Sitting of 21 October 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next.

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

  CROMARTY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about recruitment for the Metropolitan Police.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The recent improvement continues, and the strength of the Metropolitan Police is now increasing by an average of about 100 officers a month.
    Mr. Goodhart: It is only natural that crimes of violence should capture most of the headlines, but does the Home Secretary recognise that recently there has been a sharp increase in crimes of fraud? In welcoming him to his first Question Time, may I ask him what action he is taking to increase the staff of the over-pressed Fraud Squad?
    Mr. Rees: I have not yet had time to put my mind to this matter, but of course that is what Question Time is for. I shall discuss this issue with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some truth in the generalisation that a policeman's lot is not a happy one? Accordingly, if recruitment and building up of the police force is to take place it is important to pay attention not only to pay and conditions of employment, but to the creation of confidence within the force. Will he keep under review the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police?
    Mr. Rees: I shall do that. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular aspect in mind perhaps he will speak to me later.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with better rates of pay it is more likely that we shall obtain more adequate recruits? The more recruits we have, the better the police can deal with robberies and thefts from the person—crimes which are worrying a lot of people in the London area.
    Mr. Rees: Recruitment is increasing, and this may be a reflection of the 30

    1633
    per cent. increase in pay which the police obtained last year.

    Police Interviews (Tape Recordings)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now publish the report of his committee on the tape recordings of statements to the police.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The committee was concerned with the feasibility of an experiment in the tape recording of police interrogations. Its report was published on 19th October. I am grateful to the members of the committee for their work; their report, which considers in detail the practical and financial implications of an experiment, is a valuable contribution to discussion.
    Before taking a decision whether to set up an experiment, the Government will need to consider the views of interested organisations and individuals, as well as the financial implications in present circumstances. I shall welcome comments on the committee's report from those concerned.
    Mr. Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing the report so promptly. This is urgent, since it goes back to the Criminal Law Revision Committee of 1972. There will be grave disappointment that the committee recommended that only statements and not interrogations should be tape recorded. When he says that he is taking further consultations, does he have a deadline for these consultations, so that we shall have some idea when the Home Office will go ahead with this very important experiment?
    Mr. Rees: The report was published a few days ago. I am seized of its urgency. I would like now to have the views of all those who are interested in this report, and I shall make up my mind as soon as I can.
    Mr. Carlisle: The issues are very complex, but since the committee has recommended that it is feasible to have such an experiment, it is essential to get it going as soon as possible. The Home Secretary will realise that it is a necessary prerequisite to getting any further consideration of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report on evidence.
    Mr. Rees: I hope that those who have views about this report will listen to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I shall look at all the views which are submitted to me. I am aware of the need for speed in this matter.
    Mr. Lee: Is there not a double advantage in the tape recording of statements and interrogations, in that it would provide protection for the defendant against misrepresentation and protection for the policeman who is making the interrogation against false allegations of perjury and misconduct?
    Mr. Rees: I understand that, but I think that my hon. Friend will have read the report and will know, therefore, that there are problems in this respect. I want to hear what people have to say about it.

    Walkie-Talkie Equipment
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for use of illegal walkie-talkie equipment took place in 1974 and 1975, respectively.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): Ten in 1974 and four in 1975.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern that exists about the amount of interference caused in the 27 and 28 MHz hand by illegal walkie-talkie equipment? Is it not absurd that the Home Office, which has a responsibility here, will not impound such equipment or ban its importation when by definition it can only be used illegally? Can we not take some action now, instead of waiting for the formulation of policy on a citizens' waveband?
    Mr. John: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the use of walkie-talkie equipment, and particularly about the interference with equipment systems which are located on these frequencies, many of which systems are performing a worthwhile function. But it would be wrong to legislate piecemeal when in 1979 there will be a world administrative radio conference, which may well put forward many more general recommendations which will need legislation to gather them all together, and that may be a more appropriate time to act.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the Minister explain why he gave such a peremptory "No' to my Question for Written Answer a few days ago, seeking the establishment of a citizen's band on VHF? Is he aware that the establishment of such a band would meet exactly the exigencies of the problem which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised? It would have the additional advantage of raising money for the Government and an even greater advantage to citizens wishing to use such a band in being able to do so.
    Mr. John: I gave the peremptory answer "No" because the hon. Member asked, as I recollect, whether it was the Government's intention to set up such a citizens' band. Our answer is still "No", but I shall consider these matters, and if the hon. Member has further representations to make to me perhaps he will do so.

    Official Secrets
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to reform the law on official secrets.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: It remains the Government's intention to bring forward some proposals as soon as possible.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Home Secretary not agree that the highest priority should be given to the liberalisation of the law on official secrets because it is one of the few beneficial reforms that will not cost extra money? By opening up the processes of government to the scrutiny of the public and Parliament we may even find ways of cutting public expenditure without reducing the standard of services.
    Mr. Rees: I was a member of the Franks Committee. I cannot recall that a reduction in public expenditure loomed large in our minds when we recommended liberalisation. I am keen to see it, but it is a question not only of money but of parliamentary time. It is a complicated matter, but the hon. Member can rest assured that I have a vested interest in this question through the Franks Committee.

    Race Relations
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
    1636
    he will take further steps to achieve better race relations.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take further steps to achieve better race relations.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government's policies for promoting racial harmony were set out in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination. We shall continue to pursue these policies and to give a lead in encouraging the tolerance and understanding on which good community relations depend.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that politicians of all parties have a particular responsibility to try to promote harmonious race relations? As well as deploring provocative politics from organisations like the National Front, who try to incite hatred of coloured immigrants, does my right hon. Friend deplore those who try to incite people to hate the English, as is done by certain extremist elements in the Scottish nationalist movement?
    Mr. Rees: As a Welshman born I must say that many of my friends are Englishmen. I see the point of my hon. Friend's final comment. On the first part of his question, I am convinced, new as I am to the job, that while there is much to be said for the legislation that we pass on this matter, what matters above all is what all of us are seen to be doing in everyday life in dealing with racialism. The most important element is the way in which we act and treat people.
    Mr. Budgen: Does the Home Secretary agree that by far the most important action to improve race relations would be to reduce the number of immigrants coming into this country, particularly from the New Commonwealth? Does he agree that the concession that was allowed in June 1974, by which male fiancés are allowed in, has now clearly been seriously abused and should be revoked?
    Mr. Rees: If there is abuse I must look into it I see no reason for departing from the general principle of treating men and women alike. As for the numbers, I must ask the hon. Member to look at the figures that are being published, and in particular the very small number of men and women from the

    1637
    New Commonwealth who are coming here with employment permits. Those figures are the key to the long-term situation.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the new Home Secretary recognise that the first part of the White Paper to which he referred, which deals with disadvantage, was a most inadequate response to the most important part of the problem of race relations? Does he accept that a major overhaul of the Section 11 grants and the grant for the urban programme is now needed and that we must produce a coherent programme for dealing with disadvantage to ethnic minorities in this country?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend referred to disadvantage in the inner cities. The statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about people in the inner cities, whatever the colour of their skin, form the basis on which to work. My hon. Friend is right. He had a responsibility here. The question of deprivation is a factor in racialism and in the problem of the inner cities.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Home Secretary. Once more we are brought into opposing positions, although our roles are reversed this time—I trust in the wrong way and only very temporarily. I associate myself fully with his views about the need to promote good race relations and to treat everyone here as an equal and welcome citizen in our country. But does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the resolutions passed at the Labour Party conference, which did a great deal to boost the feelings of those people who fear that there will be unrestricted entry into this country? Will he take this opportunity of rejecting that?
    Mr. Rees: I was present when those resolutions were discussed. I trust that the right hon. Member will appreciate that there is a misunderstanding on the matter. I do not believe that what he suggested is the case.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Look behind you.
    Mr. Rees: I shall look behind me, and I am proud to be associated with a party that stands up on the matter of race relations. That matters a great deal.
    1638
    I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. I note our respective roles. May they last for a long time.

    Immigrant Families (Grandparents)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grandparents of immigrant families have been given permission to settle in the United Kingdom in the years 1974–75 and to date in 1976; and how many of these grandparents are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I regret that this information is not available. Statistics of grandparents accepted for settlement on arrival are not maintained separately but are included in the published "Control of Immigration Statistics" as "others accepted for settlement on arrival (mainly dependants)". Such information as we have suggests that the number of grandparents so accepted is very small.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a general feeling that there are quite a large number of elderly people who have come in as immigrants—some are grandparents and some parents—and that they are unable to work here? The social security rule is supposed to be that the people who are already here and working are responsible for their keep, and that they should not be a call upon our social security system. Many of them are a call on the system, however. Will the Under-Secretary look into that?
    Dr. Summerskill: The criteria for admission for settlement of grandparents or parents of people who are already settled here are set out in the Immigration Rules. They provide, among other things, that the sponsor must have the means to support a parent or grandparent and be able to provide accommodation. There is no evidence that anything but a very small minority of these people have to resort to supplementary benefit.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of evidence that many of these parents and grandparents are employed in the most useful jobs in industry? Is she aware that if she visited

    1639
    Bradford she would find that we could not run some textile industries without them?
    Dr. Summerskill: The people concerned in the Question are elderly and do not draw supplementary benefit. Under the rules of immigration, they are dependent on their children or grandchildren.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: When extra-statutory categories of dependants are admitted by administrative announcement in future, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that it would be desirable to have statistics on the addition to total immigration which is thereby caused? Will she and her right hon. Friend also bear in mind that since the statistics became quarterly, the delay in their publication has become very bad?
    Dr. Summerskill: I shall look at the question of delay in the quarterly statistics. They are based on spouses, with separate figures for men and women. There is another section for others accepted for settlement, mainly dependants. In this case, separate figures are given for men, women and children.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he issues advice on measures designed to reduce vandalism; and, if so, to whom such advice is issued.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In November 1975, the Home Office sent a report by the Standing Committee on Crime Prevention on this subject to a large number of organisations including the police, local authorities and the construction industry. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report and a list of those to whom it was sent. We shall take an early opportunity of discussing the subject with chief officers of police.
    Mr. Steen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern felt by many tenants on the large council estates on the edge of my constituency, and shared by tenants in cities throughout the country, that the situation could be greatly improved if the stigma of council tenancy were removed and people could own their own houses, have control over their environments and have power over their estates, free from the
    1640
    tyranny of petty bureaucracy and local government officialdom?
    Mr. Rees: I am all in favour of removing petty bureaucracy in local authorities, but on the wider question, vandalism—and I have put my mind to this matter—concerns me in my own constituency and does not take place only on council estates. It is pretty general. It is a matter to which we should put our minds. That is why I shall be talking about it to chief constables. A great deal is being done, but it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with the problem. The cost of it in inner city areas is staggering.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one solution might be to provide work for juveniles who are unemployed? Will he consider, as a means of dealing with vandalism, an extension of something like community service orders, so that juveniles may make reparation to the community for the damage they have caused? Would this not be far more effective in dealing with them than other punitive measures, and be of far more benefit to them as individuals and to the community as a whole?
    Mr. Rees: Unemployment among juveniles is bad and must be a factor in vandalism, but it is only one. I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said and if he cares to have a word with me about it, he can add to my store of knowledge. I am trying to do something about this problem and I should be interested in his views.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the points system for the allocation of council houses means that parents with large families become concentrated on council estates and that there are hordes of youngsters who are bored to death? Does he agree that the vandals ought to make good some of the damage they cause and be helped to appreciate what is really good?
    Mr. Rees: Vandalism takes place on council estates, but it also occurs in many other places. I have often found that there is no vandalism among larger families, where family spirit is greatest. The problem is not capable of easy explanation. It is complicated, and it costs a

    1641
    great deal of money which we could well spend in other ways.

    Immigration (Hawley Report)
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to implement the recommendations in the Hawley Report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I keep immigration policy as a whole, including the matters discussed in Mr. Hawley's report, under continuing consideration. It would not be appropriate for me to single out for comment the contents of an internal report which forms only one element in the wide range of advice available to the Government.
    Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report, in January 1975, there was a substantial relaxation of the administrative procedures in overseas posts for vetting visa applications for settlement, at the request of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who was then Minister of State at the Home Office? Is he further aware that since that relaxation was introduced, well over 12,000 new immigrants have been admitted over and about the 1974 figure? Would it not be a good idea, in the interests of fairer and strict immigration control, to revert to the original procedures?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is taking relaxation to mean that people who should not be here are coming here. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was looking at the question of dependants who have the right to come here and was attempting to speed up the process. I think that he was right to do so.
    Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the authors of reports such as the Hawley Report should be entitled to immunity? I understand that it has been the practice to extend to civil servants the right of protection by Ministers, but should we not be protected from those who issue reports in their own names?
    Mr. Rees: I am not au fait with the precise circumstances of the making public of this document, but there is no question of its being issued under the name
    1642
    of the civil servant. However, I shall look at the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that in this enormous problem there is nothing useful or sensible in trying to pretend that anything can be achieved by repatriation?
    Mr. Rees: I firmly agree that repatriation, in the way it has been talked about recently, is wrong. I hope that none of the major parties will touch it with a barge-pole.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is this question not jumping the gun, since the Franks Committee is studying this matter and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend fairly soon? Will he assure the House that whatever the outcome of that committee's considerations, or the Hawley Report, there will be no let up in the view of all parties in this House that the principle of family unity must be preserved, and that we shall not have hordes of guest workers in this country as some Tory racists would like to see?
    Mr. Rees: I am awaiting the Franks Report with interest. I agree that family unity is an important factor in people settling down in this country.
    Mr. Allison: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) touched a sensitive point when he asked whether it was Government policy to relax existing controls on immigration? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Government policy really is, in the light of the Labour Party recommendation that the 1968 and 1971 Acts should be abolished?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has that a bit wrong. What matters is doing away with the 1971 Act. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Act. In many parts it is incomprehensible. It is vital to put that right. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Act and to see whether he understands it. All that the conference was referring to was the need to make citizenship a basis of immigration. That was something that I believed in strongly when I was a junior Minister doing that job. I like to think that it was as result of something I did that the matter was put in the party manifesto in 1970.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the major recommendation that I made when I made my visit to the sub-continent—the recommendation about which Mr. Hawley complained—was that in future the standard of proof should be the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, as against the criminal standard; as that was decided to be the law by the Divisional Court in 1972; and as instructions had not been given to the entry certificate officers until I gave them in 1975, will my right hon. Friend continue to abide by the ruling of the Divisional Court and ensure that this standard of proof is applied in all future entry cases?
    Mr. Rees: I certainly do not intend to change that.

