a very arrogant Conservative to assume that our days of small majorities in Parliament, our days of high Parliamentary representation by minority Parties, are absolutely over. We know that the forthcoming legislative Session will be involved with devolutionary and other matters. It is not good enough to say that all is for the best and in the best of all Parliamentary worlds at the present time. If a public inquiry is not needed, as the noble Lord said—if it is a kind of superfluous, pernickety, pedantic insistence on our part—why does it obtain under a piece of Socialist legislation now? What I am arguing is that we do not get rid of something we have and something which the noble Lord and his right honourable friends found necessary when first considering the interests of dockland.
On the wider point, we all agree that the implications of the Bill are much wider than most people outside realised at the time of Second Reading, and that is why it has caused considerable contention and disagreement between individual union members. I do not say that with any air of triumph. It is not a condemna
370
tion of individual unions to disagree with each other; in our economic system the function of unions is, to some degree, competitive. However, many trade unions and individual branches within one union, such as the Transport and General Workers' Union, have realised that their interests may be disparately affected by the Bill and I would guess that they would wish to seek to make representations under a public inquiry procedure. They have this procedure now. Why should they be denied it under the Bill?
In short, we are saying that we should proceed by the methods we have always used in this matter; that is to say, a public inquiry. I do not want to raise the temperature of the Committee. The Minister has been agreeable and we have had some amusing and delightful exchanges, but the noble Lord was totally unconvincing in his reply and took no account even of the earlier debates we had about the public interest. We feel that what the noble Lord and the Secretary of State for Employment must learn is that the many interests in the cargo handling industry and the small ports, to which we will come later, among other groups of employers and employees are disparately affected by the Bill.
We believe that the problems of business in this country and our present economic crisis can only be exacerbated by it, and that will not go unnoticed by people. Nevertheless, we still have an opportunity in this Committee for the noble Lord to allay our anxieties, and perhaps to allay some of the anxieties rampant among all groups on both sides of industry in the dockland industries, by accepting the Amendment, which is designed principally only to retain a well-tried procedure and which we think this extension justifies. I cannot understand why the Minister is being so stubborn about it.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gladwyn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amory, V.

Glasgow, E.

Onslow, E.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Armstrong, L.

Gowrie, E.

Platt, L.

Ashdown, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Grey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Barrington, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Salisbury, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seear, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Ilchester, E.

Selkirk, E.

Burnham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selsdon, L.

Byers, L.

Kemsley, V.

Semphill, Ly.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Simon, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimberley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Somers, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cromartie, E.

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Terrington, L.

De Freyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Deramore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wade, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

Monck, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, B.

Winstanley, L.

George-Brown, L.

Norwich, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Bolton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Milner of Leeds, L.

Vaizey, L.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannel, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Willis, L.

Hale, L.

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Raglan, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: I suggest this may be a good moment to halt the Committee for an hour—that is, until 7.55—in order
372
to take other business. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMEND MENT) (No. 2) BILL
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be now read a third time, I would say only that I should like to express my appreciation of and gratitude for the co-operation of your Lordships in getting this Bill through so expediously. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Taylor of Mansfield.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL
6.55 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and in doing so I should like to express my deep appreciation of the co-operation and assistance I have recevied from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Equally, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who had certain reservations about one clause in the Bill but who very generously did not press an Amendment knowing that it might well have resulted in the Bill failing to be passed into legislation this Session. I should also like to express my appreciation on that account to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who is always very kind, and who, again, gave me great assistance.
I think it is relevant to say that a short leader in the Sunday People last week highlighted this problem by a heading:
"Battered wives need help now",
and there was a plea, in describing just such a case as we have been discussing, that we should get this legislation on the Statute Book as rapidly as possible. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have made it possible for this to be done so speedily, and I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two about this. In addition to the compli-
374
ments and thanks which have been expressed by the noble Baroness to others, I should like to say how grateful to her are those of us who have come across the kind of difficulties that this Bill is intended to remedy, for the extremely interesting and efficient manner in which she not only introduced this Bill but has persevered in bringing it to a conclusion which I think will be acceptable to all Parties in both Houses.
I hope the noble Baroness will herself forgive me if I take this opportunity to say that this is only one example of the very important work that she has been doing for very many years, and to tell her how deeply appreciative are those who have benefited from her services to the community for the activities in which she has participated. I have had the privilege of knowing her for many years. We were on different sides in political life at one time, but that was a very long time ago. I think she has forgiven me, as I have forgiven her. Certainly what she has done in the meanwhile has fully justified any forgiveness that anybody would want to offer her for any disagreement which may have taken place.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I, too, should like to say to the noble Baroness, to whom I have already spoken outside, that I welcome this Bill very much, but I was not particularly happy with what I may call one side of it which, to my mind, rather tends to make legal the unfortunate situation which is now beginning to appear in which couples tend to go and live as man and wife and claim protection under this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, when I asked him about this matter on Second Reading, said that they have this protection at the present time; but here we are writing into a Bill a principle which I find very difficult to accept in some ways. We are in fact covering two people who live together as man and wife when they are perhaps in a position to become man and wife. They may be doing it just to see whether it works or because one of the parties will lose money if they get married.
I can appreciate a situation where two people, as happened to many before the present divorce laws, find it impossible to get married. Those people in these circumstances I would not hesitate to include in the protection of this Bill. I can appreciate that there will be humanitarian grounds on

375
which people cannot get married. A wife who is in a mental institution, who has been there for years but is recovering and who, when she comes out, finds that she has been divorced and her husband has remarried, may well in those circumstances have a relapse. My Lords, I have no wish to delay this Bill in any way. I specifically put down no Amendment on Committee stage for I did not want to delay the Bill, but I feel that in subsection (2) of Clause 1 we may be taking a step which will lower the standard of life in this country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I do not know whether it falls to me to reply to the point the noble Lord has just raised. We went into this question at an earlier stage in the discussion of the Bill. The fact that emerged from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage was that women living with men in the relationship of husband and wife, although not married, are equally subjected to acts of violence. Those situations unfortunately were sufficiently frequent to justify doing what the Bill does. If my recollection of an earlier discussion of this matter is right, I believe that we have a certain amount of (shall I say?) ecclesiastical dispensation for including this provision in the Bill. It was not thought to be endangering the foundations of the institution of marriage if we did so, but it would have the effect of protecting otherwise unfortunate women who would have to go through the difficult procedures of an injunction instead of getting the quick remedy that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will provide.
My Lords, may I say before I resume my seat on the Woolsack how grateful I am, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Phillips, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and others who have been complimented by my noble friend for having assisted in the speedy passage of this Bill, and I congratulate her on skilfully steering it through the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
[The Sitting was adjourned from 7.4 p.m. to 7.55 p.m.]

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, leave out lines 11 and 12.
The noble Earl said: I must apologise to the Committee, because I have for the moment mislaid my list of Amendments; but I can say that we are now going to debate the arena of the five-mile zone. What I am unable to tell the Committee at the present time are the Amendments that I wish to take with this Amendment. They are consequential, and I thought it would be courtesy if I could outline them as a package. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Lyell will be able to give me the information.
Lord JACQUES: May I suggest that the noble Earl takes Amendments Nos. 10, 11, and 12 and then any consequential Amendments after that can be moved formally.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): I think it is incumbent upon me to say that Amendment No. 11 will fall because it is superseded by a later Amendment.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his intervention, which I hope is an indication of the post-prandial wellbeing and calm which is going to reign in this Committee from now on. Quoting from memory, we have Amendments Nos. 11(A) and 11(B). I will be taking with Amendment No. 11(A) the Amendments enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. Amendments No. 11(A) and the consequential Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord

377
Jacques, cover the debate upon the five-mile zone. Amendment No. 11(B) concerns the small ports and will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Lyell.
It was clear from the debate before we adjourned that we felt very strongly about the public inquiry and the issues that were raised by such far-reaching changes in legislation as are proposed in the Bill. If we felt strongly about that, we feel a great deal more strongly—if that is possible—about the question of the five-mile zone. This formula derives from a relatively innocent attempt to solve a dispute within the London docks region. It theoretically gives to the Scheme which the Secretary of State is empowered under the Bill to propose, the possibility of declaring virtually every part of the British Isles, and all activities in this connection that take place within the British Isles, as if they were a dock area. It is this part of the Scheme which has caused such outside consternation, as we have seen. I am not talking simply of the political objections of my political Party, but the contentious area of one set of unions, one set of workers, feeling that their jobs and their livelihoods may be threatened by a Bill which is fundamentally drawn up to privilege another group of workers.
As I said, the reason for the five-mile limit is clear. It was originally proposed by the Bristow Committee in connection with London. That limit has now been extrapolated from London and applied to the whole country, and that is what we object to. What we now have, and in my contention in this Committee what we need to discuss, is a kind of map, not so much of a corridor but of an envelope around the whole of Britain, an envelope of five miles which at times extends into the heart of the country. I would remind the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate that this envelope would become even more sinister should there be such a thing as a national dock strike, because the five-mile envelope would effectively become a five-mile picketed or "no go" area through which port transport activities could not take place.
Those of you in the Committee who heard my earlier remarks will not, I think, believe of me that my objections to this legislation stem from any kind
378
of desire to criticise or to clobber the dock workers. I have just mentioned the possibility of a national dock strike. I should be the first to acknowledge that the record in strikes of the docklands and dock workers is extremely good. It has been one of the better areas in our national industrial relations picture, if you take the long term—if you take a 50-year term. But there is no crime, no sin, in conducting a strike should you feel yourself, whether rightly or wrongly, forced to do so. What one is concerned with is not to limit the possibilities for strike action on the part of dockers but to limit it to their dispute and their profession.
It is often given out in Parliament, in the political system, in the media, that strike action takes place between groups of workers and some national establishment—employers, Parliament, Government, different political persuasions, or the like. In fact anybody with the smallest knowledge of British industrial relations knows that the vast majority of industrial disputes exists between one group of unions or workers and another. There are two points I am here contending: on the one hand this Bill is liable to increase the possibility of such inter-union disputes; and on the other hand that, as we feel may happen, should this happen the dockers will be put in a near monopoly position of the corridor which is being suggested.
I have studied as carefully as I can the Government's case for doing this. I have read what the then Minister of State, Mr. Booth, said in Committee on this issue, and we must be very aware that he is now the Secretary of State and formally responsible not only for the Bill but for the issues underlying it. I have no personal knowledge of the present Secretary of State but I know what his career has been and I know what I read. I have always thought of him as a very honest and very dedicated Parliamentary politician and someone whom, given one's political disagreements with him, one would be much more prone to respect than to have misgivings about. But in his attitude on the five-mile limit—and I accept that he is not the parent of the Bill but that his predecessor was—he displays a kind of humourless genius.
Noble Lords may be aware that at pressent there is a very successful play on in

379
London by Tom Stoppard which deals with the attempts of a Parliamentary Committee to cope with the love lives of Members of the House of Commons. You would have to go to that play which is a talented piece of satire to find comparable language to that which the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State, has been churning out in respect of his attempts to try to define the zones in this Bill. May I quote him? He says:
"The problems of determining precise boundaries of any harbour or dock estate can be quite considerable and have given rise to a number of the problems under the present Scheme where dock work is usually defined as particular types of operation within the port area or the vicinity of the port. That is the major reason why it has been considered necessary to use the mean high water mark as the point from which the five-mile limit should run rather than from ports or harbours."
He goes on:
"We have checked a number of existing ports to give some guidance to the Committee about the effect of using this criterion. We are obliged now "—
the British Government is "obliged now" in the Secretary of State's words—
"to use the metric depth of 6.1 metres as the test mark.
Poole would not qualify as it is 5.5 metres, nor would Gloucester at 3.5 metres. Western Point at 4.6 metres would not qualify nor Anderton Depot, Goole, which varies in depth at the harbour mouth from 5.2 metres to 5.5 metres; Boston, King's Lynn or Lowestoft likewise. This is a case where the harbour-mouth depth in metres would act as a barrier."
The idea of the future of the careers of the dockland community and of industrial relations as they are affected by dockland activities in this country being in the hands of a Secretary of State wandering round the coastline of England with a plumb measure really beggars description. It would mean that a major revision to this Bill may be necessary should there be some untoward silting up of an East Coast port. One would have to be trained less in contemporary drama than in St. Thomas Aquinas to follow this as a credible criterion for laying down where the writ of dockland activities should run.
I can imagine and believe that many of the Committee can imagine what might be said on this issue by noble Lords opposite were our positions reversed and we were in Government. I can imagine the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate saying, "My Lords, this is not the way to deal
380
with industrial relations", or, "This is a typical Tory legalistic way of dealing with industrial relations". He would say, "You should not introduce the law into this delicate area of one union's relationship with another", or he might go on: "Have we not all learned from 1971, 1972 and 1973 that the law has no role in establishing the delicate relationship between one union and another, one group of workers and another".
I come to this next issue of the enormous potential for inter-worker disputes, inter-union disputes, which as we know lies at the heart of many of Britain's industrial relations difficulties and which is potentially created by the creation of this zone. I do not know whether your Lordships are familier with the phrase "Banana Seven". It sounds to my untutored ears rather like the name of a progressive "rock" group. In fact, it is a group of workers engaged in unloading bananas at the Geest plant in Barry. Because of comparable legislation, because of these attitudes, the employers were forced to continue to pay two groups of workers, one unloading the bananas and one which felt entitled to unload the bananas, in order to maintain industrial peace.
I would ask the Committee whether this is the way to improve our economic position at this time. We feel that the Bill can create disputes between one union and another as to who should handle work, and that there may well be a fertile area for disputes within the TGWU itself between the dockers' section and the non-dockers' section: that is what we have seen with the "Banana Seven" at Barry. These problems, I would contend, arise if work is to be reclassified as dockwork if, as we shall see later, an extension register is established and if vacancies occur on existing premises. We believe this will give rise to a fertile area for disputes. Will the Transport and General Worker member be allowed to take any vacancy that might occur? Will Lord Allen's USDAW insist on joining that union? Will the USDAW say it will not have him because he is a Transport and General member? All these possibilities for the proliferation of industrial disputes will continue, and the collective agreement may not cover the point of the closed shop, which again would mean that there would be the insertion of a Transport and General