    Urban Deprivation
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest plans for tackling urban deprivation in the remaining 1970s.
    Mr. John: Our Department is responsible for a number of programmes relevant to the problems of urban deprivation. We intend to ensure that these are developed and used as fully as public expenditure constraints permit.
    Mr. Lane: In addition to making clearer the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for the Environment, would it not be helpful if we had a White Paper or Green Paper explaining the whole of the Government's strategy on deprivation and disadvantage? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such an explanation is now overdue?
    Mr. John: The overlap of responsibilities is quite clear. We are responsible for specific programmes, such as the urban programme, the CCPs and the CDPs. My right hon. Friend is responsible for chairing a committee that is considering the problem of inner cities and deprivation. In due course the Government will make their views known.
    Mr. Heffer: As there needs to be a comprehensive approach to the whole question, are discussions being held not only with the Department of the Environment but with the Department of Industry and other Departments that can make
    1644
    a contribution to solving the problem of deprivation in the inner city areas?
    Mr. John: Yes. My hon. Friend should know that the committee consists of representatives of both Departments.
    Mr. Forman: As one of the most disturbing symptoms of urban deprivation in recent years has been the alarming increase in mugging, especially within the area that is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will try to take action to encourage the implementation of stiffer sentences for those convicted of these crimes and, equally, provide better job prospects for the young people who are so often involved in these matters?
    Mr. John: My right hon. Friend was speaking to the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police yesterday about that subject, among others. The factors that the hon. Gentleman mentions are some of those involved. However, the more that we look into questions of crime prevention the less we think that any simplistic solution, such as stiffer sentences, will bring a cure to the problem.

    Obscenity Law
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans amending legislation on the law relating to obscenity.
    Mr. John: My right hon. Friend has no present plans for legislation making fundamental changes in the law on obscenity, but when possible we want to legislate to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission proposing certain amendments in the Obscene Publications Acts to compensate for the abolition of the common law on indecency.
    Mr. McCrindle: I welcome the Minister's reply, but is it not becoming clear as a result of recent decisions that the law is full of inconsistencies and that we are placing responsibility for exercising value judgments on those who are ill equipped to carry out the function? I suggest that consideration be given to scrapping the whole of the present arrangement and reverting to straight censorship, no doubt taking into account the standards and values of 1976.
    Mr. John: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the "deprave and corrupt" formula is criticised, but those who criticise it cannot suggest anything better to put in its place. Before the hon. Gentleman suggests changing the law, I beg him to consider the effect of the Law Lords' ruling in the case that was decided only yesterday.
    Mr. Alison: Have the Government decided to accept the Law Commission report in respect of the common law function in this area? Many right hon. and hon. Members still feel that common law has an important role to play, and that it is much better in the film world, for example, than in books.
    Mr. John: We want to legislate on the proposals, but to compensate for the abolition of common law on indecency rather than to supplement it, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the law that allows Government bodies such as the Arts Council or the British Council to spend taxpayers' money on sending Cosi- fan Tutte to have a bath in polythene chips in Milan and to hold exhibitions of other absurdities such as we have in London? Is that Government policy? Are the Government happy to see money spent in that way at this time?
    Mr. John: I do not think that any body of human beings will make correct decisions in every case. However, the correctness of the decisions that are made is a matter of individual taste. I do not agree with many of the comments that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, for example. The basic answer is that these matters are for the Arts Council. That body is autonomous, and the Government do not interfere in its affairs.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When public money is in very short supply, will my hon. Friend take into account the use that outside bodies make of it when it is being allocated?
    Mr. John: I accept that. When grant is being considered these matters are taken into account. One can never expect correct decisions in all cases in which grants are made.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman go to the Institute of Contemporary
    1646
    Arts to view the exhibition entitled "Prostitution" which is currently on display, which itself is a prostitution of the taxpayers' money? Will he have urgent consultations with the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to banning the grant given to that body, which is squandering our money?
    Mr. John: As a matter of departmental responsibility, the exhibition is outside my control. As a private citizen, my leisure time is so limited that I probably shall not have the opportunity to go to the exhibition.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Lords decision this week in the obscenity case has basically changed the attitude of the courts towards the test of what is obscene and the evidence that can be called? Many of the questions asked today are irrelevant in the light of the decision of the Lords.
    Mr. John: I tried to invite the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who asked the Question, to study the judgment of the Lords. Basically, it introduces a refinement into the law as it was understood. It would repay study before questions are asked.

    Parliamentary Elections (Candidates' Deposits)
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to increase the deposit for candidates at parliamentary elections.
    Mr. John: Since 1st January 1975 Home Office Ministers have answered nine Questions on the size of the deposit, two of which specifically suggested that it be increased.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that merely to keep pace with inflation the deposit would have to be increased to well over £1,000, bearing in mind when it was first fixed at £150? I do not necessarily advocate increasing it to that figure, but is it not a fact that the present very low figure, which was first fixed as long ago as 1918, is an open invitation to every crank in the land to stand for Parliament, merely for the cheap publicity?
    Mr. John: I think that there should be a law against the hon. Gentleman incriminating himself in public. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that this is primarily a matter for the Speaker's Conference. We hope that it will be one of the matters that the Speaker's Conference will take into account.
    Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend accept that whatever the amount of the deposit, it will do little to stop certain wealthy individuals from standing in any number of constituencies, as has happened in recent elections? Does he agree that some regulations could be introduced whereby an individual is allowed to stand for election in only one constituency at any given time?
    Mr. John: That is a matter that can be considered. However, the rise in candidates is not as dramatic as some hon. Members seem to think. In December 1918 the figure was 1,623. In October 1974 it was 2,252. That is hardly taking advantage of inflation and the depreciation in the value of money.

    President Geisel (Visit)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to establish for how long a period the police film of the peaceful demonstration of President Geisel's visit in May 1976 will be available for training purposes and if it will eventually be destroyed.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the film will be used for training purposes for protection officers as long as it serves a useful purpose. It will then be kept in police archives.
    It has not been and will never be made available to any outside agency.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is of the utmost importance that outside agencies do not see films of this nature, especially as there were some Brazilians on the particular film concerned who would be placed in difficult circumstances if they wanted to return to Brazil? Is not the only real way to deal with this matter to destroy the film, and many others that the police took at the time? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that some of us find
    1648
    it exceedingly difficult to understand why, if the police want films of noisy demonstrations for training purposes, the best films that could be taken are not those of the National Front, and not of small peaceful demonstrations such as that which occurred regarding Brazil?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend took the point that I made that these films will not be made available to outside agencies. I have learned from experience in the last two and a half years that protection officers have to be trained. That was the genuine reason for this. I have made inquiries about it. No attempt was made to disguise the fact that the film was being made. No effort was made to film spectators. The film will not be made available to Brazilians or anyone else.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would it not be a good idea for the film to be made available to the public, so that apart from Brazilians the public could see the "phoney" group from "Rent-a-Crowd" who take part in such demonstrations?
    Mr. Rees: It depends on the nature of the demonstration. While there are people who attend these things as something to be done every weekend, in many cases those who attend have a genuine concern about the issues.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that on the Government Benches we feel that there is a gross indignity in having to be filmed by the police on these occasions—[Interruption.]—and that it is symptomatic that the laughter about this comes from Opposition Members, who never demonstrate on any occasion, except on the odd occasion with the National Front[Interruption.]—and that on the occasions when demonstrations take place—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman complete his question?
    Mr. Flannery: On the occasions when these demonstrations take place—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am trying to formulate my question in the face of all this noise, and I should like to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—I almost said my "right hon. Friend" I withdraw that—has made a very important point. Chileans, Brazilians and people from

    1649
    countries in which there are tyrannies are often at these demonstrations, and these films could be used to identify them in relation to the tyrannies about which we are talking.
    Mr. Rees: On the last point, this cannot happen. In many cases—not that to which my hon. Friend has referred—it is important to take photographs to identify people who have committed offences, to illustrate to the courts the general nature and conduct of a crowd, and sometimes to counter allegations of police malpractice. However, there can be too much of this. When used properly, I think it is right. The police are very well aware that to overdo it would be wrong.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising it at this moment, but it is necessary to do so. I ask you to instruct the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to withdraw his accusation that Members on the Opposition Benches demonstrated with the National Front. He knows that that is totally untrue.
    Mr. Speaker: Accusations thrown at anyone in the House are always to be discouraged. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) may care—[Interruption.] Order. I know exactly the noise that there would be if a charge of marching with Fascists came from the Opposition side of the House. I am merely asking the hon. Member to withdraw the statement.
    Mr. Flannery: As I have not named anyone, Mr. Speaker, I can see no point in withdrawing it.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry to rise again on this point, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman clearly said that Members on the Opposition Benches demonstrated with the National Front. That is totally untrue, and as he said it, he must withdraw it.
    Mr. William Hamilton: How does the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) know that that is the case? How does he—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hamilton rose——
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Speaker: This is not a time for debating the issue. I thought that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had a point of order that he wished to raise.
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes of course, Mr. Speaker, and I was about to add, if you had not interrupted—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was very discourteous not to take his seat when I rose.
    Mr. Hamilton: You rose in the middle of my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to continue and to ask you whether you are asking my hon. Friend to withdraw something. Did not my hon. Friend refer to an organisation that is still legal?
    Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough—I hope that he will help me in this matter—to withdraw any accusation that any hon. Members in the House are sharing in the National Front.
    Mr. Flannery rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is against—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough was about to reply to me.
    Mr. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is against the rules of order in accusing some Opposition Members of joining with a legal organisation in a demonstration, even if that remark is inaccurate? The mere inaccuracy of a remark is not itself a breach of order.
    Mr. Speaker: A responsibility is laid upon me to ensure that if remarks are offensive and likely to upset our arrangements—[Interruption.] I shall not be influenced by the shouting. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has been here long enough to know that if the Speaker asks him to withdraw a statement, as I have asked, he should do so.
    Mr. Flannery: I withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there will be adequate proof coming from the Conservative Party that I was wrong.

    SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to discuss at his next meeting with the STUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I expect to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind the deep concern within the Scottish TUC about the effects that further cuts in public expenditure would have on the already intolerable total of 150,000 unemployed in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance to the whole Labour movement in Scotland and elsewhere that it is his intention in future to pursue more Socialist policies which have more in common with the Socialist principles and traditions of Keir Hardie than the sellout coalition principles and suggestions of people such as Ramsay MacDonald and Harold Macmillan?
    The Prime Minister: The Government will continue to pursue the policies on which we fought and won the last General Election; that is to say, to conquer inflation, as our first—[Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to have lunched very well today—to conquer inflation as our first priority and to deal, through that, with industrial regeneration, which is absolutely essential for putting our economic affairs on a sound foundation.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on the SNP Bench would much prefer a General Election in Scotland to a coalition, which would be unhelpful to any of the conditions in Scotland? Is he also aware that the gross domestic product in Scotland has risen in real terms by some 13 per cent. this year as a result of supplies of oil coming ashore? What is the Prime Minister going to do to plough back the benefits of that resource into Scotland in order to create more jobs for the STUC and others?
    The Prime Minister: On the political aspect of coalition, I have not yet detected much sense of enthusiasm for it anywhere except in the hearts and minds of those who were once joined with us
    1652
    but have now left. As far as I am concerned, I have stated the basis upon which I am Leader of this party, and will continue to remain Leader of this party. On no other basis do I remain here.
    In respect to Scotland's GDP it is true that this is reflected in a number of ways. I understand that for the first time the average earnings of manual wage earners in Scotland are now exceeding those of England, which is a very satisfying feature. [Interruption.] It is satisfying if we care for the unity of the United Kingdom. In that sense what is important is that Scotland, like Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom, should not feel that it is being treated adversely. For years Scotland has rightly felt that the level of wages in Scotland has been below that of England. Now they are slightly ahead, although not so much as to prompt a breakaway in the North-West, or anywhere else. There is now much greater equality between Scotland and England than there ever was before, and I believe that that helps the unity of the United Kingdom. I shall hope to have the hon. Gentleman's help in making this clear to the Scottish people.
    Mr. Rifkind: When the Prime Minister next meets the STUC will he discuss with it the report in Tuesday's Scottish Daily Express that the shipbuilding industry board has recommended to the Government that a necessary consequence of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry is that 2,000 jobs in the West of Scotland must be axed? Will the Government even now drop this measure, in order to prevent a further escalation in unemployment both in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a fair controversialist, will not relate the number of jobs in shipbuilding to the act of nationalisation, because he knows, as everyone in the House does, that it is only through Government support that a great many jobs are now being safeguarded in the shipbuilding industry. The act of either dropping the Bill or passing it will not affect the economic prospects of the world's shipbuilding industry—[Interruption.] Do hon. Gentlemen really need every syllable spelled out to them? I am beginning to fear that that is true, and that we have to start a long way back.

    1653
    Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that the economics of the world shipbuilding industry will not be altered by this measure. What we have to undertake is a Bill that will ensure as far as possible that the national responsibility for shipbuilding, which we must preserve in these islands—islands as we are—is properly co-ordinated with our job prospects, and that we intend to do.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister talk seriously to the STUC about the point at issue in tonight's opposed Private Business, namely, whether millions of pounds of public money should go into a green fields refinery site at Nigg if there is no demand?
    Mr. William Ross: It has already said that it supports it.
    The Prime Minister: I would be happy to discuss all these matters with the Scottish TUC if it raised them with me, but I do not think I can lay down the agenda here this afternoon.

    CBI
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister how many times he has met the CBI during the Summer Adjournment.
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Prime Minister how many times he has met the CBI during the Summer Adjournment.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on 12th October.
    Mr. Adley: Has the Prime Minister noticed the similarity in the content of his recent speeches at Blackpool and Oxford with the content of the CBI document published yesterday entitled "Road to Recovery"? Is he aware that if he had the courage to translate his speeches into actions he would probably attract the support of 75 per cent. of hon. Members in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have not studied the CBI document in detail, but if there is a similarity I am happy to think that my meetings with the CBI have led it to the conclusions that I have long since formed. I hope to continue on that path. A very
    1654
    important measure of agreement, which I wish to foster in the interests of us all, is that the Government, TUC and CBI at Chequers in November 1975 gave priority to an industrial strategy. We are getting slowly on that path—not nearly fast enough, but it will take a long time, as all sensible hon. Members in the House will know. We must pursue that area of policy. I do not spurn any proposals that come from the CBI. I have recently had proposals jointly from the CBI and the TUC. I believe that a national effort is needed, and this Labour Government will continue to make a national effort.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal from the CBI to cut public expenditure by £3,000 million could push our economy into the kind of depression that would make the 1920s and 1930s look almost like an economic miracle? Does he also agree that the kind of tax handouts that the CBI is now advocating were tried before by the previous Government and found their way into property, land, commodity speculation and investment overseas?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think there is a case for a detailed study in respect of the burden of taxes. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "Why?"] Because I am told that the tax burden in this country amounted to 40·9 per cent. of GDP in the fiscal year 1975–76. It is estimated to be much the same for the current year. As a proportion of GDP, the tax burdens in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, for example, are appreciably higher, and in West Germany the burden is comparable. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want the facts or whether they want to live with their prejudices. If this can be demonstrated it seems to me important that people should not be labouring under a misapprehension. If the tax burden is too high, clearly, in order to encourage effort—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions do not add to the course of easy debate. If it is too high, clearly we should consider the matter, but as far as I am concerned there is no indication yet that we are much out of line in respect of taxation.
    With regard to cutting public expenditure, it ought to be reduced over a period as a proportion of GDP—[HON.