381
member. It may make it worse if two sections of that union, as I have suggested, are involved.
Your Lordships may think I am straying into rather technical areas of inter-union disputes—and I do not myself dispute that these can and do happen, because it is part of ordinary industrial relations, even in a country like Germany, where the industrial relations record is better than ours—but what will be the effect on the ways in which we earn our living? Let us take the contentious area where airports arc affected by legislation of this kind, even though it is primarily aimed at docklands.
An honourable friend of mine in another place who sits for a Scottish scat is very worried about the concern expressed to him by employees at Aberdeen Airport, and employees and employers in the oil industry who rely on helicopters plying out of Aberdeen for so many of their suppliers. I quote now from what he said in Committee in another place:
"The oil rigs are absolutely dependent on supplies, many of which come within the restrictions and criteria we have mentioned. Upon these oil rigs depend our oil development, and uncertainties are rife in those areas."
May I also in passing refer to our former debate. That is again one of the reasons why we think the public inquiry route, the existing route, is the best one. If your Lordships think that I am simply citing in my own support one of my own political persuasion, may I call to my aid the right honourable gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetlands who commands almost universal respect in this Chamber as he does in another place—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Earl will forgive my intervention, I think it is a rule in this Chamber that one can only quote verbatim what a Minister has said. One can paraphrase what other Members in another place say; but I think I am right in saying that one can quote from the official record only what a Minister has said.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think the noble Lord may well have required that I stand corrected on that. I will use my powers of paraphrase, such as they are, in relating what Mr. Grimond said. He pointed out that freight charges were by
382
far the biggest burden which his constituency has to bear, and that he felt an unsuitable proportion of these charges was in fact due to dock charges. He went on to say he believed that oil servicing was being affected by restrictive practices of dockers in the area and by the expenses of moving them around. He gave as an instance the case in which a mini-bus had to be sent to unload a parcel and that the act of unloading was done by 15 dockworkers. I would emphasise, as I said earlier, that this is not an attempt to criticise, to clobber or attack people who are engaged in the valuable and legitimate activity of dock unloading, but we are aware on all sides of this Chamber that restrictive practices take place throughout British industry. We are arguing at this moment that this kind of legislation will encourage that situation to an even greater extent.
I have dealt with the possibilities created by this legislation for inter-union disputes. We do not have to be very sophisticated politically to know that there have been right royal battles between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Railwaymen about this proposed Bill; and the fact that some of those disputes have been hushed up does not detract from their seriousness. It seems strange to many of us that a union like the National Union of Railwaymen, which has long experience of seeing the road haulage industries "stealing" their traffic, may not be encouraged by this legislation to demand that certain types of road haulage should become a monopoly of their union. I, for one, pay tribute to their restraint so far in not having made that sort of claim, but I doubt whether that present position can go on indefinitely.
It is part of our thesis on the Bill that it is highly divisive within the trade union movement itself. I am conscious that at present—though this position may not continue for very long—it is difficult for a Conservative Member of another place or of your Lordships' House to make appeals for support among union members. In our media-orientated and media-conscious civilisation, the breakdown in relations that occurred in 1974 will take a long time to die. I recognise that, as a political realist. But that does not stop my expressing the view—which is supported from the sources of information I have

383
from elsewhere—that the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers and branches of the Transport and General Workers' Union itself, are in fact bitterly opposed to many aspects of the Bill and would like to see it modified.
The next debate we shall have, introduced by my noble friend Lord Lyell, will deal with the effects of this zone on islands and small ports. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mottistone, if he is in his place, will have something to say about the effects of this legislation on the Isle of Wight. Scottish Members in another place have been most incensed by the possible effect on the Western Isles, and again my noble friend will have something to say about that. Therefore, in trying to deal with the zone argument, we are not pre-empting what we may later say about the effects on small ports. This is extremely serious, because a mixed economy like ours—and I do not use that in a political sense, but in a commercial sense—which produces a great variety of goods on a small scale as well as on a large scale, is utterly dependent on casual labour and small ports for exporting local produce and helping to contain our balance-of-payments problems. We are concerned that this legislation will hit small ports and their activities very hard, as I think the next degate will show.
I should like to pay tribute, as others have done before in industrial relations matters concerning dockers, to the late Observer correspondent, Mr. David Wilson who, sadly, was killed in an accident two or three years ago. He wrote an important book called Dockers: the Impact of Industrial Change. What he said at page 49 of that book is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. He was referring to the idea of a corridor. Saving the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I think I may quote an author, if not an ordinary Member of another place. This is what he said:
"Employers feared that they might have to dismiss their own staff to take on dockers in the corridor and that wage inflation and all the worse aspects of dockland's industrial relations would follow. Working men were also worried because it affected their job rights, and the GTWU branch of the London International Freight Terminal at Stratford East threatened to tear up their union cards and join the National Union of Railwaymen en bloc if dockers entered their depots."
384
We understand the Social Contract, and with qualifications, we respect it, but we do not say that it can gloss over the fact that these anxieties remain. Very little has changed and the anxieties of people working in the cold storage depots, which I cited in the last debate, for example, are heightened by having this rigid five-mile zone.
Again I am trying on purpose not simply to list to the Committee the objections of my own political Party to this legislation, although they are legion and strong. If I may paraphrase, as I think I must, an argument used by a Labour Member in another place, on the Floor of the House he asked the Secretary of State who invented the five-mile limit; he would not take any credit himself, or on the part of the union he represented, for this invention; he found it arbitrary and pointless; he was able to trace, as we all can trace, its origins to a particular dispute in London, but he contested that what was good for London was necessarily good for the rest of the country. And this is the strong part of our case.
To sum up, our Amendments, and those related to it in Schedule 3, seek to improve a controversial Bill. We consider that our proposals offer a practical alternative to the concept of the five-mile cargo handling zone, one which will be acceptable at least to those who work within the docks industry. The Amendments observe the ambition or philosophy which is apparent behind the Bill, to use the words of my noble friend Lord Mansfield at Second Reading, but they seek to achieve the aims of the Bill in a fairer and more comprehensive manner.
One of the aims of the Dock Work Regulation Bill is to improve the terms of the 1967 Dock Workers Employment Scheme in order to provide greater job opportunities for registered dock workers and to regain the traditional dock work that has moved away from the docks. The Bill sets about doing this by extending the range of work which is classifiable as dock work by means of this zone. Our view is that the extent to which the provisions of the present Bill will achieve this aim is far from clear, for as yet the Government have not published any estimate of the number of businesses and employees that would come within the

385
Dock Labour Scheme. In this connection I would recommend that the Committee should cast its mind back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn when he said that we cannot deal by Affirmative Resolution with matters which normally would be dealt with by a Green Paper.
There can be no doubt, however, that a blanket extension of dock work to cover coastal and inland areas in addition to recognised ports would bring within the proposed Live-mile cargo handling zone many premises, some of which are far from the sea and have never been connected with dock work in any way. Such businesses would undoubtedly suffer from the restrictions of the Dock Labour Scheme, and they could face the prospect of labour surplus to their requirements being allocated by the local Dock Labour Boards. Their employees would also be faced with problems arising from being placed on the extension register, with which we shall deal later, which could be regarded as being less favourable than their previous conditions of employment. This point is often missed when the safeguarding of dock workers' rights is considered.
In our efforts to produce a rational alternative to the geographical concept of a cargo handling zone we have been in contact with representatives of both employers and employees who would be affected by the Dock Work Regulation Bill. These consultations have disclosed that the key requirement is for a pragmatic definition of the terms "dock work" and "cargo", allied to a clear definition of the phrase "port or vicinity of the port", as used in the 1967 Act. Thus, we believe that our Amendments will achieve what is required, and we suggest that they provide a much more practical and constructive alternative to the cargo handling zone concept that so damagingly is being pressed by the Government.
8.25 p.m.
Lord ORAM: When the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, began his speech there was a little confusion as to the exact scope of the debate that he was suggesting we should undertake. I gathered from his speech that he was covering Amendments Nos. 10 and 11A and that he would wish to leave for our next debate the question of small
386
ports. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Earl whether I am right in making that assumption?
The Earl of GOWRIE: Yes, the noble Lord is quite right.
Lord ORAM: Then I will tailor my remarks accordingly. I have a number of reasons why I hope that the Committee will oppose the suggestion that the five-mile limit should be taken out of the Bill and the half-mile limit put in its place. However, before I move to those arguments, may I make one or two comments on the speech to which we have just listened. In his opening remarks the noble Earl did what I think was done by a number of his noble friends at Second Reading and, indeed, what has been done in newspapers and in many ways since the Bill was introduced. That is to say, the noble Earl has referred to the five-mile limit as though there were going to be an automatic extension of the classification to all jobs remotely connected with the docks within five miles of the coasts of these Islands. That is not the case, as was explained at Second Reading, and as, if need be, will be explained by my noble friend Lord Jacques when we come to later clauses of the Bill.
The second claim made by the noble Earl was that this five-mile zone will hinder rather than help industrial peace—that it will cause inter-union disputes rather than remove them. First, may I repeat a point which I made at Second Reading in relation to the suggestion that this Bill is the source of great inter-union conflict. I made the point then that different unions had different views about the Bill, particularly in its unamended form when first it arrived in the other place, but that the Transport Industries Committee of the Trades Union Congress had subsequently issued a document, signed by 12 unions involved in working in and near the docks, expressing unanimous support for the Bill. Indeed, I believe that disputes are more likely to arise if we do not have the kind of machinery which the Bill provides to enable careful consideration of the work around the docks of this country, a planned approach to it and classification after full consultation with the organisations that are representative of the workers concerned. Therefore, I believe that the

387
opposite is true with regard to the point made by the noble Earl concerning industrial peace.
The third point that I should like to make relates to the noble Earl's quotation of what was said by Mr. Albert Booth and his quotations at some length of the various ports and measurements. First, may I thank him for his personal references to Mr. Booth. I have the advantage of knowing him personally, and I assure the noble Earl that what he has gleaned about Mr. Booth from afar or through reading is entirely borne out by the character of the man. I was therefore a little sorry that the noble Earl went on somewhat to poke fun, particularly since the poking fun was entirely ill placed. The various depths of 3.5 metres and the others that the noble Earl quoted, and the various ports that would be excluded under these plumbing measurements that the noble Earl referred to, do not prove that Mr. Booth was absurd. He was using those measurements in relation to an Amendment moved by one of the noble Earl's honourable friends.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My honourable friends are not so silly as to be incapable of moving Amendments to show up the absurdity of the Secretary of State's position. It was exactly what they did in that instance.
Lord ORAM: They were putting forward an Amendment somewhat similar to some that we shall be coming to later, and it was Mr. Booth's purpose in quoting those to show how absurb the Amendment was.
It is important, in our view, that this Amendment should be rejected. The suggestion that the five-mile corridor should be done away with and that there should be a different kind of measurement, of which the half-mile limit is the principal part, are two provisions that we believe are quite unacceptable. The proposed distance of half a mile is far too short for practical purposes. The Bristow Report, to which the noble Earl has referred, proposed that work of the sort accepted as dockers' work should be done by registered dockers if it was done up to five miles from the waterside. That was, I think we all agreed, the origin
388
of the five-mile proposal, and the employers concurred in that conclusion.
The Earl of GOWRIE: In London.
Lord ORAM: Yes, in London. The union representatives at that point were urging a wider corridor, of ten miles, I believe. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has interjected, that the Bristow Report was concerned only with London, but the principle was established by the Bristow Report and I think it is clearly of more general application. There is nothing very special about London.
Baroness SEEAR: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but how can a quantitative measurement be a principle?
Lord ORAM: It is, as I explained on the Second Reading, the first test under which work will be classified. It is the first hurdle, if you like, and there are other hurdles which need to be leapt over before a particular job or group of jobs can be classified as dock work. I will not necessarily argue whether it is a principle or not, but it is a first good practical test. I would put it that way, perhaps, rather than as a principle. Although the Conservative Government at that time did not implement the Report, there have been examples, for instance, at the Aintree Groupage Terminal in Liverpool, which is some four miles from the waterfront, where registered dock workers have since been employed by industrial agreement. There are many other places where work which effectively replaces work formerly done by registered workers is done well over half a mile away from the docks. So it seems clear that the half-mile limit is not enough and that the five-mile limit suggested by Bristow seems to be about right. I will accept the noble Lady's point: it is not a principle; it is a pragmatic decision, but on the basis of pragmatism it does, in our judgment, seem to be about the right measurement.
The noble Earl's Amendment relies on harbours and the half-a-mile from a harbour. It is not considered that it would be practicable to limit the area within which work can be classified to an area, of whatever extent, within a given distance from harbours or harbour land. The reason is that the exact