    1655
    MEMBERS: "Why?"] Sedentary interruptions do not help, even from my own side of the House—because, among other things, of the difficulty of borrowing the necessary resources from elsewhere. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that if there was a catastrophic cut in public expenditure over a very short period there would be serious consequences for the social fabric of this country, and I would not be a party to it. These matters are all, perhaps, more the subject for debate than questions.
    Mr. Aitken: Does the Prime Minister realise that millions of British men and women on both sides of British industry may have been stirred and inspired by Mr. Harold Macmillan's call, on television last night, for national unity? Is it not obvious—at least to all those who are not wearing Left Wing blinkers—that the situation in industry and in practically all other economic areas is now far too grave for the British people to go on being bluffed by the Prime Minister's avuncular complacency? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take the initiative to start discussions among all parties and all interested groups to see whether we can find truly national solutions to these deep-seated national problems?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that if we can hold to them the policies that the Government are following are bound to produce results. In the past, the Conservatives have not pursued their policies sufficiently long to achieve the results that were necessary. They ran away on a number of previous occasions. They ran away on matters such as the increase in the money supply. They ran away when they gave way to fiscal extravagance as soon as there were difficulties in their economic path. I intend to adhere to the policies that we are following—difficult, uncomfortable and unpleasant though they may be, and bringing a great deal of hardship. I look for very little support from Conservative Members, despite what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that if anyone is running away from reality it is he, and his Government? Will he look at the facts of his administration and recognise that he has brought the pound down to $1·65,
    1656
    whereas he was left with it at $2·30; he has unemployment at nearly 1,400,000, whereas he was left with it at 600,000; he has the index of industrial production down to below 101, whereas he was left with it at 103? In other words, on all fronts he has followed a disaster course. Does he not agree with his predecessor that most of us would far rather see a Conservative Government with a good majority than any coalition Government?
    The Prime Minister: At least the right hon. Lady shares my dislike of coalitions. No, I do not want to see a Conservative Government. I think that it would be a disaster for the country, because neither in their performance in the past nor in their promises for the future lies any hope for the country. I have been looking at the costing of the Conservative tax credit scheme. We all know that the Conservatives intend to cut public expenditure, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the tax credit scheme that she has set out and adopted in her new policy would cost at least an extra £3 billion a year, and possibly as much as £5 billion a year? Does she intend to introduce that scheme or to let it go as a broken promise?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister is proving exactly what I said; he is running away from the existing reality. He is running away from the reality of his own record, which has nearly trebled unemployment, brought the pound low, reduced industrial production, and increased inflation.
    The Prime Minister: We should acknowledge these facts. The right hon. Lady is correct that these things have happened and are happening in Britain today, and we should certainly examine the reasons for that. But when I contrast the appeal made for national unity by Mr. Harold Macmillan with the behaviour of Conservative Members, I know how spurious is such a call.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that he cannot go on adopting the position that nothing more needs to be done other than what the Government have already done? Is he aware, for instance, that the 15 per cent. minimum lending rate has not stopped the decline in sterling, which is back to the level it was before that measure was taken? Is he further aware of the report in the

    1657
    International Currency Review that out of £6 billion sterling balances the holders of £4 billion intend to remove them from the country within the next two or three years? Is he further aware that the forward rate for sterling for one year hence is $1·47? In the light of that and the causes that he mentioned, does he not think that single-party government has come to the end of the road?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware—this goes for the Opposition Benches too—that the lack of enthusiasm for coalition which he noted in his answer to the first Question is confined only to the professional prizefighters within this ivory tower, and that outside, in the country, the great majority want coalition?
    Mr. Speaker: It is Question Time, and we are running over. I propose to allow two more supplementary questions, but not if they are as long as that one.
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about sterling balances. I am grateful to him for writing to me and indicating that he wished to explain the figures that he gave to the House on the minimum lending rate and the money supply on Tuesday. His statement this afternoon did not add much to the known position, that is to say, that the country has a serious problem to face. That can be done only by giving priority to manufacturing industry. We intend to stick to that course. We do not think that we need to depart from it. If there is any help that the Liberal Party cares to give us from time to time in the Lobbies—I never despise anybody—I should be very happy to have it.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement made by Harold Macmillan, repeated and supported by Conservatives today, is an indication that the Conservative Party recognises that its present leadership is totally bankrupt of political ideas and that we should be wise to continue with a Labour Government if we want to overcome our problems?
    The Prime Minister: I am very content with the quality of the Labour Party leadership. I would not care to comment on the quality opposite.
    Mr. Lawson: The Prime Minister has once again referred to the urgent need for a substantial reduction in Government
    1658
    borrowing. Does he propose to achieve that by further cuts in public expenditure or by further increases in taxation? I trust that he will not run away from answering that question.
    The Prime Minister: I would not dream of running away, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question on that matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: I shall now rule on the submission made to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that a contempt of the House had been committed either by the Observer newspaper or by certain hon. Members referred to by that newspaper.
The hon. Member submitted that there had been a relaxation of the rule that the complaint must be made at the earliest opportunity, but the Order of the House of 2nd November 1960, quoted on page 348 of "Erskine May" makes quite clear that Mr. Speaker must be satisfied that the notice has been given at the earliest opportunity if precedence is to be given to a complaint as a matter of privilege. This resolution has not been subject to any subsequent modification by the House.
In my opinion, no relevant facts concerning the article emerged yesterday that were not well known on Monday. I cannot, therefore, today give any motion relating to this matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.
The hon. Member put forward other arguments relating to the merits of the matter, but I do not think that these are appropriate for comment from me. I must confine myself, as my predecessors have done, strictly to the issue of precedence, which I cannot allow. As the House knows, it is incumbent upon me to work within the Standing Orders as they are decided by the House itself.

THE OBSERVER (ALLEGATIONS)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yesterday I gave a preliminary answer to a Private Notice Question

1659
from the Leader of the Liberal Party concerning the position in law of Members of Parliament in relation to allegations of corruption. In the course of the exchanges that followed, the view was expressed that, such allegations having been made and having achieved wide publicity, it would be in the public interest that they should be investigated. I asked for time to consider this, and on further reflection, having now studied what has appeared, I agree with that view.
The reputation of Parliament must be upheld and that means that public concern should be satisfied. This requires a full and thorough investigation into the recent allegations made against hon. Members acting in their parliamentary capacity. The Government will therefore enter into immediate discussions with other parties in the House on how such an investigation shall proceed.
We are here concerned with allegations of improper conduct by Members in the course of proceedings in Parliament since such cannot be the subject of criminal offences. Possible criminal offences were the subject of the statement made on Tuesday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
It is the Government's provisional view that the appropriate body for such an investigation would be a Select Committee of Members of this House, and I propose that there should be early discussions both as to the composition and also the precise terms of reference of such a Committee. An appropriate motion would then be put down on the Order Paper.
It would be our intention that the motion would give to the Committee full powers to send for persons and papers and that it would have such assistance as it required from the Attorney-General, who would not be a member of the Committee.
The Committee's proceedings would not be concerned with the general question to which I referred yesterday; that is to say, what action, if any, the House should take to consider changes in the law following the recommendation of the Salmon Commission.
Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making this further statement. Is he aware that we agree with him that the reputation of Parlia-
1660
ment is at stake and that action must be taken to uphold its good name? To that end, speaking for the Conservative Party, we shall therefore co-operate fully with him in consultations about the nature of the Committee, its terms of reference, and its composition.
I should like to make one point about the final sentence of the statement, which referred to the recommendation of the Salmon Commission. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make a further statement about any action which he proposes on the recommendation of that Commission?
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for the way in which she responded to what I said. We shall, of course, be willing to have full discussions with all those who are concerned in this matter on the composition of the Committee, its terms of reference, and any other material points.
Regarding the Salmon Commission, I gave an indication yesterday of how we thought we would proceed—namely, to give some advice to the House which it might want to take up. I am open for discussion on this matter. Indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will be back soon to relieve me of these responsibilities. There need be no difference between us as to how we should proceed on consideration of the Salmon Commission's proposal.
Mr. David Steel: I thank the Prime Minister for the further consideration that he has given to this matter and for his statement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on what he said yesterday about possible vindictiveness towards Members of the House? I hope that he will accept that, as far as I am aware, it does not exist in any quarter of the House. It is the public interest and the interests of this House that are at stake, particularly when we bear in mind—this is in Hansard of July 1972—that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), both made it clear that, following the end of criminal proceedings, further investigations were possible. It would have been a denial of that feeling in the House four years ago had nothing been done.

1661
The Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life criticised the fact that the Committee of Privileges does not have adequate investigative powers. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake that, in addition to the welcome availability of the Attorney-General to the Committee, any resolution setting it up will be strong enough to allow it to have as much information on these matters as was available to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
The Prime Minister: I regret it if, in passing, I used a word which caused offence. I did not mean to do that.
On the question of the powers of such a Select Committee if this found favour with the House and the matter does not go to the Committee of Privileges, I repeat that it would have full powers to send for persons and papers. I hope that that covers the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Madden: I accept and welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matters which flowed from the Poulson bankruptcy proceedings were the cause of widespread concern throughout the country? In the light of that widespread concern, will he consider the possibility of establishing a tribunal of inquiry so that publicly that tribunal can investigate all the relevant matters and deal with this matter in a wholly satisfactory way?
The Prime Minister: I think the answer is "No". This matter basically concerns the actions of hon. Members in the performance of their duties in the House. As such, provided that we give any Committee that we appoint the powers to act in this matter and to send for persons and papers, it seems to me that we should take the responsibility for dealing with the actions of hon. Members in this House.
Sir David Renton: Will the Prime Minister, in his further consideration of the findings of the Salmon Report, bear in mind that some years ago a Select Committee of this House made recommendations regarding the responsibilities and powers of the Committee of Privileges, that since then that Committee has sometimes found itself in some difficulty because of the obscure nature of its present powers and responsibilities, and
1662
that this would seem to be a good opportunity for rationalising its position?
The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I do not keep abreast with the Committee of Privileges, but I should have thought that this would be a proper matter for the Committee to report on. If it wished to make further recommendations, the House could take up the matter and change the Committee's powers if it wished to do so.
Mr. Hooson: The Salmon Commission doubted whether a Select Committee has the right powers to investigate these matters as well as the Committee of Privileges. Do the Government intend to pass a resolution in the widest possible terms which will allow the Committee to have all the police files which are at present with the Director of Public Prosecutions so that the matter can be thoroughly investigated?
The Prime Minister: I do not wish to go into too much detail. I have literally had only 24 hours since yesterday to look at these matters. I have tried to give a general answer which I hope will meet the appropriate end that we have in mind. I shall be happy to discuss with the Leader of the Liberal Party or with anyone else what the powers of the Committee should be. I do not wish to be taken further along that road this afternoon.
Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend explain something which seems a little puzzling? My right hon. Friend is suggesting setting up a Select Committee when one already exists in the Select Committee of Privileges. What is the difference between the Committee which he proposes and the one which exists?
Will my right hon. Friend try to get something done about the report referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)? There was a report on privilege—it is no use asking for another—by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Nothing has been done about it. One result, among others, is that if, for example, we go in for broadcasting the proceedings of the House, the BBC will find itself sued for libel. There are many matters in that report, including the power of this House relating to fining and imprisonment. It cannot fine, but it should be able to do so. All this

1663
is in the Joint Report, but nothing has been done about it. The longer nothing is done, the more matters of this character will come up unless my right hon. Friend stirs it up a little.
The Prime Minister: I am not able to comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's question. I must ask him to put it to the Leader of the House, who is no doubt considering these matters.
The Attorney-General, who is a member of the Committee of Privileges, would not be a member of the proposed Select Committee, but he would be available to assist it. That in itself is an important difference. It would also be for the House to consider what powers should be given to this Select Committee which may not necessarily be appropriate to the Committee of Privileges. These are matters to be considered. It seems to me that if we are not to have a Committee of Privileges investigation into these matters at present, another appropriate body set up by the House would be the right way of dealing with them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Business statement—Mr. Merlyn Rees.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In the absence of the Leader of the House I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make the business statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and of the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motions relating to Safety of Sports Grounds Orders.
TUESDAY 26TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Insolvency Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders relating to Housing and Firearms (Amendment).
1664
WEDNESDAY 27TH OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Race Relations Bill.
THURSDAY 28TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Industry (Amendment) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 29TH OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Land Drainage Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Remaining stages of the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Bill [Lords], the National Health Service (Vocational Training) Bill and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill [Lords].
MONDAY 1ST NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Development of Rural Wales Bill [Lords], to be followed by a debate on Welsh Affairs.
Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Home Secretary for his maiden business statement. As it takes us right up until Monday 1st November and there is clearly still a lot of business to come before the House, may I ask whether it is still his intention that the new Session should open on 17th November? In the absence of the Leader of the House, may I remind the Home Secretary that we are still owed a Supply Day before the House rises?
Mr. Rees: I take note of the right hon. Lady's last question. On Prorogation, it is still our intention to open the new Session then. There is a lot of business coming from the Lords. They have been sitting late and I am sure that they are doing a good job and that they will get the business to us.
Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that there will be no question of guillotining Lords amendments on subjects that we have not been able to discuss.
Mr. Rees: That is not a matter I have put my mind to yet.
Mr. Whitehead: In the event of terms being agreed in the next few days for the takeover of the Observer newspaper by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made in the House by the Secretary of State

1665
for Trade? Is he aware that there is grave concern, at least on this side of the House, about the accretion of power to a foreign newspaper magnate who has abused that power in his own country?
Mr. Rees: I shall bring that important matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be highly regrettable if the guillotine were applied to Lords amendments? Will he arrange for someone to make a statement on Monday about the Government's intentions?
Mr. Rees: There is no need for that yet. Let us see what happens when the amendments come from the Lords.
Mr. Dalyell: In view of the opposed Private Business in the House tonight, which involves the whole question of refinery capacity in this country, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy on green-field sites? It is impossible to come to any meaningful conclusion about a refinery at Nigg, at a cost of £400,000 of taxpayers' money per job, unless we have a picture of the overall strategy.
Mr. Rees: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this subject, and it is important. I suggest that he makes those points tonight when the Minister concerned will be able to deal with them.
Mr. Lawson: In his speech at Ruskin College on Monday the Prime Minister appealed for a major debate on education in general and the failure of progressive education in particular. When shall we have that debate?
Mr. Rees: The bit of paper I have here says "Not next week", which proves that I can read. The subject which the Prime Minister raised is important, and it is important that it should be discussed. It is not just a question of the failure of progressive methods. It is far more fundamental than that. There must be a chance to debate the issue, but I suggest that all hon. Members read my right hon. Friend's speech and then I shall look at the matter again.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill [Lords] comes up for discussion fourth on the list on Friday. Will the right hon. Gentle-
1666
man ensure that sufficient time is given to it for Report stage and Third Reading?
Mr. Rees: I understand that it is the intention to suspend the rule in order to do that.
Mr. Ward: As 20 deaths are taking place each week in which we do not have a seat belt law in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to get that measure through?
Mr. Rees: I shall look at it and see what I can do.
Mr. Graham Page: Can time be found for a debate on the Select Committee's Report on the Abortion Bill?
Mr. Rees: It is not the intention to debate the matter next week although it is an important matter. The short answer is "No".
Mr. Skinner: While carrying out his temporary duties, will my right hon. Friend ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on corruption and in particular on the activities of John Poulson so that we as a House, as distinct from the Front Benches, can decide what action should be taken? Surely what is needed is a tribunal of inquiry such as that set up in 1947 relating to Sydney Stanley which, contrary to the Prime Minister's view, included Members of Parliament as well.
Mr. Rees: It is not just a question of the usual channels. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to listen to my hon. Friend about the nature of the Committee. It would not be appropriate to have a debate. The important thing is to get the Select Committee going.
Mr. Peyton: The whole House will be interested to hear the Government's views on the post-drought situation. Perhaps the House can be offered an opportunity of hearing the Government's views. Will the right hon. Gentleman also apply his mind to how he will fulfil the commitment to have a debate on foreign affairs before the end of the Session?
I offer him my respectful congratulations on having so far avoided thinking of the guillotine in connection with Lords amendments. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the cleanliness of his mental processes, and I hope that it will continue.
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations. I shall look at the possibility of a foreign affairs debate. On the drought, I understand that the Minister is considering a report from the National Water Council on the water supply prospects for 1977. I believe that there will be a statement soon, which the House should await before having a debate.
Mr. Blenkinsop: When are we to have the promised debate on the Prayer, signed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the subject of the poultry meat hygiene regulations, which is a matter of very deep concern affecting our whole environmental health service? We were promised a debate, and time is now running out. If we cannot have it next week, when can we have it?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (S.1., 1976, No. 1209), dated 29th July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th August, be annulled.]
Mr. Rees: I have looked carefully into this matter and I find that it is possible for the House to discuss it tomorrow, although it is not one of the Prayers on the Order Paper for tomorrow.
Mr. Blenkinsop: No.
Mr. Rees: I understand that it is possible for the subject to be discussed tomorrow by nature of the terms of reference of the debate, but I will look again at the matter carefully and will read what has been said.
Mr. Blenkinsop: But does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the situation is wholly unacceptable? Is he not aware that there has to be a proper debate with the right to vote on this matter of deep urgency?
Mr. Rees: I see the point about the right to vote, and I know the nature of the problem, but I shall read the report or listen carefully if anyone mentions it tomorrow. I understand the urgency of the matter, and I am studying the situation.
Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 50 members of the staff of British Airways were forced
1668
to come to this House this week to express their deep concern and despair because they find themselves in the position of being about to have a closed shop imposed on them without their having had the opportunity for a ballot or of representing their views to the management? Will he take into account that many of these people are concerned about the loss of individual liberty? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement to the House about the effect of closed shops on the staffs of the nationalised industries?
Mr. Rees: I understand that the overwhelming majority of the employees of British Airways want it this way, but I will have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. There is a general responsibility here towards the employment of the staff.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern about the way in which Welsh affairs are being handled in the House? A week on Monday the so-called Welsh day is to be superimposed on the Development of Rural Wales Bill [Lords]. This shabby way of treating Welsh affairs is one of the reasons for the demand for devolution.
Mr. Rees: I have looked at this matter and—if I may use a football term—I understand that on that Monday injury time will be granted at the end of the debate to ensure that there is enough time for all Welsh Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the increasing concern throughout the country about the mounting scale of vandalism? When may we expect a debate?
Mr. Rees: My departmental responsibility includes dealing with vandalism, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I shall be talking to the chief constables of the country very shortly about it. I should be interested in a debate, but it cannot come yet. I agree that this is a matter to which we should put our minds, but it is detailed and complicated. I found a booklet on the subject when I went to the Home Office, and I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy.
Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the question of the poultry meat

1669
hygiene regulations, the Leader of the House gave a virtual undertaking before the recess that there would be a proper debate on the Prayer? Is he further aware that this is quite a different subject from the EEC regulations which we are to discuss tomorrow? It is essential that before 2nd November we have a proper opportunity to debate and vote on the Prayer.
Mr. Rees: I have seen the letter which my right hon. Friend has written to the Leader of the House. This is an important matter and I will see what I can do.
Mr. Marten: I wish to reinforce the point made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The last day on which a debate can take place on this subject is 2nd November. What we are after is the ability of the House to take a decision by means of a vote. The Home Secretary is right in saying that we can discuss the subject tomorrow, but we can take no decision then because the Government are holding the debate on the motion for the Adjournment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a totally wrong way to proceed?
Mr. Rees: I understand the problem, and I repeat that I will see what I can do.
Mr. Hooky: Will my right hon. Friend find an early date for a debate on the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concerning nuclear hazards, which raises enormously important issues of public policy?
Mr. Rees: With the problems of the next two or three weeks, it will not be possible to have a debate, but it is an important matter and I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Michael Morris: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to move forward from a hoped-for statement on the drought to a commitment that there will be one?
Mr. Rees: There will be a statement. I will check carefully as to when it will be.
Mr. Lee: On the question of the Select Committee, arising from the Prime Minister's statement, I do not think that it is clear whether the matter is to be de-
1670
bated. Will the motion to set up the Committee be tabled very soon indeed? One important aspect of the urgency is that I understand that the hon. Member who was named in the Observer article has taken out writs for libel, and there may be questions of conflict of jurisdiction.
Mr. Rees: I understand that point, having played a part in the discussions. The best way is to take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and as acting Leader of the House I will take these matters into account. The possible conflict to which my hon. Friend has referred was discussed. With his legal knowledge, the more my hon. Friend can add to the knowledge we have of the situation, the better.
Mr. Aitken: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would look into the need for a debate on foreign affairs. When he does so, he will find that it was a firm commitment. Will he ensure that it takes place before the Prorogation?
Mr. Rees: I will look into the matter. There was a debate on Rhodesian affairs yesterday.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Regarding the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that we should guillotine Lords amendments, would my right hon. Friend think in terms of guillotining the House of Lords itself, or at least its hereditary members?
In view of the representations made by the TUC and the CBI on selective import controls, can we have a Government statement next week?
Mr. Rees: I cannot make a promise on that latter point. As for my hon. Friend's question about the House of Lords, I think the best thing I can do at the moment is to say "Let us wait and see." The Government are determined to get their business and will find a means of getting it through.
Mr. Michael Latham: Can we have a debate soon on housing policy? At the beginning of August, the Government changed their policy by cutting the council-house building programme and local authority mortgages and no one knows what the new policy is.
Mr. Rees: I will have a word on that aspect with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment,

1671
but in view of the time factor it will not be easy to have a debate. However, there may be other ways of clearing up the hon. Gentleman's mind.
Mr. Townsend: When shall we be able to debate the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the report, apart from dealing with the Cyprus affair, had important comments on the making of British foreign policy?
Mr. Rees: Having studied last week's business statement and the discussion on it, I am sure that there are real problems about the reports of Select Committees, and I am seized of the importance of the matter. But I see no prospect of debating the report on Cyprus in the near future.

BRENT (HEALTH SERVICES)
Mr. Pavitt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration; namely
"The situation arising from the dispute between the Brent Community Health Council and the area health authority which could affect every hospital in the country, and the need to arrest the changes now taking place in Willesden."
It is specific in the sense that only yesterday I received an opinion from learned counsel which showed that the action being pursued by the area health authority may well be ultra vires and that the various ways in which this will affect the health of 250,000 people in my borough are most specific to each family within my constituency.
I would not be raising this matter if it concerned only one hospital, but it affects
1672
the whole organisation between 90 area health authorities throughout the land and the responsibilities, rights and duties of community health councils, because this case could affect every hospital at present being discussed for reorganisation, closure or some other purpose.
The matter requires urgent consideration because of the specific case I brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Action is already about to take place which will probably mean that no further outcome from the dispute at present, and where councils are making representations, will affect the situation, and the likelihood is that, irrespective of the outcome of the dispute, action will have already been taken which will pre-empt subsequent reversals of policy. It will be too late to make any change then.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"The situation arising from the dispute between the Brent Community Health Council and the area health authority which could affect every hospital in the country, and the need to arrest the changes now taking place in Willesden."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I do not deal with the merits of the particular case but with whether it shall have precedence over the business of the House.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  ENERGY BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing committee), considered.
  ENERGY BILL [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      ENERGY CONSERVATION
      (1) For the purpose set out in subsection (2) below and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) below, the Secretary of State may make orders regulating or prohibiting the use of any substances mentioned in subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act or of electricity.
      (2) The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom.
      (3) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.
      (4) When laying an order made under this section before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall also include a statement outlining what, in his opinion, will be the likely effect of the order and its economic justification.
      (5) The Secreary of State shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of—

      (a) research and development undertaken during that year by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to energy conservation, and any firm proposals for research and development of this kind in future years;

      (b) action taken by the Secretary of State during that year to promote energy conservation by advertising campaigns and other educational activities and any firm proposals for further promotion of this kind in future years;

      (c) progress made during that year both nationally and within the public sector towards greater efficiency in energy use and an assessment of the progress which the Secretary of State considers should be achieved in future years;

      (d) orders in force under this section and the justification for the continuance of each of them'.—[Mr. Rost.]

      Brought up, and read the First Time.
      4.10 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Rost: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With the new clause we are taking Government Amendment No. 1, in Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert:
      (1A) Orders under subsection (1) above regulating or prohibiting the use of any of the substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy.
      Subject to this, orders under the subsection may be made only when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force.
      (1B) When no Order in Council under section 3 is in force the Secretary of State shall before making an order under subsection (1) consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.'
      and the following amendments to Amendment No. 1:
      Amendment (a), in subsection (1A), at end of first sentence, insert:
      'to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom'.
      Amendment (b), at end add:
      '(1C) When laying before Parliament an order made under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall also include a statement outlining what in his opinion will be the likely effect of the order and its economic justification'.
      Amendment (c), at end add:
      '(1D) The Secretary of State shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of—

      (a) research and development undertaken during that year by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to energy conservation and any firm proposals for research and development of this kind for future years;

      (b) action taken by the Secretary of State during that year to promote energy conservation by advertising campaigns and other educational activities and any firm proposals for further promotion of this kind in future years;

      (c) progress made during that year both nationally and within the public sector towards greater efficiency in energy use and an assessment of the progress which the Secretary of State considers should be achieved in future years; and

      (d) orders in force under section 1(1)A of this Act and the justification for the continuation of each of them'.

      Mr. Rost: In case the Government are surprised that the Opposition have tabled only one new clause to this important Bill, perhaps I should reassure them that

      1675
      it is not because we regard the legislation as so satisfactory that amendments and new clauses could not have been proposed, but simply because we wish to concentrate the attention of the House and the Government on what we regard as the most important inadequacy of this legislation. For this reason we feel it right to concentrate our attention on one new clause only, dealing with the need for greater priority for energy conservation.
      The House will recall that in the Queen's Speech a year ago we were promised an Energy Bill that would deal with a policy for energy conservation. We were given an Energy Bill. We have it before us now, on Report. The Bill that we were promised, we were told in the Queen's Speech, would be introduced in order to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the international energy programme. The Bill deals with that very adequately.
      We were told, secondly, that it would be introduced in order to control energy supplies during any shortage or emergency. Again, the legislation gives the Government more than adequate controls in that respect.
      We were promised, thirdly, that the Bill would implement energy conservation policies. We have looked very hard at the Bill and we find that apart from one or two minor matters it is nothing more than a hotch-potch, dealing with the first and second objectives but with hardly anything on the third objective.
      As if to add weight to that argument, the House may be amazed to know that the original Bill as presented to the House did not even mention conservation. At least, we have not found any mention of it in the Bill.
      We believe that it is essential that the Government meet their obligations under the Loyal Address, and therefore we have tabled a new clause which we hope will concentrate greater emphasis on a strategy for energy conservation. We have tabled it because we do not believe that the Government have taken energy conservation seriously enough so far.
      4.15 p.m.
      We should make it clear that in the new clause we are not proposing to seek to give the Government powers for con-
      1676
      trols or restrictions. We believe that energy conservation can best be achieved not by legislation but by a sensible system of economic pricing, by the right sorts of incentives, by giving proper priorities to investment, by the removal of disincentives, and by cost-effective investment. These are the more important ways in which one can achieve energy conservation, rather than by the more negative restrictive approach through legislation.
      We do not believe that by energy conservation we have to achieve a reduction in use. We are not suggesting that people should discomfort themselves in any way, or that the nation's productive effort should be in any way affected. Quite the contrary. Energy conservation really means a greater efficiency in the production and use of energy, which would effect savings in public expenditure and make it less necessary to invest public resources to meet extra demand, which will not be required if conservation reduces that demand or holds it down.
      Our interpretation of energy conservation, as we have outlined it in the clause, is that greater priority should be given to conservation by reducing waste as a result of a more rational use of energy, rather than by restrictive legislation.
      We believe it is desirable that we should have greater emphasis on energy conservation for, first, the shorter-term reason—the obvious one of the balance of payments. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as aware as anybody on the Government side of the desperate need for this country to do what it can to bridge some of the gap in the balance of payments. We know very well that any sensible improvement in the use of our energy will make a very substantial and short-term contribution to the balance of payments, either by relieving imports or by making more exports of energy available. One per cent. of energy saved in the current year in terms of cost represents well over £100 million.
      When we bear in mind the desirability for energy conservation, the second most important consideration must be that the supply and use of energy now absorb nearly 15 per cent. of our gross domestic product—a figure that has been rising in recent years as the cost of energy has increased.