389
limits of harbours and harbour land at any particular harbour may not always be known without doubt, even at any given point of time, and the limits of harbour land will change over time, because harbour land is defined in the 1964 Act as land adjacent to a harbour and occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of activity there carried on. In other words, premises could come within the scope, not because of deliberate policy under decision by both Houses of Parliament, as is the case with the proposed cargo-handling zone, but simply because the harbour authority had decided to add another acre or so to its existing holding. Moreover, the information the areas of harbours and harbour land is certainly not information which is generally accessible, whereas the mean high-water mark at any particular place can be determined from an Ordnance Survey map.
Those are the reasons why we believe the five-mile limit to be a practical one and why we believe the suggestion put forward in the Amendment of linking it to harbours and imposing a limit of half a mile should not be accepted by the Committee.
8.38 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: We from these Benches would certainly wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in this Amendment, because we feel that the wide extension of the area in which decisions may be taken to classify work really makes the situation far too difficult for anyone engaged in this sort of business to appreciate fully. I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that there is no automatic extension, but to talk about a corridor all the way round the coasts of England, Scotland, and Wales really seems to me absolutely ridiculous. All of that area is then subject to the possibility that some installation within it will be classified.
I raised on Second Reading the question of whether it was possible to find out in advance whether if one put up an installation in that area it would or would not be classified, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, trying as always to be helpful, said, if I heard him right, that a person wanting to do this could judge by seeing what had been done in other
390
cases; but I do not think we can rely on decisions taken by successive Secretaries of State to be always consistent with each other. It seems to me that under the present system it would be impossible to develop any warehousing business in this enormously long corridor with any certainty that one would be able to operate it under the conditions that are contemplated.
In speaking to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the noble Lord mentioned this question of the Secretary of State's being—as those of us who have had the privilege of knowing something about it know—a very sound person, but it does not follow that everybody who becomes Secretary of State later on is going to be so. I do not say we are legislating for an absolute fool to be Secretary of State, but without knowing who the Secretary of State will be, and the personal qualities of the present Secretary of State really do not come into the picture at all. The noble Lord went on to say—and I was interested to hear this—what had been done at the Aintree depot. That shows that without any limit at all arrangements can be made by ordinary industrial negotiation—which I understand noble Lords opposite favour—without reference to legislation, as they were, to establish work at the Ainree depot 4½ miles from Liverpool by registered dockers. If that can be done there, it can be done anywhere else where there is a case to be made, and I am surprised that the Party opposite, who have pledged themselves so much against legislation in dealing with industrial relations, should think that in this matter the queston as to whether or not registered dockers should be employed in a particular installation is a matter for legislation rather than negotiation. Why we should not have free negotiation and see what the result is?
I take the point which the noble Lord has made that it is difficult perhaps in all cases to reckon distances from harbour or harbour land, and perhaps there might be some possibility of some kind of adjustment there; but I certainly think that whatever centres are taken from which the measurement should go they cannot and should not be points on the sea which are miles from any harbour and which have nothing whatever to do with

391
the handling of cargo. Consider a place like Littlehampton, which is certainly more than 5 miles from Shoreham. There are lots of pieces of our coastline which are miles from any harbour, and it seems to me to have no sense at all to think that these should be included in the zone. The noble Lord says that of course it does not follow that there will be an automatic extension. But think of the amount of work that is going to be put on the new Dock Labour Board in examining every proposal within this zone! Surely it is much easier to eliminate those enormous areas in the zone which in no conceivable circumstances could be the site of industrial enterprises of this kind. Why not take them all out? That is what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is suggesting in this Amendment.
I do not myself see at all why it is necessary or even useful to draw this enormous zone. We shall be coming later, I know, to talk about the small ports, but basically the problem—and I know there is a problem; I have worked with the Port of London and I know a good deal about the problem there—is about business which is transferred from within the port limits to just outside. But that does not apply at all to most of the country; it applies only to the periphery of an existing port, and it should be perfectly easy, as I see it, by way of ordinary industrial negotiation to determine where the line shoud be drawn in and around any particular port.
Even if this Amendment were accepted and the line were drawn half a mile round the port area, it would still be open, as we have already said, for negotiations to take place and for a warehouse outside that area to be manned by registered dock workers. So we warmly support this Amendment and hope that we shall be able to make some progress with the Government before we have finished the Committee stage.
Lord WIGODER: May I elaborate on only one point that my noble friend Lord Simon has made. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will agree that within the proposed five-mile zone there will be hundreds, even thousands, of employers carrying out work which corresponds to the work liad down in Part I of Schedule 3 as being work which
392
may be classified. It must be of crucial importance to those employers to know whether the work is going to be classified or not in their particular place of employment because industrial decisions of great importance will turn upon that.
As I understand the Bill in its present form, if such an employer's work is not classified, does not come within the Scheme as at first drawn up, there remains power under Clause 5(9) under which the Secretary of State:
"… may from time to time make orders amending the new Scheme (either generally or in relation to one or more dock labour scheme areas), or altering the boundaries of any such area; and the powers of this section include power to consolidate the whole or any part of the Scheme as amended…"
That means, as I understand it, that at any time in the future an employer who has found that his work is not classified under the original Scheme may find that the work has subsequently been classified.
May I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, if he agrees that the knowledge as to whether one's work is to be classified is of crucial importance to an employer, whether there is any way under the Bill in which an employer in the five-mile zone will ever know for certain that the work carried out at his place of employment is not going to be classified?
8.46 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to explore just a little further this question of the history of the five-mile zone. My noble friend Lord Gowrie took it back to the Bristow Report, and this was generally agreed by the noble Lord, Lord Oram; but I would suspect it went back further than that, because was it not in 1962—and I am quoting now the late lamented Mr. Wilson about whom my noble friend talked—that on the American East Coast they first had this idea of zones of 50 miles? I suspect that Bristow, and perhaps the trades union members, who I understand were asking for 10 miles, got their idea from the Americans who asked for 50 miles and got it. But they got it for a coastline which is vastly more extensive than ours, for a country where the distance from one side to the other is 3,000 miles instead of about 100. And they got it only for containers in relation to a particular side of the business, whereas this Bill, if it is

393
not amended, will cover a much wider area than just containers, and, what is more important, than just the jobs of the people who deal with containers.
So I suspect that we can really say that the origins of this five-mile limit, which horrifies anybody who looks at it reasonably dispassionately, are American. And when one remembers the rather scornful remarks of noble Lords opposite at the time of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, not to mention their friends and advisers in the Trades Union Congress, about importing American ideas into their Act of Parliament, and how later they went out of their way rather unreasonably to defeat it, one feels that it is a question perhaps not of the pot calling the kettle black, but of the pot making the kettle black in this particular connection, and that it really is a rather mythical beginning.
I believe, as I said in Second Reading, that one must have great sympathy for the dockers because of their past history. I suppose it sounds patronising and insulting, but I really believe that. I think also that if I were a docker I would think, "Aha, now is my moment; my Government are in power. What can I get? I can get practically anything because they all know that I can stop food coming into the country to a large extent now, let alone what more I can do. I can get much more power". Indeed, I suspect that if the Bench of the right reverend Prelates were given the potentiality of power that the dockers are promised, they too, for all their clerical leanings, would seek to get this sort of power.
The whole thing has, as it were galloped ahead by various inquiries, American precedents and one thing and another, and it has ended in a five-mile extension. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, says that it is not automatic; you cannot think of it that way; it is a wrong conception of a five-mile zone all round the country. Of course, he is absolutely right; it is not like that and, as he says, it is only to be put into effect in careful stages, even under the Bill before it has been improved. That is absolutely true. But if it is not frightfully important to have the powers there, why put them in? That is the point.
I think the Government, encouraged by a false idea of power, have captured a whole lot of past myths, added them
394
together, jumbled them into this Bill and produced a potentially horrifying situation for the ordinary citizen. I am not really speaking about myself. I will not waste your Lordships' time at this stage because I shall be putting this argument more fully on Amendment No. 11B, but I have spoken to people who work in small ports and who were scared stiff. I have also spoken to people who are in quite different types of employment and whose fears after they have got to hear about this Bill I have personally sought to allay. One cannot blame it entirely on the Press. The fact is that if ever there was a case of trying to pass sledge-hammer legislation to crack a nut, this is it. It is a monstrous sledge hammer, because although there are all sorts of safeguards to make sure that it will not drop with a bang at the wrong moment and engulf some part of the country to which it does not apply, it is there, and it will always be there.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indicated that sort of thing, and therefore what we are saying in this Amendment is, "Don't be so greedy". I mentioned that word rather cautiously in my Second Reading speech, but I really think it is a question of being greedy to establish a power situation from which the rest of us cannot "get from under". Even if there are safeguards, we all know, with the greatest respect, that we cannot rely on assurances which are given from a Front Bench today when in three or four years' time there may be a different Front Bench. It might even he us—who knows? You might not be able to trust us, in another sort of way. Don't, for heaven's sake, give the reigning Government more power than is necessary. It seems to me that it is quite ridiculous by means of a false historical background to create that sort of situation.
In his final point, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that the five-mile cargo handling zone laid down in an Act of Parliament was better because at least you knew where you were—although I think I have slightly indicated that we do not, because the threat is quite monstrous if carried to its logical conclusion. I am sure it would not be, but just suppose it were. He said that was better than having a system whereby the harbour land could be extended arbitrarily—from the point of view of Parliament—by a local port authority and thereby effectively make a

395
widening of what would potentially be in our Amendment, without Parliament having any say in the matter. I am not sure that that is not a bad thing in these days. Surely there is too much centralisation of Government, and when we come to harbours and people working around them, actual dockers and other people, if you bring the law into it—and noble Lords opposite have said this—workpeople will be in conflict.
If we have this situation, is it not better that it should be handled on a local basis? And if a local port authority thinks it would be wiser to extend the harbour limits of, say, Liverpool, is it not better that it should be done locally rather than by a blanket instruction from the centre, put into effect by the Secretary of State? Do you not think that that, coupled with the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene which is still left in this Bill, coupled with the public inquiry system, which at least makes sure that there is public argument about the things which matter, is really a better balance than trying to have an arbitrary sort of limit which frightens everybody and indeed threatens them? There is no reason at all why the Secretary of State should not use his powers under the Bill, if it is not amended in the way we say, to make sure that it is only dock registered jobs which function in (shall we say?) Winchester, if it so happened that somebody was unwise enough to build a cold store within the precincts of the city of Winchester.
That is a load of rubbish and surely we ought to think more about the individual views of people rather than what power we can gain for a particular group of people who happen to have been badly treated in the past and who now have in power a Government who are sympathetic to them. Is it not better to go slowly; to go at the pace that all of us can live at, rather than rushing it along and creating a great big bogey which will frighten all of us and probably in the end would not be put into effect properly?
8.58 p.m.
Lord ORAM: There were one or two points during the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when I was encouraged to think that I had made
396
some progress, particularly when he was expounding, with commendable clarity, if I may say so, on the points that I had been trying to make that the five-mile zone does not imply automatic classification within the five-mile zone of all work connected remotely with dock work. I am sure that when he see his words in Hansard they will be well worth studying, and I hope they will be given the publicity for which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was earlier asking.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am so sorry; I am afraid my voce was not sufficiently sotto. All I said during the noble Lord's speech, to myself really and I did not mean it to be heard, was nor will the classifications necessarily extend within the half-mile limit. It is quite even between the two.
Lord ORAM: It is not automatic; I have the noble Earl with me on that point.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to have my little say in the matter, and that is to hope that the further remarks will also be included in any publicity which is given to my remarks.
Lord ORAM: I was about to comment on some of those remarks. The noble Lord went on to say what a pity it was that these decisions were not going to be made locally rather than by some nationally imposed scheme. This is not the way in which it will work in practice. Information and opinion, facts and figures, will be fed in from the locality and the Board will take in the views, the decisions, the opinions and the fact of the locality in drawing up the national scheme; so it is not some super-scheme being bureaucratically imposed from above. It is in fact the case, as I said in my earlier intervention, that this five-mile zone is but the starting point for a process of careful consideration before classification takes place.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that the corridor was ridiculous, using language of a more violent kind than one usually expects from the noble Viscount. It is far from ridiculous. It is the first criterion in a series of criteria which will enable a planned extension of