      1677
      It is, therefore, far more important now and in future years that we get our energy factors right than it has been in the past. The whole competitive position of the country will be seriously jeopardised if our energy is not produced and used as efficiently as in other countries which are competing against us.
      When the supply and use of energy represented a lower proportion of the gross national product, in previous years, when energy was cheap and more plentiful, this factor was not as important as it is now, or as it will become increasingly in future years.
      The third reason why it is so desirable that we persuade the Government to give greater priority to energy conservation is for the longer term, and I regard this as the most important reason. I believe that a sensible longer-term policy for cutting out some of the wasteful uses and practices in energy consumption will buy time.
      Anybody who attended, as I did, the Secretary of State's National Energy Conference, and who attempts to follow the advice of experts from all over the country, cannot fail to have noticed one fact that emerged from that conference. It was that no two experts appear to agree. Everybody differs. The people who ought to be in a position to advise the non-technical people such as ourselves—the politicians who are in the midst of the problem—still cannot agree about any forecasts of the likely demand for energy or the available resources for energy.
      We do not know whether there will be an energy gap, or, if there is to be one when it will be. We do not know which of the longer-term options will be the right one in the field of nuclear power, or whether we should take the longer-term coal option. We do not know how soon alternative energy sources will become available, or at what cost.
      We cannot, therefore, really say at this stage where our priorities should go. We cannot tell whether we should go now for the fast breeder reactor or develop advanced coal technology. We do not know when fusion will be available, or at what cost, or whether tidal or waste power, wind or solar power, will become alternative options, to what extent, or over what time scale.
      1678
      On the other hand, it is fair to say that developments are moving so fast in this area that within the next five or 10 years we shall have the answers to a great many of these questions. For example, within that time we are bound to know more about the resources available to us on the Continental Shelf. We shall know by then some of the answers on the fast breeder reactor and on the alternative resources.
      Therefore, a policy for energy conservation gives us the most valuable asset of all. It will buy time. It will allow us to phase in to the alternative options more easily over the long-term time scale and, therefore, allow us to make the vast investments that will be required, make them more cost-effective and get some of those options right rather than wrong. The argument, therefore, for buying time is so important that it justifies a certain change of priorities in Government strategy in order to avoid rushing in wrong directions and into the wrong decisions earlier than we would otherwise need to, at a huge cost in the long run.
      Such a policy of energy conservation is not suggested as an alternative to the major suggestions that will have to be made in the longer term. Obviously, energy conservation, even allowing for the vast waste of resources that goes on at the moment, can make only a marginal contribution. But, over a longer term, it can make an increasingly important one. It will give us the better odds that we shall need desperately to get the longer-term decisions right and, by doing that, will save national capital resources not just of energy but of other resources in the long run and, of course, produce over the shorter term the substantial benefits that are obvious to us all.
      For this reason, we propose a new clause which we hope will discipline the Government and the Department of Energy. Having referred to the Department, may I say how pleased we are to see the new Under-Secretary in his place? We know that he has taken a very close and enthusiastic interest in these matters. I am especially pleased to be making these remarks in his presence because I know that he will be very receptive to them.
      As I said, the clause will discipline the Government and the Department to

      1679
      accept what so many experts and advisory bodies with differing and varying points of view are saying and have been saying in recent years. In the recent work that it has been doing, the Select Committee on Science and Technology has been saying this. Even Ministers have admitted that conservation is not simply a matter of spending a small amount on publicity but that it needs a longer-term strategy. It needs the coordination of Government Departments and it needs cost-effective investment. In other words, it needs a bit of stick and a great deal of carrot—not so many controls but a great deal of financial incentive.
      Our clause asks the Government, first, to consult widely before making restrictive orders in what they imagine to be the interests of energy conservation, so that if regulations are to come from this Government we get some justification for them by having proper consultation first.
      Secondly, we ask in the clause that the Government attempt to justify the effects of any measures that they introduce on economic grounds and on grounds of energy conservation. If I may give a specific example of what should be happening, in the interests of energy conservation the French returned to Summer Time far earlier than we did They assessed beforehand, by detailed work, that they would save a specific amount of energy, and they justified it on those grounds. If new measures like this are recommended by outside bodies, the Government should attempt to justify them to Parliament before implementing them.
      But, even more important, our clause proposes the introduction of a completely new concept. It is the concept of an annual report to Parliament on the progress that the Government are making in energy conservation. Such an annual report, which would be subject to debate, would in my view be far more valuable than a series of arbitrary restrictive measures, controls or legislation. An annual report would give the Government an opportunity to state their case on a forward rolling programme and to justify that following a debate.
      Perhaps I may briefly list some of the matters that I regard as suitable for
      1680
      inclusion in an annual report and, in doing so, justify the reasons of the Opposition for putting forward the new clause.
      An annual report to Parliament should include an estimate of the annual demand, supply and cost of energy on the best figures available—in other words, an annual energy budget. This would also include estimated targets of percentage energy savings as a result of less wasteful practices.
      Secondly, this report to Parliament should give progress on the estimated conservation benefits resulting from Government measures already introduced. We already have some regulations, and it is only right that the Government should attempt to justify the continuation of these various measures by putting before Parliament once a year a report giving the reasons for them and the contribution that they have already made. For example, we should have in such a report details of the progress that is being made nationally in thermal insulation for new and old buildings and public and private buildings. The Building Research Establishment report which came out a year ago gave a very strong lead on how this should be done over a long-term programme, and an annual report to Parliament would keep the Government on their toes by making them report on whether more incentives were needed and whether sufficient progress was being made.
      Such a report to Parliament could indicate the progress being made in industry and in the nationalised industries to adopt more energy-saving processes, plant and investment. If no progress were being made, perhaps there would be an argument for looking at the various incentive schemes—the Government loan scheme and the investment allowance scheme—and seeing whether there were still too many disincentives which should be removed.
      Such an annual report to Parliament should also include an assessment of the outside advice being received by the Government and what action the Government were taking on it—or not taking on it. We now have some excellent outside bodies, partly set up by the Department itself—the Advisory Council on Research and Development, the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, the Plowden

      1681
      Report on the electricity supply industry, and the recent Building Research Establishment report on the economic assessment of the utilisation of power station reject heat. These are the kinds of reports and recommendations which apparently are very valuable, but the Government might be tempted to ignore or neglect them unless they were prodded once a year to comment on why they were not acting on these various recommendations, including those of Parliament's own Select Committee on Energy Conservation. A report annually on the action being taken on the advice proffered by various outside bodies would be very valuable.
      Mr. Neil Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is making his point extremely lucidly, and it may be that his request is well substantiated in view of the oft-declared aim and desire of the Secretary of State for more open government. My hon. Friend's idea of an annual report appears to be endorsed by that attitude.
      Mr. Rost: Indeed, and that is a matter that I shall touch upon in my concluding remarks. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. J. Grimond: I have been extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's comprehensive statement of what should be included in such a report, and I have considerable sympathy with the new clause, but, as a Back Bench Member, I already receive a great many reports, and I am hesitant about encouraging many others. If this report is to cover all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, is he satisfied that it can be done with the present information available and the existing staff, or will it entail a further expansion of the Department? We are all anxious to avoid that. What is more, does the hon. Gentleman feel that, having received this report, there is any chance of Parliament ever discussing it? If not, perhaps we could have an Energy Committee to discuss it. Finally, does the hon. Gentleman think that all the matters that he wants in this report will be sufficiently precise for it to be possible for the Government to quantify them annually?
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Rost: The enlarged Department of Energy should be adequately equipped to provide such an annual report. We do not have much hope of its getting its policy right, anyway, if it is not capable of producing an annual report on what it is or is not doing. I also believe that Parliament is the right place for such an annual debate, rather than having it shunted upstairs to a Committee. The matter is now vital to our national economy. It is not an ancillary subject, but is fundamental to the country's future. Therefore, there is no reason for us to be hesitant in proposing our new clause.
      The report should include information on research and development during the year and on future programmes. There has been a great deal of criticism that our energy research and development effort has not been directed as it should have been, and particularly that not enough of it has gone into energy conservation, as opposed to developing new sources of energy. For example, if we had allocated more fluidised bed combustion techniques we might now be making a bigger contribution to our energy resources and to using them less wastefully.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best illustrations of his point is the gross imbalance over recent years between the sum invesed in research and development for the nuclear industry and that for the benign sources of energy to which he has just referred?
      Mr. Rost: That is exactly the point I was trying to make, but I am trying to be brief and therefore did not develop it.
      The annual report would be all the more valuable if it included a reference to the pricing structure of energy and the energy industries, if it said whether the Government thought they had the balance right, in order to achieve the incentives required, and whether there was justification for modifications of energy tariffs, the car tax, and so on. These matters should be reviewed annually by Parliament in the context of an overall strategy for energy conservation rather than be the subject of arbitrary legislation and controls and regulations from time to time.

      1683
      A further area that would be a valuable subject for an annual review is progress on removing the main restraints to the more sensible use of our energy. This subject includes the application of reject heat from our electricity supply generating system, the extension of district heating, and the removal of disincentives to industry and individuals to use energy more efficiently.
      Finally, the annual report should compare the progress being made in this country and internationally. We are well aware that some countries, particularly the United States, are not making the progress that many of us feel they would like to make towards more efficient use of energy, but some European countries are making better progress than we are, particularly in the application of waste heat and direct fiscal incentives for energy conservation, including the use of insulation. An annual report on what was happening in the IEA and EEC would be a useful basis for sensible discussion.
      To sum up, we see nothing in the clause that the Government could not find acceptable. In principle it goes no further than they have already gone in their declared objectives from time to time and in speeches by energy Ministers. What is new is the obligation to have an annual report and to air the matter in Parliament. If the national energy conference was a constructive innovation, as most people would probably agree, this should be even more constructive. The energy industries absorb a large proportion of the GNP and an important slice of investment resources, much of it now in the public sector. Therefore, it is the more important that Parliament should have a system of control, or at least an annual debate, in addition to the outside views and opinions expressed at annual energy conference, if that is what we are to have.
      As the world economic balance has been so upset by the fivefold oil price increase, it has become even more vital to our economy that we get our energy strategy right and that we do more to invest in less wasteful production and consumption practices. As so many of the energy industries are now within the Government's area of decision-taking, rather than the private sector, it is justifi-
      1684
      able to have an annual review by Parliament. The days have passed when we had simply an annual report from each of the nationalised energy industries, and perhaps an energy White Paper every 10 years.
      The occasional debate on a specific energy topic is not good enough now if Parliament is to take a constructive and sensible interest in this increasingly important aspect of our economy. Parliament should demand an annual report reviewing the Government's policy, strategy and forecasts, in order to scrutinise the Government's function in such a vital sector of the national economy, especially as the longer-term problems of supply and demand, and the various options that will have to be taken are not static but dynamic. They cannot be easily projected or planned, and therefore must be reviewed regularly.
      Recent experience has emphasised that we have made mistakes in major areas of energy technology and investment. The nuclear strategy has proved that. I hope that the Government will accept the clause as a reasonable and constructive contribution by the Opposition to improving the function of Parliament, the process of monitoring. The long-term decisions in energy matters are now too vital to continue to be relegated to the low priority that they have had in the Parliamentary timetable. I know that the Secretary of State and the new Under-Secretary will accept that, because they understand. There is much justification for the hon. Gentleman's welcoming the clause. I hope that it will have not only his backing but the backing of both sides of the House.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) for his kind words about my appointment to the Department of Energy. The hon. Gentleman and I were for a number of years colleagues on the Select Committee on Science and Technology and we worked closely together on many of the subjects to which he has referred. I hope that I shall be able to convince him that in my new post I now hope to put into effect some of the things I said in those days.
      The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time talking about conservation policy, and it is perhaps appropriate that I

      1685
      should be the Minister chosen to reply on that topic because conservation policy is one of my principal responsibilities in the Department. We agree about the importance of conservation policy. In terms of long-term strategy, we look to our coal reserves, the nuclear industry and conservation policy as playing equal parts in our consideration. I wish to underline that it now costs the United Kingdom £12 million a day to import oil. If we bear that figure in mind every day of our lives in the way we use energy, it should bring home to us the importance of conservation.
      The Labour Government have a good record on this score. In December 1974 the then Secretary of State for Energy set out the guidelines for the Government's conservation policy. In July of this year the Government published a White Paper in response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and I were members. Therefore, nobody can say that the Government have been slow to recognise the importance of conservation policy or to respond to the situation or to the comments of the Select Committee.
      In addition, we have made sure that energy is now economically priced for consumers, and part of our policy is aimed at the provision of advice and information to consumers. On Tuesday of this week I launched a film for use in British industry dealing with energy auditing. We have received a tremendous number of inquiries in response to our "Save It" campaign. The next round of our advice to industry will be based on the need for those in industry to recognise the importance of quantifying the use of energy so that industry may know exactly how much is being used—why, where and for what purposes—and how much energy per unit of output is necessary industrially. That is in the forefront of our minds. The next phase of our campaign will be aimed in that direction.
      4.45 p.m.
      As a good example of our conservation effort, the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment has taken major strides in reacting to the situation in terms of Government property and estates. We have introduced optimum start control systems and within
      1686
      a year of their installation there has been a great increase in the amount of energy saving. Therefore, the Government are practising what they preach.
      I am the chairman of an interdepartmental committee of Ministers representing Government Departments, and we shall discuss how to co-ordinate our efforts in the Government and in the various agencies for which we are responsible. I think that the Government's example is a good one. Further, we have taken steps in research and development monitoring and in guiding energy conservation research. We are setting the standards and, indeed, are encouraging the British Standards Institution and other bodies to develop conservation standards. Voluntary codes are being worked out, and we believe that we must devote even more attention to these matters than has been directed to them in the past. I am not saying that my predecessors were lax, but I suggest that in conservation terms we now have before us tremendous opportunities. I believe that we have faced the problem in the last two years, but there are still many areas that can be fruitfully explored.
      The Government have been active in promoting the work of the Energy Conservation Unit of my Department and of our Energy Information Division. We wish to make clear our determination to pursue energy conservation. Furthermore, we have an Energy Technology Division engaged in examining the more efficient use of energy. As the Minister responsible for the British gas industry, I have since my appointment visited the Midlands and have seen the research station at Solihull and also the establishment at Watson House in London. I am impressed with the research put by British Gas into new ideas for more efficient use of that product as a fuel and for the conservation of gas used in industry, commerce and domestically.
      I wish to refer to the work of bodies such as ACEC, the Advisory Council for Energy Conservation, under the chairmanship of Sir William Hawthorne, and also to the activities of ACORD, the Advisory Council on Research and Development. Therefore, we are very much committed to energy conservation.
      I do not remember very much about the policy of conservation under the Conservative Government. I remember