397
the Dock Labour Scheme to take account of modern developments. I thought I had the noble Viscount with me on this point on Second Reading. I remember he intervened and said that he agreed that the Dock Labour Scheme needs bringing up to date. I am glad that he still takes that view. That is what we are doing. We believe that because of technical changes in dock work, a properly planned extension of the Scheme is needed, and that will be brought about within the five-mile corridor.
Viscount SIMON: If the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will give way for a moment, what I meant to say and did say was that I thought the Scheme needed amendment. I think a properly worked out amendment of the Scheme is necessary, but I do not think that this is a properly worked out amendment of the Scheme.
Lord ORAM: I recognised on Second Reading that the noble Viscount was not going all the way with me, but he was admitting that the Scheme is out of date and that action is necessary to bring it up to date. Of course, we differ as to what kind of action is necessary, but I am sure that we are together on the need for action.
The only other point I need reply to is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who raised the difficulty—and I admit it is a difficulty—about businessmen anywhere within the zone suffering from uncertainty because of the provision that the noble Lord read out from Clause 5, combined with the corridor provision. There will, of course, always be some element of uncertainty, but at the point when the Scheme has been produced, a good deal of uncertainty will be removed from a large number of businessmen. The variations which might subsequently take place I believe will be quite rare and quite small, so a degree of certainty will arrive when the Scheme has been promulgated and approved. But I fully accept that there will continue to be uncertainty for businessmen.
Lord WIGODER: The effect, of course, is that the Secretary of State wants to take power to extend the Scheme outside the five-mile zone.
Lord ORAM: Yes; for good and appropriate reasons. The uncertainty which
398
will face businessmen must be seen against the history of dock labour as a whole. I indicated that I represented a constituency which is an important part of dockland in London. The uncertainty which the dockers suffered throughout their history was a far worse uncertainty than anything that any businessmen are likely to suffer under this Bill.
The main purpose of the Bill is to build upon the Dock Labour Scheme which the dockers treasure as the means whereby they were taken out of the dreadful conditions from which they suffered in history, into a better state of life. It is right that they should want this Scheme, upon which their welfare so much depends, to be extended and modernised. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that there will be uncertainty, but at the same time a great deal of heartrending uncertainty will be removed.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think the Committee will respect the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the sincerity with which he has dealt with this problem—and it is a very difficult problem—from personal experience. But surely at the present time we ought to be doing everything we possibly can to encourage investment and modernisation. Admittedly, in the past the dockers have experienced great uncertainty, but the effect of engendering uncertainty in business at the present time is to prevent investment and modernisation. One just will not get investment and modernisation if uncertainty is created. That is the first matter that must be borne in mind.
The noble Lord used a very carefully balanced phrase when he said that what the Government are aiming for is the planned extension of the Dock Labour Scheme to take account of modern developments. That is really saying that dock labour to some extent has been circumvented by people with initiative who are anxious to enable our goods to be more cheaply sold abroad and exported, and our imports to be brought in more cheaply to this country, by reducing the cargo handling charges. This is what they have done, and now the proposition is, because they have conferred this benefit on the country, their employees, and they themselves perhaps, are going to have their jobs taken away and handed over to someone

399
else. This cannot be right. It cannot ever be right, unless the word "substitution" is used in the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: On what grounds does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, say that people are going to have their jobs taken away and someone else put in their place? On what grounds does he say that? Where is the evidence for that?
Lord DRUMALBYN: If this is not so, how is it that the noble Lord was able to say, in answer to a previous Amendment of mine, that dock workers would be transferred from places where there was no work to places where there was work? That can be done only by creating vacancies. The vacancies may well be created—I do not say in every case, but they may well be created by displacing people who are at present doing jobs which are not classified when those jobs are then to be classified. The noble Lord cannot deny that.
Lord JACQUES: What my noble friend was saying was that we may get some circumstances in which there is a surplus of registered dockers at one place and a deficiency at another, and some of the surplus would be given the opportunity of going to the other place where there is work. They are not taking somebody else's work; they are going to fill vacancies which exist. I think the noble Lord made an unfair and unreasonable statement, because there is no evidence to support it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: There is no evidence because we have not yet started on the Scheme. We shall have to see how it works out. But very grave suspicions are widely held throughout the country on this; many people are in fear of losing their jobs to dockers and being replaced by them. The noble Lord cannot get away from that. We shall have to see how it works out. The noble Lord may be right or wrong; he may be right in some cases and wrong in others.
When any industry declines, there is always a temptation for those in authority to try to export their own unemployment, so to speak, by encroaching on the preserves of others. I am not in favour of preserves or shut-out situations and such like, but a man who is in a job and doing a
400
job is entitled to keep it as long as there is a job to keep. If he belongs to a union he is entitled to go on belonging to that union so long as it remains in existence. It is not right to force people to switch from one union to another merely on the basis of some dogma, or five-mile zone. I remember that in a previous transport Bill an attempt was made to switch trade from the road to the rail. That proposal was dropped; it simply was not viable. Here we have a proposal for what is not at present dock work to become dock work along the lines I have suggested, in the course of taking account of modern developments. I do not think this is a reasonable or sensible proposition simply because what is proposed to be taken over is not dock work on any sensible definition.
It is very sad that so many jobs in the docks have been lost since the beginning of 1969; I believe somewhere between 24,000 and 25,000 jobs have been lost. Surely the right answer is to retrain those men for jobs that are really necessary, rather than classify some jobs artificially as dock work and then say, "Come and do that quite different job and we will call it dock work". Of course, I accept that simply because a warehouse or cold store is within the cargo-handling zone it does not follow that all the work there, or indeed any of it, will necessarily—the noble Lord says automatically, which is not quite the same thing—be classified as dock work. But it is clearly intended that all within the cargo-handling zone who have anything to do with the transport of goods are at risk.
The whole concept of a cargo-handling zone seems to be preposterous. One can say that the whole cargo-handling zone is to be a happy hunting ground for licensed poaching. In many areas there is very little to poach. Take the long indented coastlines of most of the West of Scotland and the Western Isles. Here are areas where a goodly proportion of the inhabitants have traditionally had two, three or four jobs, one of which was the handling of cargo. That is the economic way to deal with the situation. The noble Lord must not complain of ridicule about this, because the whole concept is so outrageous that I can only end by misquoting Shakespeare:

401
"This happy breed of men,
This little world,
This precious stone set in a cargo-handling zone."
This girdle is obscene.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think with my noble friend's words we have come to the end of this particular road. As I said on an earlier Amendment, I really think that once again the Government have made our case for us. We started by arguing both from these Benches and the Liberal Benches about the absurdities implicit in any geographical zone. Even our own Amendment has its absurdities. Of course we would rather not have the Bill in need of that particular Amendment at all, but at least half-a-mile is within sight of the sea and seems to have some sense to it. But, as was clear from the final speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oram,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
what is really at issue here, what is really the Government's intention, is to redress what they feel to be a present evil, or imagined evil, felt by the dock workers. If this is the case why set the limit at five miles, which in any case the Secretary of State can extend, so far as I can see, at whim? I think that my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Drumalbyn, more eloquently than I can, have pointed out the absurdity, and beyond that the great danger in this section of the Bill, and I would therefore like to press my Amendment.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Armstrong, L.

Gray, L.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Hacking, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barrington, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hives, L.

Salisbury, M.

Berkeley, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Inglewood, L.

Seear, B.

Byers, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Killearn, L.

Simon, V.

Carrington, L.

Limerick, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

de Clifford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Deramore, L.

Monck, V.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor, of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Oram, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy-Seal.)

The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I shall not call Amendment No. 11 as it has been replaced by Amendments Nos. 11A, 11B, 11C and the manuscript Amendment No. 11D. I therefore call Amendment No. 11A on the supplementary Marshalled List.
I understand that Amendment No. 11A is not moved. So I call Amendment No. 11B.
9.24 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 11B:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(2C) The new dock labour Scheme shall not apply to a small harbour or to any place within half a mile (in a direct line) of a small harbour, being a place which is not also within a similar distance of a harbour to which this Act applies.
(2D) In subsection (2C) above "small harbour" means a harbour or wharf—

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

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

and for the purposes of this subsection "cargo" and "ship" mean the same as in Schedule 3 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11A not being moved, in moving this Amendment it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 11B and to the manuscript Amendment No. 11D, which is an Amendment not on the Supplementary List but which I hope is in the hands of all members of the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 11B and 11D together seek to remove the smaller ports from the Bill, and I am sure that the Committee will bear with me while I explain the many reasons behind this proposal. Noble Lords will notice that under these two Amendments there are three criteria for the exclusion from the Bill of the small or smaller ports. First, we find the criterion of the hours worked in loading or unloading cargo from a ship at the port or harbour. Secondly, there is an alternative criterion of the size of the vessel according to its gross registered tonnage. Thirdly, in the Amendment to the main Amendment, the manuscript Amendment, we have taken as a criterion
404
for excluding other ports from the provisions of the Bill those ports which already surpass the aims of the proposed Scheme. We shall of course be touching on other aspects of this at a later stage, but, in the main, those ports in this last category have grown in importance, particularly to the local communities served by them, since the newest Scheme was incorporated in 1967.
Indeed, the Minister in another place was at pains to point out that in almost all cases the ports, the wharves or the harbours that we are discussing have complemented rather than harmed the adjoining Scheme ports. I have many examples in mind, but the Committee would not expect me or any other Lord, I hope, to have a really firm grasp of the conditions at the 395, I think it is, non-Scheme ports in the United Kingdom, or indeed of the 123 non-Scheme ports in Scotland. Noble Lords will not be surprised that the North Sea oil service traffic has made a great difference to many of the smaller ports in Scotland, and indeed in the North-East and the Eastern seaboard of England. But, of course, often new skills and techniques are needed in these ports and in this particular traffic. These new skills which have been acquired at these new ports, apart from being developed within the last five years, are constantly changing.
Perhaps the Committee would like me to consider the three criteria for excluding the small ports. The question of the gross registered tonnage of ships handled at any of the non-Scheme ports, harbours or wharves is particularly germane to the Scheme. As we shall be seeing when we come to consider Clause 5, the objects of the Scheme include reference to regularising and stabilising dock work, not to mention decasualisation. Nowhere in that clause, nor elsewhere in the Bill, can we find any reference to the conditions which ought to, and which do, pertain at the small local harbours: but in most of these the pattern of trade is sporadic, it is seasonal or, indeed, it is irregular, or sometimes it is a combination of all these. Often these patterns are determined by geographic reasons; for example, shallow waters around the harbour, or perhaps difficult access to the harbour, wharf or port by road or even by rail, or possibly even by the trade carried on in the areas which are served by such a small port.
In most of the cases that could be covered by such examples, the trade could not possibly justify the engagement of a permanent labour force to carry out dock work either loading or unloading cargo, or indeed in carrying out general work which would not come within the category of stevedoring. One example concerns a small port in North Wales where timber if often loaded. There, the traffic is sporadic; the port is too small to take ships which go beyond 1,500 gross registered tons; and indeed, the facilities for both loading and unloading are more than adequate for the traffic. The users of this port are almost entirely small transport concerns which carry goods to or from the port when the need arises. The traffic into and, indeed, out of the port is the concern of the area within a radius of approximately 30 miles from the port. What would be the point of laying down conditions whereby the Scheme applies when the work of the port is done at present by skilled workers at the appropriate times?
What would be the point of causing port users at this particular port inordinate expense when they can obtain first-class service and often of a standard envisaged by the Scheme, but provided by persons able to work elsewhere when a port cannot open or offer them this employment? What would be the point of forcing present port users to take their traffic and trade to a Scheme port when such a change would increase their costs, sometimes doubling and occasionally trebling them? No noble Lord can conceive that such is the intention of the Scheme, yet we believe this would be the effect were this port and others like it to be included under the provisions of the Scheme. Also, there arc the hours worked at others of the 390-odd non-Scheme ports. The reason that the Amendment mentions an upper limit of 1,350 hours is broadly similar to the main reason for our alteration in respect of tonnage and small vessels.
Many ports and piers, landing stages and wharves, lie in what could be called deep or less shallow waters. Yet the other conditions I mentioned are equally relevant. The pattern of traffic is either seasonal or spasmodic, it may be local or just unorthodox. There are dozens of examples to be found, particularly in Scotland or in the South-West, Devon or
406
Cornwall, where a port or wharf or quay could be said to provide an extension of inland transport. There are cargoes of, say, bulk liquids or cement or machinery which cannot travel as cheaply by roll on-roll off methods; and these can only be loaded or unloaded, for instance, in the Western Isles of Scotland or at remote corners of the mainland, by crane or other conventional methods. This is the kind of work that the dock workers in the Scheme ports carry out; yet the periods when such work can he carried out in small ports is limited, often by tidal considerations. Clearly, to have the Scheme applied to such small ports and such places would mean that they would no longer he able to offer their existing service at current prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, never said that the intention of the Scheme was to raise prices anywhere. I think he would agree with this. If the Scheme were to apply to these small ports, quays or landing stages the service would become very inefficient and far more costly. Life is difficult and expensive enough in these areas, remote from the main stream of our life. Surely the Scheme cannot be intended to apply to islands and these remote communities. Yet we understand it is going to do exactly this, or there is a risk that it may do so.
The third category in these group of Amendments is that of ports which are at present non-Scheme ports and which are already offering to their dock workers conditions of permanent employment. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned that the Bill seeks to end casualisation of labour forces. I believe that we have a perfect example with such ports. These ports were mentioned by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Prior, the Member for Lowestoft in another place, at the Committee stage. He drew attention to the Lloyd Williams Report in 1960 and how it considered that very strong reasons would be needed to change the status of a particular port in this category; how the Scheme is now, and how it was then, intended to guarantee permanent employment. So far as I can understand, such conditions apply at a number of, but not all, non-Scheme ports which cannot he categorised as small.
In many of these ports the pattern of trade has changed radically since 1967