      1687
      the Minister responsible at the time commenting on the efficacy of brushing one's teeth in the dark. I believe that during the time that we have been in office we have shown a fundamental concern for energy conservation.
      Let me turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. He mentioned the need for a report about energy conservation. The Department of Energy issued a report on that subject and it is available to the House. If the hon. Gentleman believes that this area of activity can be improved, we shall re-examine the matter. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that hon. Members—and certainly Ministers and officials—are submerged under official documents and reports. I do not accept the idea that by having another conservation report we shall make a radical alteration in the situation. However, I give the assurance that I shall examine the position.
      Mr. Rost: Would the Minister accept that the main purpose of introducing the obligation to present an annual report to Parliament would be to place an obligation upon the Government to hold an annual debate?
      Dr. Cunningham: I do not think it would. We have just been hearing the Home Secretary saying how impossible it has been to find time for a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman and I know how difficult it has been for some of the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to be debated in the House. There is no reason why energy conservation policies should not be debated in the House, whether on an Opposition Supply Day, by means of Private Members' motions or on occasions like this. I welcome any proposals from the Opposition aimed at improving our approach to conservation policy.
      The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) referred to our expenditure on energy research and development. As they will both know, historically it is true that a large amount of this expenditure has been devoted to our thermal reactor programme and to nuclear fission generally. They will also
      1688
      know that our thermal and fast reactor programmes are currently under review. We have been giving increasing amounts of money for research into the so-called benign sources of energy and renewable resources. These things are important. We are keeping an eye on that area of expenditure. I remind hon. Members that at the same time we are being pressed to conserve and reduce public expenditure. We do not have unlimited resources.
      Turning to the new clause, the House will recall that amendments of this kind have been moved during the various stages of the Bill. In general, the Government have resisted them. Included in some of the new clauses that have been brought forward were provisions which we have been glad to accept in some way or other and incorporate by way of Government amendment. One example is the provision that permanent powers should be exercisable for energy conservation purposes only. That is a provision which is now in the Bill.
      The first effect of the new clause would be to take the energy conservation provisions out of Clause 3 and put them into a new clause. We are prepared to go some way with this idea. We are proposing an amendment, which I shall be moving later, which partly covers this. We proposed in Committee an amendment to move these provisions out of Clause 3 and into Clause 1. We believed that this was the most sensible way of meeting the wish expressed earlier that the conservation powers should not be in close juxtaposition to emergency provisions, as they are at present. We still believe that that is so and that the right place for conservation powers is in Clause 1.
      The new clause also seeks to require that conservation powers should be exercised only when the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom is involved. I do not think that any Government needs legislation to tell them to act in the interests of the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. Certainly this Government do not. We do not see any need for that provision to be written into the Bill. The consultation procedures built in and the normal parliamentary procedures seem to allow fully for the expression of views and for Government decisions to be subject to parliamentary vote. There will be no lack of

      1689
      opportunity for a judgment on the national interest to be expressed. If there was such a lack, I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Tory Members would not be sitting where they are at the moment.
      Mr. Macfarlane: The definition of the word "conservation" is difficult. For the past five minutes I have listened with approval to the long list that the Minister has read out. It has basically been based upon the "Save It" campaign over the past two years. What my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) was propounding was that there was a requirement for the Government to assess the nation's resources over the next few years.
      Dr. Cunningham: I take the point. The list was not wholly in connection with the "Save It" campaign. I spoke a little about the more efficient use of the resources that we have. That is important in the longer term. I agree that we need to assess our resources, particularly fossil fuels, and ensure that we conserve them in the best interests not only of this generation but of future generations.
      Mr. Macfarlane: That is real conservation.
      Dr. Cunningham: I agree. We must also ensure that we get the maximum economic return for this country from our reserves. It is often said that we should not leave problems from the nuclear industry for our children and grandchildren. What greater problem could there be than to leave them without any fossil fuel reserves at all?
      The House will see that the new clause goes on to quote from the present provisions of the Bill and then to seek a statement, with any order, of likely effects and economic justification. We have already said that we shall make known our best assessment of effects and our judgment on economic benefits. If reasonably precise figures can be given, we shall give them. It is not in our interests not to give this information. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has said, it is often not possible to give precise figures, and to do so might well unwittingly mislead. We do not want to be tied down, but where possible we shall give this information.
      1690
      The next point concerns the reason for not needing a provision in the Bill to make a formal legal requirement of some of the points the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred to when he talked about annual reports. There is a section in the annual report dealing with conservation, and this is available to the House. The trouble with annual reports is that they proliferate. We do not want yet another annual report. We would broadly agree, at least I hope so, with the main purpose of the new clause, or what seems to be its main purpose—which the Government are to a large extent already achieving. Later I shall be moving Amendment No. 1, which deals with the same issue. I hope, therefore, that the new clause will be withdrawn and that the House will agree to Amendment No. 1.
      The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to transfer the energy conservation provisions from Clause 3 to Clause 1. In earlier debates there was criticism suggesting that the conservation provisions should be taken out. This would leave Clause 3 to deal solely with the provisions for triggering the emergency provisions in the Bill.
      5.0 p.m.
      In an effort to meet the hon. Members' wishes—I hope that this will be acknowledged—the Government endeavoured in Committee, though unsuccessfully, to carry an amendment with a purpose similar to the proposal we now put to the House. Our present amendment retains the qualifications already agreed with regard to consultation with any organisation likely to be affected by an energy conservation order. I hope the House will agree that this transplanting of the energy conservation provision from Clause 3 to Clause 1 will help to clarify the purpose and effect of the provision. I recommend, therefore, that our amendment be accepted.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: From a study of the Government amendment, it appears that in a non-emergency situation the Secretary of State—presumably the Secretary of State for Energy—would have certain powers in relation to regulating and prohibiting the use of substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, and thereafter there is provision for consultation.

      1691
      I take it that the Under-Secretary is aware that the Department of Energy has no authority or control—and, I hope, no influence either—over the Scottish electricity boards, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In connection with the prior consultations before an order is made on the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, may we have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will conduct those consultations within Scotland and that the advice forthcoming will be listened to before any action is taken?
      Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can give that assurance. Obviously, we have taken up this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am confident that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be taken care of.
      I come now to the Opposition Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to our Amendment No. 1. In view of the recommendation which I have given, I trust that the House will accept our Amendment No. 1 and not wish to proceed with the amendments to it.
      As we understand it, Amendment (a) would require that the conservation powers should be exercised only when they were
      "to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom".
      As I said earlier, there is no need for legislation to remind any Government to act in the nation's economic interests, and we see no purpose in having that written into the Bill.
      It appears that Amendment (b) would impose a requirement that any order should include a statement of its likely effect and economic justification. Here again, I have already stated that we should do our best to make clear our assessments of the effect and our judgment on the economic benefits. Moreover, if reasonably precise facts and calculations can be made available, we shall be glad to disclose them. I suggest, therefore, that the House need not proceed with that amendment.
      Amendment (c) calls again for the annual report to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred when moving New Clause 1. I have already dealt with that at sufficient length, I
      1692
      think, and I urge the House to accept our Amendment No. 1 as it stands, rejecting the new clause and Amendments (a), (b) and (c).
      Mr. John Cronin: At the outset, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on his new position, and say how pleasant it is to hear him deploy his case with such urbanity and lucidity.
      I wish to raise a very limited aspect of Clause 1(1), and, since it is so limited, my speech will be brief. The Bill is primarily concerned with conservation. Under Clause 1, the Secretary of State will have power to regulate the production of solid fuel, and, as I have, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), the distinction of representing the South Derbyshire and Leicestershire miners, I feel that I should draw to the attention of the House a matter that is exercising them at present. Although it does not fall strictly within the confines of conservation, it nevertheless forms an important part peripherally.
      I refer to the question of the retirement age for miners. Without doubt, any measures that the Government take for conservation will be utterly fruitless in relation to solid fuel unless they have the good will of the miners. Therefore, any order that the Secretary of State may make regulating production should take into account the possibility, or probability, of an earlier retirement age for miners.
      In Germany, after 25 years in the pits, miners retire at the age of 60. In France, if they have 30 years' service in the pits, they retire at the age of 50. In Belgium the retirement age is 55. In Holland also it is 55. In Spain, hardly a very liberal country, miners retire at 60. In the Soviet Union the retirement age is 50, and in the United States it is 55.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the deployment of his argument, but I find it difficult to understand how the retirement age of miners can be considered in connection with New Clause 1. It seems to me, with respect, that the subject matter of the clause does not allow of it.
      Mr. Cronin: I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I may point out that Clause 1 (1) relates specifically to the regulating of production, and I should have thought that orders requiring that production be not made by miners over a certain age would be closely relevant to the clause. May I endeavour to dispose of the matter in a few more sentences? I hope that I shall not try your patience.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is just a few more words, the Chair will be indulgent, but not otherwise.
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and I congratulate him on his ingenuity in introducing the subject in this debate. Perhaps I can help him in a small way by saying that although we do not think that this is a matter for the present Bill the Government are generally seized, if that be the right word, of the views of the National Union of Mineworkers and his constituents. Although it is, perhaps, novel to suggest for conservation purposes that, if miners retire at age 60, coal will be conserved, I remind my hon. Friend that the Plan for Coal actually envisages an increase in output from the mines.
      Mr. Cronin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, though I am sorry that he did not say anything about the Government's plans. Perhaps I may briefly terminate what I have to say by pointing out that miners in Britain are treated in a uniquely bad way in terms of their retirement age, compared with miners in other countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am glad that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides agree. I shall be grateful, therefore, if Ministers will draw my views, which obviously have the backing of the whole House, to the attention of the Secretary of State and see what steps can be taken to ensure that miners retire at a much earlier age than they do at present, or at least ensure that some progress is made in that direction.
      Mr. Forman: I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on his excellent speech moving the new clause and to the hon. Member for
      1694
      Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on his new appointment as Under-Secretary of State.
      I wish to reaffirm some of the points so ably elaborated by my hon. Friend and to give one or two illustrations showing why I regard it as important for the House to accept the new clause. As the Under-Secretary of State said, energy conservation is vital to our long-term overall energy strategy and our whole energy equation.
      The only thing which disappointed me in the Minister's remarks was the fact that he did not seem to give sufficient weight in his review to the aspect of benign sources of energy in the future. Looking at the overall equation in years to come, a great deal more needs to be done on the research and development side for energy from benign sources. The differential between the money spent each year on R and D for energy from benign sources and that spent on nuclear energy is something of the order of the ratio of 1 to 10 and possibly even greater. We need a better balance in this R and D effort.
      We could have quicker results by acting on the energy demand and conservation side rather than on the side of energy supply. This is particularly obvious when looking at the long lead times which affect nuclear power, and the Selby coalfield. Conservation obviously has a quick acting and useful part to play. It gives us a better chance of flexibility which we may need to cope with future political threats from OPEC countries or anywhere else.
      I was very impressed by the figure which the Minister gave of the cost to our balance of payments of £12 million a day to import oil. If we needed another argument here, it is the financial argument. The balance of payments consideration is very important, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East said, it is a factor of which we should all take account, particularly in view of the disastrous deficits we have been running up in recent years.
      Mr. Peter Viggers: The figure of £12 million a day may well be greatly increased shortly if the OPEC countries carry out their threat to increase oil prices by 15 to 20 per cent. This seems to have been ignored in the projections of this country's economy.
      Mr. Forman: Yes, that is so. According to the best estimate I have been able to get, a 1 per cent, reduction of total energy consumption would bring in £100 million savings on the balance of payments.
      Perhaps the most important and philosophical aspect of conservation is that it is consistent with our needs. Now that we are a relatively poor nation we must cut out waste in all forms and must not continue on the primrose path of 30 per cent. efficient power stations and vast new council estates with electric heating and insufficient insulation. These are the kind of decisions which were taken before the party was over, so to speak, and they are the sort of decisions we can no longer afford.
      There are some points which we must bear in mind on the other side of the argument, too. We cannot afford to damage our international competitive position by overdoing the conservation argument. All we, on this side of the House, are asking for is a more rational and less wasteful use of the energy in circulation.
      Equally the Government must not use conservation as a sort of fig-leaf to hide other sinister motives to extend their own form of doctrinal control over new sectors of industry.
      This is a strong argument against the particular form of this Bill because it is, after all, a bit of a dog's breakfast. It would have helped the House considerably if we had had a clear conservation Bill.
      We must see energy costs in a realistic light as a proportion of total costs and bear in mind the fact that price movements are often a far more effective way of ensuring conservation than any exhortations from Government departments.
      An estimated 7·5 per cent. drop in energy consumption was recorded between 1973 and 1975. Five per cent. of this was due to recession, and 2·5 per cent. to higher prices. Therefore, conservation has a part to play, but it needs to be seen in perspective.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I intervene briefly to commend the need for further attention to energy saving, and particularly to co-ordination between various Government Departments. I am not sure, in
      1696
      looking at the Bill as it is at present, that sufficient attention is being paid to co-ordination. There is a limit to what one Department of State can do in the effort to cut down the consumption of energy.
      Take, for example, the job creation scheme for the insulation of roofs of houses. This was one of the most imaginative schemes which has been produced, and I commend the Government for it. Unfortunately, however, the scheme was marred very severely by the fact that very few funds are being made available, either by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Secretary of State for the Environment, to local authorities to enable them to take up the part of the scheme that was laid upon them to create new jobs, improve housing stock and save energy.
      I hope that the Government will consider making more funds available. The Under-Secretary appears to be making some remarks in my direction but I am not sure what he is saying—
      Dr. John Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the funds made available under the job creation project of the Manpower Services Commission, surely he must realise that recently we announced that £17 million was being made available for work of this kind. We are very keen to see local authorities pursue these schemes because between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of all local authority houses have no roof insulation and it will conserve a lot of energy if this is installed.
      Mr. Wilson: I am glad to hear that that is so. When I put down Parliamentary Questions on this matter earlier this month that information had not filtered through. The burden was being placed on local authorities, which are supposed to be cutting expenditure, and they were unable to contribute to their part of the scheme in the way we had hoped—because, as I said before, this is a very worthwhile scheme.
      The point remains, is there sufficient in this Bill to take care of the problem of co-ordination and to make sure that one Department of State does not trip up another when it produces a good idea?
      Mr. Trevor Skeet: I would like to join with other hon. Members in