407
when the last Scheme was brought into operation and the pattern of trade has changed rapidly in the last three years, At many ports, other non-dock services are provided. Indeed, without these non-dock services, much of the port traffic would be inhibited. Can the Scheme be intended to choke off trade in these ports?
The arguments I have mentioned for small tonnage ports are equally relevant; namely, that much traffic at these ports is complementary to that arising from Scheme ports, and that in many cases capacity to handle such traffic at the Scheme ports is limited or indeed nonexistent, and the imposition of the Scheme at these non-Scheme ports on such a port as I have mentioned would gravely affect trade in the area served by it. I cannot believe that the Government intend the Scheme to work in this way at any of these categories of small—or shall I call them "smaller"?—ports. For this reason, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment proposed: Page 4, line 12, at end insert the words printed on the Marshalled List, to which there is an Amendment No. 11C in the name of Lord Mottistone.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I was hoping not to take Amendment No. 11C with Amendment No. 11B. With the permission of the Committee, I should like to take that after we have dealt with Amendment Nos. 11B and 11D.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The Amendments should be taken seriatim. It should be Amendment 11C and then Amendment 11D. If it is the unanimous wish of the Committee, we will take Amendment No. 11D.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I was not aware that my noble friend was going to move Amendment No. 11D with Amendment No. 11B.
Lord LYELL: I spoke to Amendment No. 11B and 11D together. I only moved, I hope, Amendment No. 11B.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: That is quite
408
correct. The noble Lord had only moved Amendment No. 11B. Once the Question has been put for the first time, one takes the first Amendment to the main Question and the first Amendment is Amendment No. 11C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. When that is disposed of, we take Amendment No. 11D, the Manuscript Amendment.
9.37 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 11C:
In subsection (2D)(b), line 2, leave out ("1,000") and insert ("1,750")
The noble Lord said: According to the procedure, I must move Amendment No. 11C. I apologise for having misunderstood the procedure. This is a great pity, because I would have much rather resolved the matter and in fact I deliberately put down the Amendments in such a way that we could take the Amendment without muddling it with Amendment 11B. However, the object of Amendment No. 11C cannot be considered without my speaking to Amendment No. 11B. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will do that. I understand that it is permissible to quote front Ministers in another place, though my noble friend was taken to task when quoting from other Members of another place. Mr. Booth, the Minister of State, at column 627 of the Commons Hansard said:
"My right honourable friend at Second Reading in Column 264 of the Official Report indicated very clearly that small ports where satisfactory arrangements had not been devised or a permanent labour force would not be brought within the Scheme."
At a later stage, in column 663, Mr. Booth said:
"Honourable Members will realise that my right honourable friend and I have always made clear our belief that third party ports outside the Scheme should, unless some special circumstances apply, be brought within the Scheme. We have taken the view it cannot help the industrial relations of the industry if, because of historical accident a small but significant proportion of third party loading or unloading are subject to a different control of employment. There is no doubt that this difference has given rise to considerable difficulties and continues to give rise to difficulties".
I interpret both those quotations to mean that the Government of the day do not mean to include small ports within the

409
Scheme under their scheme whatever the circumstances or definition of small ports may be. If that is so, it would be wise to exclude small ports by the definition given in Amendment No. 11B from the Bill. If you do not want to get somebody in, why frighten them all by having legislation which enables you to put them in? It comes back to what I was saying on Amendment No. 11A: why frighten people? You may say, "Are they frightened?" The answer is, "Yes". As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said on an earlier Amendment, I am particularly concerned with the Isle of Wight.
I have taken quite a lot of trouble to find out what people think at all levels of employment. There is absolutely no doubt about it that they are worried. They are not worried for the immediate future but for the long-term future. They are not really worried that their job will get taken over by a docker, though that is in the backs of their minds, but what they are worried about is that somehow a relatively well-ordered relationship will be upset by importing an alien form of employee into their midst in small numbers—because there are only penny numbers in the Isle of Wight of people who could be remotely described as dockers, within the Bill without amendment. But there are some that could be, and what they are worried about is that they do not want people whose interests are quite different from theirs. Therefore they would much rather that there was some protection given, so that they should not be included within the confines of this Bill.
You may say, "Well, we have got Ministerial assurances that they will not be. Is that not good enough?" Unfortunately I happen to know that this may be so in Ministerial circles, but it is not entirely so in trade union circles. It has been said to me, "Oh yes, we shall have to look at all the small ports because small ports may get to be big ports". Probably very genuinely, the established dockers have got rather frightened by the fact that non-Scheme ports have blossomed forth since one or other of the last settlements with them over the past 20 years. Perhaps they have not stopped to think why they have blossomed, and blossomed not only in the interests of the employers who operate from them and of course of the country, which has had
410
perhaps a rather better turn round of transshipment, but also of the employees in those areas.
However, putting that on one side, I can see that they would probably be worried about some of these small ports, not necessarily in the Isle of Wight, which is rather different, because I cannot believe that we shall become a main exporting centre for the United Kingdom; the depth of water makes that rather difficult to comprehend anyhow. Forgetting that for the moment, the Amendment we are talking about will cover other areas of the country which might expand in various ways. The great thing about the Amendment is that if it does expand, if a port which has at the moment employees who are working less than 1,350 hours in the year on loading and unloading cargo, or is able to accept only 1,000 ton ships, dredges itself so that it can handle bigger ships, or builds itself wharves so that its employees can be more fully employed, the protection of this particular clause does not apply to it. I should have thought that the dockers are not threatened by this and that this is a reasonable Amendment to cover them.
I want now, with the permission of the Committee, to move on to Amendment No. 11C which I did not want to do until I had heard the Government spokesman, but I am directed by my Lord Chairman on this point. The object of Amendment 11C not being a basic part of this Amendment is that it would seem to me that against the background of trying to seek criteria for what is a reasonable port to match the implications of Mr. Booth's statement, particularly that in column 627 which I quoted, the figure of 1,750 tons would be reasonable. Perhaps the Minister would like to listen to what I have to say, because I am rather directing these remarks to him as I am going to require an answer. It would seem to me that 1,000 tons and 1,750 tons are not so very different as between one and the other in order to meet the objects expressed by Mr. Booth in column 627 which I referred to.
It might perhaps be reasonable to ask the Government at this stage whether there would be a major difference in the number of ports which would be affected by this change or whether there would either be no change at all or a quite minimal one. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Oram,

411
notice of my question and if he can give me an answer now, so much the better. Depending on the answer which is provided by the Government, I would seek leave
412
from your Lordships to re-introduce this Amendment No. 11C during a later stage of the Bill. However, I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be able to give me a satisfactory answer to my question.
9.46 p.m.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: I am afraid there seems to be a slight mix-up. I am very briefly going to mention Amendment No. 11B, but before doing that I have to make an apology to your Lordships. During the Second Reading of this Bill I mentioned, quite correctly, that I was a local director of a local cold store and that I got no remuneration. In fact, when I got back to Scotland—a long way from the Isle of Wight—I found that I get £200 a year, but the Inland Revenue will take most of it.
Having now cleared my conscience, I should like to say that I am particularly concerned with all the small ports round the Scottish coast, and particularly the port of Stornoway in the Isle of Lewis. I shall not go through my Second Reading speech again, but I should like to bring out just one or two salient points. First, in the Hebrides every single thing that is brought in in bulk has to come by sea, which makes it more expensive than on the mainland of Scotland. That, of course, is a consideration. To include ports such as Stornoway would be completely ridiculous. There is already a perfectly good arrangement where the fishermen—and the fishing is largely seasonal—are loading or unloading cargo when they are not fishing. That applies especially to the salmon netting fishermen. So if these ports were included not only would you have higher prices to be paid by the population but you would also be having to pay more in unemployment benefit to people who will be out of a job anyway. I hope very much that the noble Lord will exclude practically every port North of the Clyde ports and the Firth of Forth, with the exception of Aberdeen, right round the coast of Scotland.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support my noble friend in pleading for the small ports. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, earlier today referred to the consultation that had taken place; but surely that consultation was with representatives of the major ports with constant cargoes—the Newcastles, the Londons and the Liverpools—and I doubt very much whether there is anybody from Devon, Cornwall or Sussex, who will be affected by the five-mile corridor, who has been consulted in any way
414
at all as to the effect on the small ports of these new proposals for this corridor. In the debate in another place, the Government spokesman appeared to have no figures relating to the number of dockers already employed in non-Scheme ports and the number of employers in container groupings outside the dock area which would come into the proposed five-mile limit, nor to the workers who could be affected by the five-mile limit where dockers might contend that the total delivery within that limit should be undertaken by members of their union.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the noble Lord sitting on the Government Front Bench said this afternoon that the increased cost would be negligible. The Ports Association, which is a very responsible body, has published various analyses of the cost effectiveness of the labour employed in many of the smaller ports in the West Country and in Wales. Those ports have tremendous local interests and by determined efforts have been made operative and viable. The small ports have provided local employment because they are organised in a flexible fashion so that the maximum use can be made of them when the tides are appropriate. Their labour is linked not only to the seasonal produce which from time to time requires possibly 40 members in a work force but also to the occasions when the tides are so low that the cargoes cannot be shipped in that area, or alternatively to the time when there are no seasonal products or no particular goods to be shipped from those ports. That flexibility would go. If those docks were taken over under the Dock Labour Scheme the maximum required number of dockers, even if they were fully employed for only three months of seasonal exports, would be entitled under the agreement to be paid for twelve, not three, months of the year. How any responsible Minister can say that this is not going to put up the costs at these small ports and put some of them out of business is beyond my comprehension.
At this late hour I do not want to go into the figures, but a most detailed analysis has been made by the Small Ports Committee of the Ports Association, based on their balance sheets, the men that they employ, the wages that they pay, the cargoes that they handle and the seasons

415
during which they handle those cargoes. If Her Majesty's Ministers would look at this analysis they would see that to impose this scheme on those small ports would bring disaster to them. It would make them completely non-viable and put some of them out of business. These small ports serve well the smaller industries in the West Country. The West Country has several very fine industries but nobody would suggest that it is a densely industrialised area. However, it contains industries like the china clay industry which makes regular shipments, and the industry knows when and how those shipments will be made. However, the china clay industry alone could not sustain a full complement of dockers for every day that might or would apply, who would have to be paid for under the new Scheme.
I support entirely the noble Lords who have spoken. I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to these areas. I speak in particular of the West Country but I know that what I say applies equally to Scotland and Wales. It may be that some people in high office in London think that what is good for London is good for Cornwall, but you try to tell a Cornishman that!
Viscount SIMON: I should have liked to contribute to this debate but I am rather lost. I thought that we were discussing Amendment No. 11C but the last two contributions appear to have been directed to Amendment No. 11B. Has Amendment No. 11C been withdrawn?
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: To clarify the matter, Amendment No. 11C has been moved. It is an Amendment to No. 11B, therefore it is quite in order to discuss both together. When No. 11C has been disposed of, No. 11D will be called. That, too, is an Amendment. Finally, Amendment No. 11B will be called, as amended or not.
Lord ORAM: Perhaps I might reply to the debate so far and the noble Viscount may, if he wishes, join in afterwards.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, indicated, these Amendments seek to exclude small ports from the provisions of
416
the Bill by three criteria, one being the number of hours worked; the second, the size of ships; and the third, the question of a permanent labour force and the standards of employment. The Bill's approach to the question of small ports is that the National Dock Labour Board will examine the situation at each port, as provided in Clause 7, to which we shall come at a later stage, and then report its findings to the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, several of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place have indicated—he gave actual quotations, I think—the view that a great number of small ports dealt with in the way that the Bill proposes will, through that process, be excluded from the Scheme. I should like, if I may, to give just one further quotation in support of that. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Monday, 26th July:
"I recognise that there arc a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited to the Scheme ". —[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/76, col. 163.]
So, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, indicated, that is the approach to the Bill of the Government, as indicated in the quotations from the Minister.
We believe that the method suggested by the Amendments is not a suitable one. To attempt to exclude work at particular ports or harbours from the possibility of being brought within the Scheme by reference to, for example, the maximum size of ship which can be accommodated or the amount of dock work done there or any other criteria of this kind, such, for instance, as the depth of the navigable channel or the periods within which ships can enter, would not be satisfactory. These are various suggestions either contained in the present Amendments or that have been brought forward in other connections. Our basic reasons for opposing criteria of this kind are that they would be likely to lead to arbitrary and indefensible distinctions between port areas which are generally of a similar character. Introducing these criteria would be invidious, in that different decisions could he made concerning ports which in other respects are generally of a similar character. Moreover, it could sometimes be difficult to determine whether or not the circumstances provided for existed.

417
The first criterion proposed in (2D) of Amendment No. 11B has presumably been framed to exclude ports where loading and unloading work is effectively not a full-time job, although numbers of persons may be engaged on it at certain times. Clauses 7 and 8 already provide for the Board to take this sort of consideration into account in considering whether to recommend particular work for classification by the words:
"whether the work … requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force … "
It is an inappropriate ground for determining the extent of the area within which work can be considered for classification. In particular, labour requirements could well change over time with the development or decline of a port. Similar considerations apply in respect of the size of a ship; the position could change over time, and the maximum size of ship which can be accommodated is not necessarily a good guide to the amount of work performed at a place.
Perhaps at this stage I might reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, because he kindly gave me as much notice as it was possible for him to give—it was not great notice, but I am not blaming him for that. He indicated in his speech that his is something of a probing Amendment, in order to see whether information can be given as to the number of ports which might be additionally excluded if 1,750 were put in rather than 1,000. I am afraid that in the time that has elapsed since he spoke to me it has been impossible to get that sort of information. I am not encouraging him to think that given more time it would be possible. I think that he was rather asking the impossible, because this sort of question arises: What would be excluded, that part of the harbour only which was not capable of taking a 1,750 ton ship or a 1,000 ton ship? In that case, Admiralty charts all round the coast would need to be consulted. It would be a very different exercise, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Just straight off-the-cuff, would not the earlier Amendment that we discussed just now cover this by referring to the definitions of harbours and harbour land? I think that is (2A). I think it would cover that, because obviously, if it is a port part of which
418
will handle only a smaller ship, part of whose wharves are worked on only for a shorter time, clearly it will not be excluded because it will be under the wider definition of (2A). I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Lyell would agree with that; but if that is so, I do not think we are bothered about that; we are bothered about a port whose maximum depth is capable of taking a ship of 1,750 tons or 1,000 tons and all of whose workers work less than 1,350 hours when loading or unloading cargo.
Lord ORAM: Yes, but I was directing my remarks particularly to the distinction which the noble Lord tries to draw between one size of ship and the other, and trying to indicate that the kind of information that would be necessary in order to answer that question is by no means easily accessible. It would involve a very difficult exercise of research which I do not think the noble Lord is really insisting that we should engage upon.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Before the noble Lord goes on, I think that the Hydro-graphic Department of the Ministry of Defence would whip it up jolly quickly. If the noble Lord is thinking only of civil departments, of course they would probably take three years, but he should try the Ministry of Defence.
Lord ORAM: Well, we shall see what we can do, but I would not offer any great hopes to the noble Lord.
The Government's general position on small ports, which I have indicated has been stated repeatedly during the Bill's progress through another place and in reply to a considerable amount of correspondence, is that the absolute exclusion of particular places, either by name or by reference to some standard criteria of the kind proposed in these Amendments, is not the most sensible way to proceed because such a wide variety of factors could be relevant. The Bill explicitly requires consideration to be given to whether the work in question requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force, which is one of the points made in the Amendment. If it clearly does not require such a labour force, the work will not be classified, and this was one of the factors in the mind of

419
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he was speaking in the terms which I quoted.
So really what divides the Committee—and I hope it will not be too deep a division—is the method by which small ports can be excluded from the operation of the Scheme: whether it is done by the process indicated in Clause 7, by an examination of each particular situation by the National Dock Labour Board with the benefit of all the local information that it requires, or whether we attempt—and I think it would be a wrong-headed and vain attempt—to lay down the various criteria in the way that the Amendments are seeking to do. I think that is the wrong approach and the original method in the Bill is the right approach.
Viscount SIMON: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord has said. Personally, I feel that it would be much better to approach the matter on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I do not necessarily think that any particular criterion is the right one, although that is a matter we can discuss. But the noble Lord, Lord Oram, suggested—if I heard him aright—that the trouble was that if any criterion was laid down it would lead, or might lead, to arbitrary and indefensible decisions. I should have thought it was much more likely that arbitrary and indefensible decisions would be reached if all the small ports were referred to the Dock Labour Board independently. Unless one lays down some criterion, how on earth is the Dock Labour Board to decide what to recommend? It will he faced with an enormous number—and it is an enormous number—of ports to consider. Perhaps the noble Lord has in mind that the Dock Labour Board itself will lay down some criteria, because we all know that if one tries to judge an issue without having laid down any criteria the decisions will certainly become arbitrary and might become indefensible.
Another point I wish to mention is that although, as the noble Lord said, the Dock Labour Board, having considered the matter in relation to any Scheme, will report to the Secretary of State and make a recommendation for classification or not, as I understand it the Secretary of State
420
need not accept the recommendation. He can either accept it or reject it, so we are not very much further when a recommendation has been made.
I have not got an up-to-date record of the number of the small ports, but when I used to be concerned with ports I remember that there were 102 members of the then Dock and Harbour Authorities Association, of which I suppose about a dozen were fair sized ports. That excluded many of what are called "marine works" in Scotland which were not in that Association. I do not think that many of those ports—tiny places, little quays here and there—have ceased to exist, so I would imagine that there are well over 100 cases that the Board will have to consider. Surely, even in the interests of saving time and labour it would be sensible to try to find some criterion below which one could say, "Do not let us bother about these at all". I do not necessarily say that the criteria proposed here are right and I must say that I am particularly uncertain about the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in Amendment 11C. This seems to me to be a little on the high side for his tonnage and as at present advised I would prefer Amendment 11B.
In any case, there might be room for discussion between the two sides of the Committee as to whether there is a better criterion. I find it difficult to accept, as suggested, that it is better to have no criterion at all and for each one of these cases to be looked at individually. I suggest that anyone who has had the task of, shall I say, choosing from a large number of candidates, giving marks for different qualities, knows how very difficult it is to choose from a large number of people, or a large number of ports, unless you have laid down criteria to help you decide whether they are within or without the limits.
Lord JACQUES: The criterion is laid down in Clause 7.
Viscount SIMON: I confess I cannot carry this Bill in my head. What is laid down in Clause 7, if I have it right, is that the Board will consider a whole lot of matters. It is only right that it should be given some guidance as to what is or is not to be considered a small port for this purpose. That will still leave it discretion to recommend that ports that are above the criterion should not be included.

421
Casting my mind back to the Bill brought in by the Labour Government some time ago for nationalising the ports, there was there a criterion for small ports which were not to be brought in. I have not refreshed my mind as to what it was, but it may be that that would be a criterion acceptable to the Party opposite, because it was included in the Bill which, in the end, failed because of the General Election. I am sure that in that Bill there was some provision for small ports to be recognised by an easily calculated criterion, and possibly that could be looked at. I feel strongly that we are going to put an intolerable burden on the Dock Labour Board if we do not lay down some criterion of small ports. Also, we are more likely to get arbitrary or indefensible differences between ports if we leave each case to be decided ad hoc, so to speak.
Lord ORAM: If I may briefly acknowledge the earnestness with which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, approaches this problem and his hope that it would be possible to legislate, it seems to me that the issue between us is that there are really such a wide variety of considerations that would have to be taken into account that any satisfactory writing of it into the Bill would be an enormously complicated business. As my noble friend Lord Jacques pointed out, within Clause 7 there are certain guidelines to the National Dock Labour Board. That gives them some guidance, but in my view the detailed considerations of all the local circumstances are much better dealt with by the process laid down in the Bill, rather than by attempting the very difficult task of establishing such criteria covering all the various factors.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I believe your Lordships would like me to dispose of
422
Amendment No. 11C. With regard to that Amendment, and hoping that, with the best resources available to them, the Government will try to provide some sort of an answer embodying this Amendment, I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, manuscript Amendment No. 11D:
In subsection 2D(b), line 2, at end insert ("or (c) where the labour force is employed substantially on a permanent basis and where the conditions of remuneration and other service arc equivalent to those pertaining at other ports which are members of the National Ports Council;")
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): The Question is whether Amendment No. 11D shall be agreed to.
Lord JACQUES: Have we disposed of Amendment No. 11B?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: We dispose of 11D first and then move on to deal with 11B.
Lord LYELL: I should like to couple Amendment No. 11D to No. 11B. I understand that the procedure would be to move 11D at this stage.
10.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether Manuscript Amendment No. 11D shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glasgow, E.

Onslow, E.

Armstrong, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rochdale, V.

Auckland, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Barrington, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Salisbury, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Killearn, L.

Seear, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Simon, V.

Carrington, L.

Limerick, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Tranmire, L.

Deramore, L.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Morris, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Oram, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Champion, L.

Kagan, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.24 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): The Question now is that Amendment No. 11B, as amended, be agreed to?
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, wishes to move a manuscript Amendment by agreement between the Members of the Committee.
10.25 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: That normally superlatively well-oiled machine, the Opposition Front Bench, developed a fly in the works some moments ago and my noble friend Lord Lyell inadvertently did not move Amendment 11A on the Order Paper. I had spoken to that Amendment, and so declared that I had spoken to it, with Amendment No. 10. We appear in sackcloth and ashes and the Government
424
have been very reasonable about it, particularly in the light of some of the rude things we have said about the Bill, and I understand that they are disposed to accept it as a manuscript Amendment. We have of course voted on it. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 11A as a manuscript Amendment:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(2A) A dock labour scheme area may comprise any place in Great Britain which is within half a mile (in a direct line) of a harbour to which this Act applies or of the nearest harbour land adjacent to such a harbour.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, "harbour" and "harbour land" have the meanings assigned to them by section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964.")
Lord ORAM: We should be loath to take advantage of the error on the part of noble Lords opposite and certainly I personally should be loath to take advantage of it because I am very green to the procedures of your Lordships' House and am quite capable of making a mistake at any time. I am therefore glad to accede to the noble Earl's suggestion.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am afraid that the noble Lord, to whom we are grateful, is really saying that the grass is always greener on the other side.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (7).
The noble Lord said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
10.28 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) Where under subsection (2) of section 4 above the Secretary of State shall make orders designating areas as dock labour scheme areas, the Board shall be required to establish local dock labour boards responsible for areas as may be determined by the Board.
(2) Each such local board shall be constituted with a chairman and such numbers of members as the Secretary of State shall designate. Excluding the Chairman, an equal number of such members shall represent respectively employers and workers engaged in commercial and industrial activities taking place in the local dock labour hoard areas as determined.
(3) The Chairman of each such local board shall be appointed by such local board.
(4) The Board shall appoint members of each local dock labour board other than the chairman after consultation with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
The noble Lord said: I hope the Committee will accept the gratitude of this, we hope, better oiled machine now, as we pass to another aspect of the Bill. This Amendment is concerned with the local boards which we understand will be set up under the Scheme. The local dock labour boards which are to be established for the various areas which are yet to be determined by the National Dock Labour Board, will be responsible for the actual process of classifying cargo-handling as dock work, or possibly not. These local boards will be taking decisions at working level and, we hope, almost at each individual site. Above all, these local boards will be responsible for the discipline of work, and therefore the composition of the local boards is of the greatest importance to the employers of dock labour at the various sites.
We believe that the dock work is too important not to have the widest possible interest to employers and employees, and indeed to outside interests. There may be some need for an independent element
426
to break any possible deadlock between port employers and unions, which unfortunately in the past has led to the toleration of a certain amount of indiscipline and the incidence of a few restrictive practices in the docks. This problem could, we hope, be met by the appointment of an alternate chairman from the employers' and the dock workers' side, with possibly a casting vote, and as any total independence would not lead to a working and effective board, we believe that with such a chairman agreement would be made easier.
But in present circumstances, as we are discussing the Bill at the moment, the proposed Amendment seeks to offer the best opportunity for introducing board members who are not bound by the old Dock Labour Board rules and customs, because we believe that the key to any possible success with the local dock labour boards would rest with the eventual selection of any or all of the trade union representatives, particularly if officials from the union concerned with cold stores, inland depots and warehouses were to take at least one of the tour places for dock workers on the boards. Similarly, operators of the dock labour in cold stores and in these inland depots should be entitled eventually to one of the four places for dock employers. The present numbers are that two-thirds of all registered dock workers are employed by port authorities. For instance, in Liverpool there are only two other employers of registered labour in the port, and yet there are seven cold stores in Liverpool. We understand that one of them lies in the heart of dockland, and we are very pleased to note that relations in this particular cold store are, and have been for many years, really excellent.
But we come back to the perennial lack of discipline and the very great difficulty in finding some effective dispute settlement procedures. This difficulty is endemic in the port transport industry, where various employers have tended, under necessity and pressure, to concede demands rather than to take action which might be laudable but which nevertheless would have the effect of delaying ships. Other interests are now going to be involved, and ship movements need not necessarily always be an overriding consideration. Of course, there

427
are strong arguments for shipping bodies and other consumer interests to have representation on the new National Dock Labour Board, but we wonder whether they are always needed on the local board, because they should not necessarily become involved in what are essentially industrial problems at a local level. Unlike the existing dock labour boards, the new one will be directly concerned with questions of pay and hours, welfare and, indeed, training, as well as pension schemes and benefits and the collection of the levy paid by dock employers.
We understand that the members of the existing National Board have made re-presentations to the Government against the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which they describe as unworkable in its present state. We understand that these re-presentations have complained that, eventually, power will rest with the local boards. It has also been reported that the Department of Employment has in mind retaining the existing local boards for various areas around the country—major ports such as London, Liverpool, Bristol, Hull and the South Coast, with possibly minor additions to the new members.
The whole question of obtaining workable arrangements for (may I put it) disentangling one set of port interests from another through the local dock labour boards is the main and, indeed, the only purpose of this Amendment. The board, we believe, must have the power to choose its own chairman, and I would commend subsection (3) of this Amendment, since those of your Lordships who have any experience of such boards at working level will know that the chairman's casting vote is indeed an ultimate weapon, and is one which is used with very great restraint. Thus we hope that our Amendment will do much to help relations within the proposed local board, and we hope that it will be a tool to aid negotiations within the local board and hence to continue to improve relations at the local level, which are much more industrial than the wider consumer interest. I beg to move.
10.35 p.m.
Lord ORAM: The Bill at present provides that matters relating to the establishment of local boards shall be solely a
428
matter for the new Dock Labour Scheme. The new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has moved seeks to specify in the main legislation, in the Bill now before us, the composition of the local boards, the manner of their establishment and the appointment of their members. I agree that the composition of local boards will be of very great importance but I would suggest that the appropriate membership of the boards can only be decided effectively in the light of the functions they will have to perform, and since the latter can only be determined by the Scheme it would seem logical that their composition should likewise be a matter for the Scheme.
Furthermore, changes in the Scheme, and consequently changes in the appropriate composition of the local boards, could well become necessary to adapt to changing circumstances in the industry. It will be important that there should be the necessary flexibility in the arrangements to ensure that such modifications can be made expeditiously. It is therefore considered right that these matters should be dealt within the Scheme, and I think that that is the essential difference between the provisions in the present Bill in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 and the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has put forward.
This does not mean that we in any way disagree about the importance of the local boards and their constitution, but we regard it as important that their composition should be the right one in accordance with the functions that will later be determined. Therefore I would ask the Committee not to accept this new clause.
Lord WIGODER: The local dock labour boards are clearly an essential part of the whole Scheme. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for raising this matter and making the proposals that he has about the composition of the local boards. I am bound to say that my noble friends on these Benches think, on the arguments as heard so far, that it might be better to leave the composition of the local boards to a subsequent stage and not to seem to write them in specifically at this stage.
I wish to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to two matters in the clause as at present drafted. First,