      1697
      congratulating the Under-Secretary on his appointment, but while I congratulate him I cannot possibly accept his new amendment.
      We have no objection to end-use controls in a genuine emergency. This is not the first time we have seen this Government amendment. It was debated in Committee, where it was rejected, and it is only due to the Government's obstinacy that it appears on the Order Paper today. The Minister of State was apparently not convinced by 56 columns of Hansard when we finally concluded that this amendment was not on, and the Government should drop the proposal.
      It has been the policy of the Opposition to separate the permanent and emergency powers. In Clause 3 they are inexplicably mixed. The Minister seeks to transfer them to Clause 1, so that we have the same defect being preserved. Of course, it is a question of presentation. In the whole debate in Committee the Minister of State made no reference to the permanent powers and he dispensed with the whole matter in less than four minutes. He was hoping that that would escape the vigilance of the Opposition, but it is there for all to read.
      Under the amendment, orders under Clause 1 regulating or prohibiting the use of any fuel may be made at any time—that is, not merely at a time of emergency but in normal conditions as well. The purpose for that, which was explained in a very convincing argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), was to precipitate out the permanent from the emergency powers. I should have thought that that would commend itself to the Government. Members of Parliament would be able to make a judgment of their own on the basis of the annual report and thereby participate in the decision-making process. I always thought that the Secretary of State was in favour of open government. Now I have my reservations.
      Once the legislative precedent is established for control in normal times of the use of any fuel there will be no limit to the use of this device in other industries which have no relationship to energy. In future statutes its application to metals, building materials, and so on, would be only a matter of time. Due to the mixture
      1698
      of emergency powers and normal powers in Clause 1, substantial difficulties will be experienced under Schedule 2 and the provisions for obtaining information. Although there may be a case for gaining access to premises without a warrant during a period of national exigency, there can be no justification for that in normal times.
      I have thought for a considerable time that the provision of permanent powers for the regulation of energy is probably to feed the Socialist lust for planning national resources. The Secretary of State told the House of Commons in 1973 that the 1973 Act would give him the powers to
      "fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use".—[Official Report, 26th November 1973; Vol. 865, c. 141.]
      That has never been denied. In fact, it was acknowledged by the Under-Secretary.
      The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): Will the hon. Member continue the quotation for three or four more sentences?
      Mr. Skeet: I do not think that I need do that. I must economise in time. The further comments do not detract from the points that I have already made.
      Let us take the case a step further and consult the Secretary of State's political advisers at the Department—Frances Morrell and Francis Cripps. They say:
      "It has been seen that a planned energy policy would involve deciding which fuel should be used, and by whom, and how they should be used, just as much as deciding how the supply industry should develop".
      Later they go on:
      "Planned development of sources of primary fuel supply would conflict with the traditional policy of free market decisions on energy use".
      That is, after all, the philosophy of the Government, and it is not surprising that the Under-Secretary should not mention anything about permanent powers today.
      However the fact was brought out by Sir Arthur Hawkins in the Financial Times on 23rd June 1976 when he outlined the absurdity of ministerial direction. He said:
      "We have been used as pawns in the power game in order to tie up the loose ends of the country's energy economy. The Board had been pressurised into taking expensive fuel that nobody else wanted. When coal was cheap they were required to burn dearer oil, and when

      1699
      oil became cheaper take high cost coal."
      It is not surprising that the National Council of Building Materials Producers has written to me on behalf of the National Federation of Clay Industries. In the letter dated 19th October it says:
      "We need an assurance that energy conservation powers will not be used to compel an industry to change its fuelling policy. Should any change be necessary it should be subject to a positive vote and should have a lead-in period of six months."
      The letter goes on to deal with the possibility of compensation being paid. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that point.
      The Minister should say whether conservation is to be put before technology. Are there to be fewer nuclear power stations and more coal-fired plants, even though the former may make a better use of national resources than the latter, and the fast breeder reactor is the most efficient vehicle for using Britain's growing stocks of plutonium? Is coal to be used to conserve oil when it would be cheaper probably to develop the North Sea oil potential than Selby coal, and would have a much smaller environmental impact?
      The CEGB's selection of fuels is anathema to the Government, who wish to take away the competitive forces inherent in the Board's position. In response to its customers the Board rightly insists that it should secure the right to elect how much coal and oil it burns, depending on the price range of fuels available. The powers sought by the Government would divest the Board of that right.
      Diminished use of power station fuel oil—with consumption reduced at the Government's behest has caused the market to be saturated with the product. If the Board will not burn it, who will? The consequence is that refining patterns have become disturbed and the oil companies have been required to invest heavily to restore the refinery balance, that is, between refinery yield and product demand, which has swung in favour of more light products—gasolenes and naphtha—at the expense of heavy fuel oils. Is this the best use of our national resources? How much more direction
      1700
      is likely to occur if the House accepts the amendment?
      The best control for conservation purposes is by the price mechanism, not by direction. This was conceded by the Minister of State when he said that petrol consumption was likely to fall by 3 per cent. if the price increased by 10p per gallon. After all, the fiscal control of petroleum is tax, and the tax payable by the public is about 50 per cent. Perhaps the Minister of State will consider this point. There is an integrated European market in petroleum products. Has the clause been clandestinely designed to thwart British oil exports to Europe?
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: It is already happening.
      Mr. Skeet: If it is already happening, it is in conflict with Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome, which is part of the fair trading clause.
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: What I said, and what the hon. Member knows that I meant, was that exports of oil are already taking place from this country.
      Mr. Skeet: I am delighted to hear that. I thought that was common knowledge, but will these directions be used for the purpose I have described if and when they become law?
      The Under-Secretary said that he was not prepared to accept Amendment (a) to provide that conservation should be used for the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. He said that that was perfectly obvious. But in the use of the powers that he is claiming, the onus is on him to show that he has acted intra vires. But he has not stated any of the parameters open to him. Why not issue a list of the criteria for the guidance of the public and private sectors of industry saying which powers will be used in which circumstances? Already we have indicated one of the criteria that could be applicable. So far the Secretary of State has indicated none. May I suggest one or two subsidiary points which could be included? I refer, first, to circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that intervention would lead to an energy saving which is susceptible of clear evaluation, and where it is intended that lower-grade energy use is required in preference to a higher-grade

      1701
      energy source. On this basis the Secretary of State should never use the powers contained in this clause to curtail the feed stock of the petro-chemical industry due to the added-value elements.
      5.30 p.m.
      Secondly, there is the case where an indigenous energy source is preferred and is nationally supportable over a foreign fuel, providing that the foreign exchange savings are not unreasonably counterbalanced by increased costs of the energy source and the balance of payments of the United Kingdom at the time warrants such intervention. To conserve energy, but to waste financial sources in doing so, would be ludicrous.
      Of the various factors involved, conservation should constitute the major part of the justification, and intervention should not be urged if the regulatory use of the fuel involved would lead to a disproportionate cost compared with the available supply, the infraction of negotiated contracts and for esoteric reasons.
      A more careful definition of conservation would concentrate the Secretary of State's mind, exert a beneficial discipline upon him and his advisers and, coupled with effective parliamentary scrutiny, avoid any abuse of unfettered discretion.
      There is obviously a constitutional point here. The Government are proposing that ministerial reasoning should replace the exercise of judicial interpretation and it is obviously intended that the text of Clause 1 should be construed by the Executive and not by the courts. This is a classic case of drawing the terms of the law to enhance the powers of the Executive at the expense of the judiciary.
      This must be so, as there is not enshrined in the clause any vestige of appeal against the use, even the unreasonable use, of ministerial discretion. Is it the intention of the Minister to issue regulations under the clause elaborating the criteria upon which the Secretary of State will exercise his powers on a permanent basis outside a national emergency?
      It will be recollected that while wide powers were contained in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, they were susceptible to annual review. This is not the case in this Bill, and Parliament's control over ministerial use under Clause 1 is regrettably less effective.
      1702
      The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) talked about the possibility of additional staff being required in order to monitor the new clause. The right hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber, but he will be able to read my remarks in Hansard. Where there is a question of powers being taken by the Government and which may be vested in a Minister, there must be parliamentary scrutiny and the ony way in which this can be exercised is through this House. We suggest that there should be an annual review and an annual report which could be made available for everyone in the Vote Office and which could be debated.
      The best way of regulating use in the interests of conservation is to permit market forces to operate. Previous planning decisions of the Government in a number of fields provide sorrowful monuments to the mistaken judgment of Ministers. I was reading recently the Sixth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which the Secretary of State is censored because of substantial sums—about £10 million in all—being granted to three worker co-operatives. The Committee recognised this to be an error.
      There is no doubt about the paucity of wisdom of civil servants compared with that exercised by staff daily engaged in business facing the spectrum of problems in a particular industry.
      Current trends and abuses may be corrected by fiscal methods by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time. Taxation has the advantage that it applies indiscriminately to users. The difficulty with regulations is that they can be manipulated by Ministers for doctrinal reasons—for example, to support the BNOC, to upset the profitability of existing investments, to disturb refinery balance or to lead to uncompensatable breaches of existing contracts. They may also, by distorting the market produce a statistical picture that is both inaccurate and misleading.
      After years of experience of controls of the type that the Government are now proposing to introduce, Mr. Garvin, the Chairman of Exxon, was reported in the Financial Times of 19th October as saying that higher prices and possibly additional taxes, too, might have to be imposed on United States consumers in

      1703
      order to make the country more energy conservation-minded. The report continued:
      "He added that Government controls on natural gas and petroleum products are clearly counter-productive in achieving energy conservation."
      These are the words of the chairman of the biggest oil company in the world. I should have thought that they would be borne in mind, so that we avoid making the same mistakes in this country. As I said in Committee, inducement, guidance and education provide a saner approach in the fuel market and more efficacious than ministerial direction, especially when coupled with the operation of the market and by application of taxes at any time.
      The Minister said nothing about permanent powers of use control.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: That is the next debate.
      Mr. Skeet: If that is the Minister of State's knowledge of this Bill, I am surprised. Let him look at the wording of the amendment. It is quite clear, and refers to permanent end-use control. Our next debate will be on permanent powers of pricing petroleum products.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If that is so, why is the hon. Gentleman making a speech that covers both subjects? Why not separate them neatly?
      Mr. Skeet: It is for the discretion of Mr. Speaker to divide the amendments. I am speaking to elicit from the Government their intentions. We have no objection to price controls in a national emergency, but permanent end-use controls can be used to dictate what fuels should be used by, for instance, the CEGB.
      The Minister of State appears not to have read his own Bill. The amendment says that the right to prohibit or regulate may be used at all times. That means permanent controls. The public may be astute enough to realise what the Minister apparently fails to understand and will see the dangers that I have been canvassing.
      The interaction of end-use orders, taxes on fuels, permanent price controls and planning agreements for particular industries will be detrimental to the per-
      1704
      formance of the private sector and of no ultimate benefit to the Government.
      The Government arrogantly expect that they can step into the market place and formulate the right decisions, but many mistakes have been made by Ministers in this House. I have referred to the Secretary of State's being censured by Select Committee and other well known cases come to mind.
      The splitting of steel strip mills between Wales and Scotland is now regarded as a mistake, and the provision of aluminium smelters has led to problems which the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1976 has been called upon to deal with. It has also been recognised that a great mistake was made in the provision of State facilities for petroleum production platforms.
      The provision of permanent end-use controls is obviously designed to interfere with the flow of natural gas and petroleum products to our Common Market partners. This is contrary to the fair trading provisions of the Rome Treaty. This will become particularly acute since the Commission has had to revise its objectives for reducing imported oil to 50 per cent., and targets are unlikely to be realised.
      Further, if the energy-rich nations such as the United Kingdom seek to deprive the energy-deprived nations or our partners in the Common Market of their oil requirements, the chances of securing a minimum safeguard price, which is what the Government are after, will be frustrated by both the French and the Italians.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman care to say what benefit this sort of bottom or plateau price will have when the OPEC countries are girding their loins for a fairly substantial increase in world prices?
      Mr. Skeet: I am delighted to have that question, but I do not propose to deal with it today.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Well done.
      Mr. Skeet: The Minister of State says "Well done", but it was his Government who were after a floor price of seven dollars a barrel. I am against the floor price, whereas the Government are anxious to have it. It seems that there is a division in the Government. Apparently the Minister of State is against the floor

      1705
      price and the Prime Minister is in favour of it. It is hard to find out exactly what they stand for in these matters. I invite my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment and for the new clause.
      Mr. Rost: The Under-Secretary of State has asked us to withdraw the new clause. I have always had a high respect for the hon. Gentleman because I have worked with him on the Select Committee on Science and Technology on energy matters, but that respect will not last much longer if he is to make such statements with a pained face. If ever there was one, he is a poacher turned gamekeeper. It is not good enough for him to have spent his career in Parliament
      attacking Governments for not being open enough on energy matters and now to propose that a reasonable clause that asks for an annual report to be put before Parliament should not be accepted.
      In our view, this legislation without the new clause could not possibly give conservation the proper status that I thought the Government themselves were intending it to include. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 154.

      Division No. 338.]

      AYES

      15.43 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Newton, Tony

      Atkins, Fit Hon H. (Spelttiorne)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hannam, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Percival, Ian

      Baker, Kenneth

      Hastings, Stephen

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Benyon, W.

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Biffen, John

      Henderson, Douglas

      Raison, Timothy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bralne, Sir Bernard

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brittan, Leon

      Hurd, Douglas

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      James, David

      Salnsbury, Tim

      Buck, Antony

      Kershaw, Anthony

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Budgen, Nick

      Kimball, Marcus

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Carlisle, Mark

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Churchill, W. S.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Speed, Keith

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Clegg, Walter

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Sproat, lain

      Cockcroft, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Cope, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Stokes, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Loveridge, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Corrie, John

      Luce, Richard

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Costain, A. P.

      MacCormlck, Iain

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Crouch, David

      McCrindle, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacGregor, John

      Thompson, George

      Emery, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mather, Carol

      Viggers, Peter

      Falrbairn, Nicholas

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wakeham, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Walters, Dennis

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mills, Peter

      Warren, Kenneth

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Watt, Hamish

      Forman, Nigel

      Moats, Roger

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C 'f' d)

      Molyneaux, James

      Wilson. Gordon (Dundee E)

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Hector

      Younger, Hon George

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gray, Hamlsh

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson and

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Hall, Sir John

      Neubert, Michael

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Campbell, Ian

      Archer, Peter

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Carmichael, Nell

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Cartwright, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Buchan, Norman

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Bates, Alf

      Buchanan, Richard

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Bean, R. E.

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Cohen. Stanley

      Coleman, Donald

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      John, Brynmor

      Rodgers George (Chorley)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kelley, Richard

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kerr, Russell

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Klimarnock)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ryman, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Silverman, Julius

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Deakins, Eric

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Small, William

      Doig, Peter

      McCarlney, Hugh

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dormand, J. D.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Spearing, Nigel

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McElhone, Frank

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunnett, Jack

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Edge, Geoff

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Madden, Max

      Stoddart, David

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Strang, Gavin

      English, Michael

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Mendelson, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Tomlinson, John

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Molloy, William

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Morris, Allred (Wythenshawe)

      Urwin, T. W.