429
subsection (2), the proposal that, apart from the chairman, an equal number of members of each local board shall represent employers and workers, is, I should have thought, a recipe for disaster when the local boards seek to deal with a disciplinary problem. Experience has shown that almost inevitably, whatever the merits of a particular dispute, the employers' representative will line up with the employers and the workers' representative with the workers. No one is satisfied that the decisions reached are in any way related to the merits of the case.
There is a further small point about the new clause as drafted. If, under subsection (2), the local board is constituted with a chairman and various members, it does not appear possible, under subsection (3), that the chairman of the local board can be appointed by the local board. There cannot be a local board in existence until it has the chairman by virtue of subsection (2). This is a drafting point which could be put right later; but I would venture to suggest that it might be better for a provision of this nature, although discussed now, not to be written into the Bill.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the qualified support, for the support at least for the idea behind the Amendment. So far as the case on representation in subsection (2) is concerned, we accept that he could have a point, where one has a confrontation in cases of discipline, where employers line up on one side and employees' representatives line up on the other. As I pointed out in my explanation in moving this particular new clause, we believe that a workable local scheme will not become apparent in the atmosphere of confrontation, and further negotiation is always needed at local level. We accept much of what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said; nevertheless, we feel that there is too wide an area of discretion in Clause 7 (I think that was the clause to which the noble Lord was referring) and we are not entirely happy about the criterion—if we can call it that—for the appointment of local boards. This provision is one on which we do not feel particularly strongly at this point. We have put it forward to hear what the noble Lord has had to say. At this stage, after the debates we have had tonight, I seek
430
leave to withdraw the Amendment, with the possibility that we may reconsider it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Recruitment
.—(1) Subject to final determination by the local dock labour boards, transfer of men from the extension register to the main register shall be restricted to those—

(a) who have served for a minimum period of two years on the extension register;

(b) who have passed a medical examination to prove their fitness to perform "all" work likely to be required of a registered dock worker;

(c) who have attained the necessary levels of skill; and

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

(2) Where a person is employed on premises classified under the Act and is unable to meet the requirements of subsection (1) above, that person shall be allowed to continue in that employment on the extension register.
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move this Amendment and take Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 in my name. These are probing Amendments to inquire about the position of new dock workers—that is to say, dock workers who may become dockers under the scheme. What we want to know is whether under the Bill new dock workers can move straight from the extension register on to the main Register, or how quickly they can move from the one to the other register, and how the Government envisage such a movement. In these probing Amendments we restrict movement off the extension register on to the main register to two years or more. Also we make this transfer dependent upon local circumstances—that seems only sensible—and we ask that final determination be made by local boards.
Amendment No. 27 is linked to No. 22 because it deals with redundancy and severance payments and, indeed, with the whole question of whether it is fair that someone can take up employment and get compensated very quickly without working. We feel that the Government have

431
not explained or commented on how many new jobs it is estimated will be created by the introduction of the new legislation. If the answer be nil, that no new jobs will be created—as has been suggested—we question the logic of a Bill which seeks to increase the number of registered dockers, in view of the sustained efforts that have been made during the past to reduce the number of men on the register.
The need for fewer men on the register has come about partly because of changes of building within the industry (which we have dealt with in earlier stages of the Committee stage), including the improved efficiency of handling methods with the introduction of containers and the like. We think that as a result of the Bill the demand for severance payments will escalate as increasing numbers of registered men are unable to find work. This is something we gave a warning about earlier. We should like the Government's response to it.
Lord JACQUES: First of all, may I point out that in spite of the side heading to this new clause, "Recruitment", we are not dealing with that; what we are dealing with is people whose work has been classified and people who have been put on the extension register. I do not think that covers new recruits. I should also like to say that when I read the terms of this Amendment I was a little surprised because the Opposition in the other place have consistently been seeking in everything they said and did to protect the worker whose work was classified, whereas this Amendment seems to make it more difficult for the worker whose work has been classified and who has been put on the extension register.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but as I said I put down the Amendment in order to try to find out the noble Lord's position and I am still trying to find that out.
Lord JACQUES: The effect of the new clause would be that no extension register workers would be added to a main register unless they had been at least two years on an extension register. It also gives the local board discretion as to when, over an indefinite period, they would be transferred to the main register
432
and in addition make such a transfer subject to the conditions of subsection (1), paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) in the Amendment. It would not be sensible to require all extension register workers to wait as long as two years before being given the full protection of the Scheme. There are a number of categories for whom a very short period on the extension register is likely to be reasonable—for example, those engaged in loading and unloading at ports not at present covered by the Scheme but which may be covered at a later date.
Secondly, there are some who are already employed at 1967 Scheme ports, such as Liverpool tally clerks, whose terms and conditions of employment and negotiating arrangements are already very closely linked with those of registered dock workers and it would be quite unreasonable for them to remain on the extension register for a period of two years. The extension register period is designed to enable adjustments considered necessary in industrial relations and negotiating arrangements to be made. This should not take more than two years.
For the period to be of an indefinite length over two years, and particularly to be subject to the decision of the local Board which could be open to varying and conflicting pressures, would create a most unsatisfactory situation of uncertainty both for workers and for management. It is in any case the clear intention that workers on such work, which has to be classified, should be looked upon as categories rather than individuals in respect of their inclusion or otherwise on an extension register and the period which they should spend on that register. It would be quite inconsistent with this intention that individuals should be subject to further specific tests before going on to the main register.
The period on the extension register is not conceived as being in any sense a trial period for the individual workers concerned. That would place them in an intolerable position. For example, a worker who suffered an industrial injury would have automatically to be treated differently from his fellow workers. He may be fully able to do the work which he is doing but not able to do the full range of work done by registered dockers.

433
While the provision of subsection (2) in the new clause proposed is clearly envisaged as a safeguard of their personal position in some measure, this does not go far enough.
The Bill already enables the Board to recommend that particular workers should be allowed to continue doing work but not eligible for registration on the extension register if they consider there are special reasons justifying this—and that is under Clause 10, subsection (3). Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) in the Amendment taken together seem to envisage that these workers should be required both to be fit to undertake all categories of registered work and also to have the necessary skills to do all such work.
This latter is quite unrealistic. There are few, if any, registered dock workers at the present time who have all the skills to do all the work which is done by registered dockers. In practice, many will have only the skill to do properly the work that they are doing. If, on the other hand, they are required to have only the skill to do, say, a clerk's job, it would be quite inappropriate to require them to have the level of physical fitness needed for a stevedore's work. We interpret the Amendment as meaning just this. I am prepared to rest there, but if the Amendment were being pressed I would wish to examine the drafting. I shall have observations to make on Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 when we come to them.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Far be it from met to disturb the noble Lord's rest, but we have in fact come to them. I talked about Nos. 27 and 28. I do not mind repeating what I said if it will be more convenient for the noble Lord.
Lord JACQUES: I have taken Nos. 27 and 28 literally, for just what they say. I would say they are unnecessary and undesirable. They are unnecessary because workers on an extension register will retain all the normal statutory protections, including their rights under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, because the exclusion of registered dock workers from the provisions of this and other employment protection legislation contained in Clause 14 applies only to
434
workers registered in a main register and not to those on the extension register.
Clause 14 does what the Amendment intends, and therefore the Amendment is unnecessary. But I would point out that Amendment No. 27 is undesirable. The words are there to ensure that nothing in the Scheme can interfere in any way with these statutory employment protections set out in Clause 14. Without these words, which the Amendment seeks to delete, it might be possible for the Scheme to contain provisions which would in some way detract from these protections. So, in that way, it is not only unnecessary but undesirable.
10.53 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I said at the beginning that I had put down these Amendments to try to get some information from the Government. I think that is a legitimate ploy at Committee stage. What I was trying to find out, and what the Government have not explained, is how many new jobs it is estimated would be created by the introduction of the legislation we are discussing. We should like to have some indication from the Government as to what increase in the number of registered dock workers is envisaged.
We want clarification of the position of these men, now working as non-registered labour, within the proposed five-mile zone in warehouses, cold stores and the like, having already accepted severance pay of up to £5,250. If such premises are to be brought within the proposed scheme, would the former registered dockers be eligible for re-registration, having had their severance pay? If so, would they eventually qualify for additional severance payments? As I said at the beginning of the Committee stage, we do not object to the principle of severance payments, but the idea of severance payment being piled on severance payment is an enviable but irrational position.
Lord JACQUES: No estimate can be made of the number of jobs that would be created, because it is for the National Board to make recommendations about where the Scheme should be extended. However, technological changes have taken work outside the immediate port

435
areas. Therefore we might expect the Board to recommend extending the Scheme in expanding areas of cargo handling activities—for example, container groupage. The Bill contains proper protection for existing employees but also it expands job opportunities.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I will not press the matter further now, although I may return to it. It sounds to me suspiciously as though what we are really extending are protections and that while we extend those we may also be extending the severance payments which are protections for former adverse conditions in the docks. I am reluctant that this should become an aggregate system of transfer payments. However, I will look at what the noble Lord has said. I confess that he has blinded me with science; I did not altogether understand him. However, if what the noble Lord has said is satisfactory I will abandon the Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: Before we go any further, may I say that we are hoping to save severance payments. First of all, if work is classified, the existing workers are protected, so that is not in question. If, however, there is expansion of the work which has been classified, we hope to transfer registered dock workers rather than have to pay them severance pay. Therefore, new employment would not go to any Tom, Dick or Harry who was not employed in this kind of work; it would go to registered dock workers to help to save their severance pay.
Lord WIGODER: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is saying that as a result of the Scheme there will be more jobs available than would otherwise be available and, if so, will he say how the Scheme is going to provide for that?
Lord JACQUES: I think that the misunderstanding here lies entirely in words. I am saying that more jobs will be available to registered dockers.
Lord WIGODER: In other words, nobody is disagreeing that the Scheme will not increase the total number of jobs available. If that is so, does not the other part of the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred—namely, that protection is
436
given to all existing holders of jobs for all practical purposes—mean that no extra jobs will be available for registered dockers?
Lord JACQUES: All I am saying is that when work is classified the existing workers are fully protected; but if there is expansion then, rather than get labour from outside, we hope to transfer registered dockers instead of paying them severance pay. That is all I am saying—nothing more and nothing less.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am sorry to press the noble Lord on this point but it is important. It has been said time and time again that the manning conditions of dock workers are better than they are elsewhere. When the noble Lord said that the Bill preserves existing employment but also extends job opportunities I took him to mean that it would extend the existing employment and give the opportunity of jobs as well. This is what we understood would happen because of the higher manning standards among dock workers. The noble Lord then qualified what he had said by laying emphasis on the fact that if there was an expansion the jobs would go to dock workers. That we quite understand. I wonder, however, whether the noble Lord would clarify the first part of his answer.
Lord JACQUES: I think we disagree about what is the same work. I take the stand that people who have the training to stow goods into a ship are also very competent to stow goods into a container. They have the training and the right kind of experience. The ideal position would have been if what we are proposing in the Bill had been done years ago so that, as cargo depots developed, instead of paying severance pay to dockers we put them into the cargo depots to do the work. They are the ones who have had the experience and training in this. We have not done that; we have allowed other people to be trained to do dockers' work and that is why we have had trouble with the dockers.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Would the noble Lord not agree in that case that of course this Bill would have been much more suitable 40 years ago, but because it is not 40 years ago it is out of place?
Lord JACQUES: I think the noble Lord knows that I am not speaking of 40 years ago; I am speaking of only a decade ago.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Well, I would suggest to the noble Lord that it was 40 years ago that this Bill ought to have been before this House rather than 10 years ago.
Lord JACQUES: That is completely inconsistent with the opinion of the International Labour Organisation, for which this House usually has very great respect. This Bill is modelled on Convention No. 137, a very recent Convention of the ILO. The problems which arise here are not peculiar to this country and the remedies we are applying here are again not peculiar to this country. This is a world problem and the kind of solution we are trying to apply is also being applied elsewhere.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Objects of the new Scheme]:
11.2 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("except with the permission of the local dock labour board.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak to this Amendment at this stage. It is in the nature of a mere probing Amendment to seek some clarification from noble Lords opposite, from the Government. It is a simple Amendment which would seek to allow local agreements to be made which might allow non-registered dock labour to carry on or possibly even to start doing some work which in other areas outside this particular local area where we are seeking agreement would be done by registered labour.
We believe that this Amendment would allow an agreement in certain areas to facilitate some operations possibly in small ports but also in various individual warehouses and cold stores and other small areas where cargo handling might be carried on. It really is much of a small port request. Alternatively, in other non-dock work areas which are at present defined in the Bill this is just seeking a temporary exclusion from
438
registration at the moment. It is merely a gentle request, and we would seek the Government's views on whether this might be possible to a limited extent just while the Scheme is being set up.
Lord JACQUES: This repeats an Amendment which was moved in Committee in another place. It was said then that the intention of the Amendment was to give local boards discretion to allow local exceptions to the employment of registered workers on classified work, if this seems sensible in particular cases. In reply, the Secretary of State accepted that it might be necessary to include in the Scheme provision for local boards to allow particular exemptions. He thought that the words,
"subject only to such exceptions as it may provide"
in Clause 5(2)(b) were possibly sufficient to allow for a provision on the lines sought by the Amendment. But he undertook to consider the matter and on that understanding the Amendment was withdrawn.
It seems to my right honourable friend that there can be no doubt that the words,
"subject only to such exceptions as it may provide",
would enable the new Scheme to allow local boards to permit the use of unregistered labour on classified work, as does Section 10 of the 1967 Scheme. Under that section the local board has to be satisfied that the work is urgently required to be done and that it is not reasonably practicable for it to be done by a registered dock worker, and it is the declared intention of the Government to include a provision allowing such exemptions to be made in the new Scheme.
Lord LYELL: Did I hear the noble Lord aright that it is the intention of the Government to allow such exceptions as are contained in this Amendment? Or is he half-way, or more than half-way, towards accepting the purpose of this Amendment? I was not entirely clear in what he said about how the Minister had promised to consider it in another place. I think the argument is that he did not give entire satisfaction and that is why we are coming back to this subject in Committee here. Did I understand the

439
noble Lord to say that the Government are giving further consideration to this problem and are likely, or indeed able, to grant limited exceptions in limited cases?
Lord JACQUES: What I said was that we have no doubt that Clause 5(2)(b) allows local boards under the new Scheme to permit the use of unregistered labour on classified work. That is already permissible under Section 10 of the 1967 Scheme. Under that section the local board has to be satisfied that the work is urgently required to be done and that it is not reasonably practicable for it to be done by a registered dock worker. It is the declared intention of the Government to have a similar clause in the new Scheme.
I think what the noble Lord probably has in mind is a more permanent exception. Our view of that is that if work needs to be permanently exempt it should never have been classified and the sooner it is declassified, the better.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think I heard my noble friend saying that he was asking for this in the near future as a transitional matter and not, as the noble Lord has just suggested, as a permanent measure. From what I can see here it seems that the words,
"and subject only to such exceptions as it may provide"
in subsection (2)(b) would cover the case that my noble friend has in mind. I think the only difference is that he is saying, "except with the permission of the local dock labour board", but presumably the local dock labour board would also have to give its permission in the particular case. There does not seem to me to be much between the two.
Lord JACQUES: I am saying that if there is a temporary exemption in an emergency it can be done by the Bill as it stands. Secondly, I am saying that if what is wanted is that whole categories of work at smaller ports should be subject to a continuing exemption, then it should not have been classified and the sooner it is declassified, the better. We do not want permanent exemptions. If something is wrong let us put it right by declassifying it.
Lord LYELL: I am half-satisfied by what the noble Lord has said. I am very
440
satisfied that he believes there is a valid point and also that it is covered already under Clause 5(2)(b), but we are of the opinion that such exceptions, even though they may be merely temporary, require to be written into the Bill in the form in which this Amendment is set out. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn suggested there might not be a great deal of ground I between us on this. I am willing to accept the hint from my noble friend. I am grateful for the reply of the noble Lord, or at least part of it, but I should like to consider this before the next stage. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("the cargo-handling zone") and insert ("a dock labour scheme area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.11 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
("but no work shall be classified as dock work unless it involves the handling of cargo which has been or is to be conveyed by sea.").
The noble Lord said: I think I can deal with this Amendment quite briefly. The purpose of the Amendment is primarily to ensure that no work done in connection with goods which are being, or are to be, transferred from one point on the mainland of the United Kingdom to another point on the mainland of the United Kingdom shall be classified as dock work. In my view, it would be manifestly absurd if inland distribution were caught up in the work classified as dock work, even although it came within the description of "work" in Part I of Schedule 3.
There are any number of warehouses and cold stores which are mainly, if not wholly, concerned with the mainland trade. Some of them may well be located in Dock Labour Scheme areas, however those areas are defined. But the principle proposed in the Amendment is applied to them wherever they are located, and the principle is that "work" should not be classified as dock work if it is not dock work. Noble Lords may smile a little at that, but I think we surfer enormously in legislation from things being deemed to be this and that, and we really must

441
stop this. Certainly it should apply to all warehouses and cold stores outside Dock Labour Scheme areas.
My noble friends put down Amendment No. 51 which is more specific, but it seems to me to be more narrow. It proposes that the Board shall not recommend classification for any work on premises where the majority of work is not classifiable as dock work. They also propose to remove the option given to the Board in Clause 8(1) to recommend either that all work done in premises covered by Part I of Schedule 3, or some specified part of it, should be classified as dock work. That option under their Amendment would disappear, but my Amendment would remove the option altogether to classify dock work which is not cargo as defined in the Bill as dock work.
How this Committee considers "cargo" should be denned in the Bill has yet to be decided, and we shall get on to that at the next stage, or perhaps on Tuesday. But I submit that the Amendment is entire common sense, and I think it is entirely wrong to define "work" as dock work if it is not cargo and is not in fact dock work. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: With this Amendment two different interpretations are possible. First of all, the subsection confines "work" which may be classified to "work" within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of Schedule 3. "Work" in Part I of Schedule 3 relates to cargo, and "cargo" is defined in paragraph 8 of that Schedule as
"goods which are, or are to be, or have been, loaded as cargo in a ship…".
A ship is defined as a
"sea-going ship capable of carrying cargo…".
Lord DRUMALBYN: We shall come to that definition in due course. But it seems to me at the outset that that appears to cover all goods that are imported. All goods that are imported have been loaded on a ship.
Lord JACQUES: First of all, can we deal with the effect of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is to preclude the classification of work as dock work if it does not involve the handling of cargo which has been or is to be
442
conveyed by sea. Would the noble Lord agree that that is the effect of his Amendment?
Lord DRUMALBYN: That is so,
yes.
Lord JACQUES: If that is the effect of it, the Amendment is unnecessary, because that is already covered by the Bill. The subsection confines work which may be classified to work which is within Part I and not within Part II of Schedule 3. The work in Part I of Schedule 3 all relates to cargo. "Cargo" is defined in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 as
"goods which are, or are to be, or have been, loaded"
on a ship. A "ship" is defined as
"a sea-going ship capable of carrying cargo".
For those reasons we say that the effect which the noble Lord seeks is already established in the Bill without the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am very glad to hear that, but as they say in Scotland I ha'e ma doots. We will come on to talk later about cases where the work done on the premises can be classified "in whole or in part" as dock work. If it is in part classified as dock work, then I take it that only that work which is being treated as cargo will be classified as dock work. But if the whole lot is classified as dock work, even although only part of it is in fact import or export, then this, in my view, would be entirely wrong. And there is an impression—I cannot say more than that—that where warehouses are involved both in export and import and in inland distribution the whole of their work will be classified as dock work, or, if it is not, at any rate the same conditions will apply in the factory as if it were classified as dock work. Is that right or wrong?
Lord JACQUES: It would be possible for work which is not dock work to be classified if it was a small part of the work being done at the particular premises where that work became classified. But there is a clause in the Bill—I think from memory it is Clause 8(5)(c)—which lays down that the Board must have regard to the proportion of such work. I would say it could only arise where it was a small proportion; that is to say, if by far

443
the greater proportion is imports and exports but there is a small amount of home produced, clearly it would not make sense to segregate it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If that is so, what the noble Lord said previously is not absolutely correct. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.20 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendmet No. 29:
Page 6, line 3, after ("accept") insert ("and fulfil").
The noble Lord said: We are dealing here with Clause 5(6), which says:
"In respect of any of the matters specified in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act, the Scheme may require dock employers and dock workers to accept obligations arising under a specified collective agreement (as for the time being in force) although not themselves parties to the agreement".
My Amendment would insert "to accept and fulfil obligations". The obligations that the Scheme may provide are not spelled out in Schedule 2 in any detail, but they cover the obligation as well as the right of dock workers to do work that is so classified, and the obligations as well as the rights of dock employers in relation to dock workers and dock work, including their obligations in relation to employment, termination of employment, remuneration, hours of work, welfare, training, sickness and injury benefits, and pension schemes.
The obligations are those arising under a specified agreement, whether or not the individuals concerned are parties to the agreement. In other words, the obligations we are here talking about appear to me to be—and I hope the noble Lord will confirm this—placed on individuals. The dock employers will have obligations under the Scheme which they must fulfil. To that extent the addition of the words "and fulfil" make little difference, so far as they are concerned. In any case, if they do not fulfil their obligations they may well have a strike on their hands.
Considering the special rights and privileges that may be expected to be conferred on dock workers under the Scheme, as indeed they are by the present dock workers' order, it does not seem too
444
much for the Bill to require them individually to fulfil, and not merely accept, the obligations which arise under any specified collective agreement. The acceptance may, or may not, be by individuals. I would imagine it would be more likely to be a collective acceptance. The Amendment would leave it to the Scheme itself, as is provided for in Schedule 2, to specify the consequences of not fulfilling their obligations in the case of dock workers as well as dock employers. That is as I understand it. It would be a good thing to provide that if there are obligations and rights here they should equally, both by employers and employees, be both accepted and fulfilled. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: By legislation one can provide obligations and one can provide sanctions, but one cannot provide for fulfilment. In this particular case we provide for obligations in Clause 5(6). We provide for sanctions in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. But we cannot provide for fulfilment. May I give an example—and I take one outside the docks. We can provide an obligation that a man shall not park in the road outside on Parliament Square, and we can provide a sanction, but we cannot provide that he then fulfils it. All we can do is apply a sanction when he does not accept the obligation, and what applies in the case or road traffic also applies in the case of the docks.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I agree that one provides the sanction where the obligation is not fulfilled rather than not accepted. It will be interesting to see, when the actual Scheme comes out, what encouragement the Government give to fulfilment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 30 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 31.
11.26 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 32, leave out from ("areas)") to ("and") in line 33.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on our carrying our earlier Amendment on the zones. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: I must do two things here; first, I must try to explain the purpose of this provision in the Bill, and, secondly, I must then try to explain why the Amendment is unnecessary. It was thought that it might subsequently be appropriate for there to be provisions relating to particular geographical areas and it would clearly be convenient if such areas could be the same as the dock labour areas. Power to alter the boundaries of these areas means that they can, if necessary, be adjusted accordingly. Thus, what we had in mind in providing for the power to change boundaries was power to change them as between one dock area and another where circumstances required a change.
I come to why the Amendment is not necessary, even though the clause has been amended. Clause 4, as amended by Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, is over-riding; that is, the half-mile provision is overriding. The Secretary of State can therefore alter only within the half-mile limit. We say that the Bill as drafted has a useful purpose, that the Amendment is unnecessary and that therefore the Bill should be allowed to stand to fulfil that useful purpose.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, so long as he is saying that the Bill as amended serves a useful purpose.
Lord JACQUES: No. What I am saying is that whether or not Clause 4 is amended, the provision in regard to the alteration of boundaries as between dock labour areas serves a useful purpose. In either case that is the position.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The noble Lord and I appear to wish to give each other the benefit of the doubt and, if that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw—
Lord JACQUES: Before the noble Earl seeks leave to withdraw the Amendment, and because I wish to be perfectly fair about this, let me say that the real point at which the noble Earl must look is the one I am making; namely, that Clause 4,
446
as amended by Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, is over-riding. That is our view and I think he will agree, after consideration and taking advice, that that is the essential point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: It may be that when we come to examine this provision it will appear that there is no reason for these words to be included, because there may prove to be no contiguous boundaries. It is only if the areas are contiguous that it would be possible to alter the boundaries. Presumably we are talking about two separate things here. We have, first, the Bill before it was amended, in which case the local dock board areas would, I imagine, in every case, go to the five-mile limit and the dock board area would be the spread along that limit of a certain number of miles, as the London one was, I believe, and it would be a case of deciding where that limit came and the next dock board area started. But with the Bill as now amended, the boundaries of areas must be determined simply in accordance with their distance from the harbour land and for that reason of course they cannot easily be altered. Therefore, I understand that my noble friend wants to take them out as being redundant.
Lord JACQUES: I think we have to agree—it is a question of fact—that if the boundaries are not contiguous, then there is no purpose in these words; but we believe that there will be cases where the areas are contiguous and where, therefore, they will have a common boundary which might have to be changed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("() Where the Secretary of State

(a) has prepared a New Dock Labour Scheme under section 4(1) above;

(b) has referred a proposal to the Board under section 4(7) above; or

(c) proposes to make an order under section 5(8) or 11(6) below he shall comply with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries) to this Act.").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: I do not agree that it is consequential. It is consequential only in the sense that the Committee has apparently decided a principle and the principle is continuing here. That is the only sense in which it is consequential. The Amendment which we have carried dealt with an entirely different thing—it dealt with the new Scheme. This Amendment would call for an inquiry for many other things, such as any order for changing the cargo-handling zone, any order for amending the new Scheme or any order for classifying or de-classifying. Therefore, what the Amendment is really doing is saying that the principle which was settled in Amendment No. 9 in regard to a new Scheme—that is to say, that there should be an inquiry—shall also apply to all these other things. I suggest that that is not consequential, but since the Committee has decided in principle we would not challenge it at this stage. Had it been a different time of the day I might have said much more.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("(11) Before laying a draft of an order before Parliament the Secretary of State shall consider all representations made to him and may, if he thinks fit, afford an opportunity to any person who has made representations to him to be heard either by him or by a person acting on his behalf.".
The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment because it is covered by the previous Amendment.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: We seem to have made good progress, and I suggest that this might be a good moment to finish for today. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  DR. WALTER MARSHALL
  DR. WALTER MARSHALL
  MINISTERIAL CONFERENCES: LONDON ACCOMMODATION
  MINISTERIAL CONFERENCES: LONDON ACCOMMODATION
  ENGLISH HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY: INSULATION
  ENGLISH HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY: INSULATION
  LAYFIELD COMMITTEE EVIDENCE
  LAYFIELD COMMITTEE EVIDENCE