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

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

      Freud, Clement

      Newens, Stanley

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Noble, Mike

      Watkinson, John

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Oakes, Gordon

      Weitzman, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Orbach, Maurice

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      White, James (Pollock)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Ovenden, John

      Whitlock, William

      Harper, Joseph

      Owen, R.I Hon Dr David

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Hooley, Frank

      Pardoe, John

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Horam, John

      Park, George

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Penhaligon, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Hunter, Adam

      Prescott, John

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Radice, Giles

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      GENERAL CONTROL BY ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:
      '(1A) Orders under subsection (1) above regulating or prohibiting the use of any of the substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy.
      Subject to this, orders under the subsection may be made only when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force.
      (1B) When no Order in Council under section 3 is in force the Secretary of State shall before making an order under subsection (1) consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.'.—[Dr. J. A. Cunningham.]
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert:
      1708
      'This power is exercisable at any time in the case of petroleum products, but otherwise is exercisable only when an Order in Council under section 3 is in force'.
      I think that I can be brief about this matter, although I do not deny that it is very important. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about it. That was preceded by discussion in the other place on a similar matter. There is obviously a gulf of difference between the Government and the Opposition about the matter. I am sorry about that, because I do not believe that that difference ought to exist. I believe that it is based on a misunderstanding about intentions.
      It is not our intention immediately to introduce a permanent system of price controls on petroleum products or oil fuel products. That is the contention that has been made by Opposition Members from time to time. I acquit the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) of that. In Committee he said:
      "The Minister said that the Government were seeking only permanent reserve powers to

      1709
      control prices and not permanent price controls. He attached much importance to that distinction."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 29th June 1976; c. 133.]
      I certainly do. That is the distinction. We want reserve powers on these matters. It is not so that we shall have powers on everything, but we want to have the power for one specific reason or product. The example that I gave is the continuation on paraffin. If the amendment were lost, I should have to introduce a manuscript amendment at once to save the paraffin position. I am sure that I would get the acknowledgement of at least one Opposition Member. Although there is a division among Opposition Members. I know that the hon. Member for Carshalton, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) would support me in maintaining this specific control on paraffin prices, because it affects the old and the needy. As far as I know, no change was introduced by the Opposition in these matters.
      Mr. John Biffen: The Minister of State says that paraffin consumption is largely in respect of the old and needy. Will he take some opportunity to place before the House an analysis that demonstrates that that is so?
      Dr. Mabon: I cannot do that now, in the present circumstances, but I would welcome a chance to debate this matter. When we look at new orders as they come along, perhaps the Opposition will take the opportunity of opening up the debate on the matter. I shall certainly produce as much material as possible to justify that statement.
      At present, if this amendment were lost, I should immediately ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move a manuscript amendment to save the control of the price of paraffin. In doing so I know that I should have the support of not only all of my hon. Friends but also some Opposition Members. I use that example not to embarrass the Opposition but simply to say that it is an example of having a permanent reserve power that is able to be exercised in particular circumstances that are justified to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members.
      Mr. Macfarlane: On that point, will the Minister undertake to tell us something that he neglected to clarify in Committee, in the hot days of June and July? Will he give a definition of an emergency and an emergency sub-crisis, which is germane to this point?
      Dr. Mabon: I do not want to go into the semantics of what was a marvellous Committee stage, which I enjoyed tremendously. I want to rehearse the differences between us on the matter and get to the vote once and for all. I should certainly have to move a manuscript amendment if this amendment were lost.
      One of the complaints that I have heard is that somehow or other the amendment is against consumers. It is said that somehow consumers do not want this control. I regard that as an Alice-in-Wonderland argument.
      6.0 p.m.
      I was asked whether I had heard from certain individuals, or from anyone, in favour of this proposition. I can tell the House that we have heard from the Brick Development Association about its position. It wants us to look into the question of the Government doing something about the control of prices as it affects the association. We have heard from the National Federation of Clay Industries using fuel oil, gas oil and liquid petroleum gas. The major airlines have made representations about cheaper fuel. The British Independent Steel Producers' Association has asked us to look into this matter. The horticulture and fishing industries have asked us to do so, and so have a number of ship repair companies. One specific one that I know of complained about bunker prices and asked us to look into that. That company claimed it was losing business because foreign ship owners were not willing to have their ships repaired in United Kingdom ports because the price of bunker fuel is higher than in most other European ports. I am not saying that all these complaints are justified, but if the Government were to take any one of those, either at the present time or in future when circumstances could have changed, we would have no power to do anything.
      The Price Code cannot be used as an argument because it is a much blunter system than what is proposed here.
      Mr. Rost: I have tried to follow the Minister closely. He is not asserting the arguments that he has given previously, namely, that these price controls are required in the interests of energy conservation. He has not directed his remarks to that argument. I wonder whether he could do so?
      Dr. Mabon: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) did quite well in the last debate. It was rather lengthy, but it was still worth while. I do not propose to rehearse what we have said before. I should explain to students of the Bill, who might do research on it in future, that my remarks tonight should be read with what I have said before.
      What I would like to stress is the fact that we simply want reserve powers. I have established that we have at least one case which proves the need to have a precise power for a precise product. I agree that there are 3,000 of them, and I agree also that the Price Code system is not the mechanism to enable us to assert this.
      The fourth reason is that the consumers want this and it is perfectly plain that they do. Fifthly, other countries have this power and use it. I am not denying that there could be abuses, but the fact is that the majority of those countries want to keep that system and have some right of reserve power for permanent control.
      The argument that hon. Gentlemen opposite have used in Committee—no doubt the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty will use it in his peroration—is that the Secretary of State for Energy is a wild man who rejoices in the abuse of powers given to him by Parliament and will willingly wreck the economy at the drop of a hat. I am simply putting in a nicer way the abusive language that hon. Gentlemen employed in this regard. We deny that absolutely.
      My right hon. Friend has been quoted many times, and was quoted again tonight. He has been misrepresented. He said, on 26th November 1973:
      "It will give us the power"—
      —the Tory Party's Bill, which would still be on the statute book if we were not putting this Bill on the statute book—
      1712
      "to control all the oil companies, all the multi-nationals, to fix their prices and their distribution systems; and under these powers every other fuel and its use, including the chemical industry, will be brought within the control of the Government of the day."
      That is the Tory Party. Later, he said, in the third sentence, which the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) had, but would not quote:
      "The Bill will give the Government enormous powers—far greater than any powers we have ever suggested should be taken in the area of fuel and power.—[Official Report, 26th November 1973, Vol. 865, c. 141.]
      Who is the extremist? I suggest that the hon. Member for Bedford is the extremist. He wants to retain these powers, which we have not abused. The only power that we have exercised is the paraffin power. My right hon. Friend can hardly be accused of abusing powers either in theory or in practice.
      Mr. Skeet: The 1973 Act was subject to annual review and therefore had to come before this House. Permanent price control powers are not to be reviewed annually. They would be permanent.
      Dr. Mabon: But they will be subject to debate in Parliament, as we know. HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Procedurally and also in general debates. There has never been, in my experience of the steam hammer powers, an occasion when either Government—Conservative or Labour—has misused them. I cannot accept the argument that by diminishing the Government's reserve powers as proposed here, by limiting them to petroleum products, we open the way to abuses. With due respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have considered this carefully once again and have found five very sound arguments why Amendment No. 2 should be made.
      Mr. Hamish Gray: I was interested in what the Minister had to say and in his quotation. It is, perhaps, fitting that he has used that quotation for a change and not I. I would not have used it tonight in any event.
      There is one small point I would make and that is if he is so anxious about paraffin why then does he not remove the words "petroleum products" in the amendment and insert the word "paraffin"? He would then probably have

      1713
      the support of quite a number of hon. Members on this side of the House. There may be some of my hon. Friends who would find it difficult to agree, but there are others, I am sure, who willingly would.
      If the Minister insists on leaving in the words "petroleum products", then obviously we take exception to the amendment. One of the most disturbing features of the Bill, from the time when it was introduced in the other place, is the fact that it would give power to the Government to make orders regulating the price of petroleum products, exercisable at any time, including non-emergencies. That would put the oil industry in a state of being under permanent price control over and above the Price Code, by which it is already affected. The aims of the permanent price control, in a sense, seem awkwardly placed in the Bill. After all, the aims of the Bill are, surely, to provide emergency powers, to implement international agreements, and to promote conservation. It seems to us that that and price control do not go well together. These powers were removed by the Lords and the Government have twice attempted to replace them—once at the Report stage in the Lords and once in Committee in the Commons. One of our worries has been to obtain from the Minister—we have never got it—a positive definition of when these powers would be invoked.
      I agree with the Minister that we had a successful Committee stage, particularly successful from our point of view. To give the Government credit, they met us on a number of matters. Indeed, the Bill as it is now is a vastly improved piece of legislation from that originally introduced in the Lords. That was due to the hard work of my noble Friends in another place, and to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of this House. Nevertheless, I would give credit where it is due, and, limited though it may be, we have to give it to the Government.
      During Committee we tried several times to get a definition of what a sub-crisis is. Indeed, the former Under-Secretary said on 15th June:
      "It is envisaged that these powers would be used only if the Secretary of State needed to do so because of a state of shortage of fuel, oil and oil products. When hon. Members opposite complain about the conservation
      1714
      aspect here, I should point out to them that there is a difference between the economics of prudence and the economics of famine. It would be in circumstances of the economics of famine that this sort of thing would be brought in and there would be price control in this way."—[Official Report, 15th June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 404–5.]
      That is one definition, but it is difficult to accept this explanation because the Minister of State later gave us a description of the circumstances in which price control might be applied, and in the following terms, that
      "a third degree of possibility, namely, a crisis which is not legally an international crisis or legally a domestic crisis in terms of the concept of the Bill, but something which is slightly less, but which is serious to the consumer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 29th June 1976; c. 118.]
      People who will be affected by the Bill will find those definitions difficult to follow. The Minister at this late stage in the proceeedings on the Bill should be prepared to give us a more acceptable definition.
      Mr. Macfarlane: Is my hon. Friend aware that in an article in the Financial Times this week the correspondent, Ray Dafter, said that the Minister
      "has indicated that powers might be needed for a 'sub-crisis' emergency"—
      that phrase we have heard so much in 1976—
      "such as the local disruption of the normal market. One possible situation might be the wide variance of petrol prices between one geographical area and another"?
      We remember the price competition that has gone on throughout this season.
      Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend has raised a good point which highlights the necessity for a specific definition.
      There seems to be on the part of Government, intentionally or unintentionally, a decided discrimination against the oil industry, which is unique in being the subject of permanent price control. That is virtually what is happening. There is a marked difference between restraint and price control, and the oil industry has been accustomed to cooperating with successive Governments for a considerable time.
      The oil industry cannot be compared with the nationalised industries, which are not subject to the same economic disciplines as are the oil companies.

      1715
      Many nationalised industries are monopolies and they do not have to compete to survive. Oil companies have to compete to survive, and this measure will seriously impair their future prospects.
      Let us look back at the co-operation that the oil industry has achieved. In 1970 the industry was requested to give information two weeks in advance to the Department of Trade and Industry about proposed increases. It complied. That co-operation continued through 1971. An agreement with the CBI was signed in July 1971 covering the period until July 1972. Subsequently, the agreement was extended to 31st October 1972. All that was done by co-operation between the oil industry and the Government. The objects of the agreement between the CBI, the industry and the Government were principally to avoid increases, and, if increases were unavoidable, to limit them to 5 per cent. I give those instances to show how co-operative the industry has been over the years.
      There is a great deal I should like to say, but we are pressed for time tonight and much of what I want to say has been touched on in Committee. I doubt whether at this late stage I shall get the Minister to change his mind, but there are several questions which should be asked. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on these questions. If it is not possible for him to get all the answers conveyed to him quickly enough during the debate, he might be able to tell us something during the Third Reading debate.
      6.15 p.m.
      Are the Government prepared to give an assurance that they will not exercise simultaneously their general powers
      under current prices legislation and the specific powers under the Bill? Do the Government envisage the Price Code being replaced by the price control powers in the Bill for petroleum products?
      If, as I hope, the answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No" respectively, will the Government reaffirm the Under-Secretary of State's pledge given on Second Reading that these powers will be used only if the Secretary of State needs to use them because of a shortage of fuel, oil and oil products?
      How do the Government envisage administering the price controls in the Bill? What plans have the Government to avoid price distortion by the exercise of their powers? Are they prepared to give an undertaking not to use these powers to discriminate between different companies?
      I realise that these are far-reaching questions, and for that reason I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer them all immediately. I hope, however, that he will be able to reassure the industry by answers he will give me either now or during the Third Reading debate. He will use his parliamentary majority to get his amendment through—of that there is little doubt—but that will not remove the doubts and fears of the industry. It is important that the Minister should tell me that he is prepared between now and Third Reading seriously to think about this matter. He will have an hour or two to spare, and I hope that he will be able to give us reassuring answers.
      Question put, That the amendment he made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 129.

      Division No. 339.1

      AYES

      [6.17 p.m.

      Anderson, Donald

      Carmichael, Neil

      Deakins, Eric

      Archer, Peter

      Cartwright, John

      Doig, Peter

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Dormand, J. D.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Barrett, Fit Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Edge, Geoff

      Bates, Alf

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Bean, R. E.

      Corbett, Robin

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      English, Michael

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Faulds, Andrew

      Buchan, Norman

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davidson, Arthur

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Campbell, Ian

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

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

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Small, William

      Freeson, Reginald

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Madden, Max

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stallard, A. W.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Meacher, Michael

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Graham, Tad

      Mendeison, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Stoddart, David

      Harper, Joseph

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Strang, Gavin

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

      Henderson, Douglas

      Molloy, William

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thompson, George

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Tinn, James

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Newens, Stanley

      Tomlinson, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Noble, Mike

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hunter, Adam

      Orbach, Maurice

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Ovenden, John

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

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Owen, R.I Hon Dr David

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkinson, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Park, George

      Watt, Hamish

      John, Brynmor

      Parry, Robert

      Weitzman, David

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Prescott, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      White, James (Pollock)

      Kerr, Russell

      Radice, Giles

      Whitlock, William

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Williams. Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Ryman, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sandelson. Neville

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      MacCormick, Iain

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mr. Tames Hamilton and

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Silverman, Julius

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      McElhone, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      NOES

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hannam, John

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Awdry, Daniel

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Baker, Kenneth

      Hastings, Stephen

      Penhaligon, David

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Biffen, John

      Holland, Philip

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Raison, Timothy

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Brittan, Leon

      James, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Buck, Antony

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Carlisle, Mark

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Clegg, Walter

      Loveridge, John

      Speed, Keith

      Cockcroft, John

      Luce, Richard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sproat, lain

      Cope, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Corrie, John

      MacGregor, John

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Costain, A. P.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Crouch, David

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Dykes, Hugh

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Mills, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr Gerald

      Fell, Anthony

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Moate, Roger

      Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Molyneaux, Jame

      Wakeham, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Monro, Hector

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Forman, Nigel

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walters, Dennis

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Freud, Clement

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Younger, Hon George

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Neubert, Michael

      Gray, Hamish

      Newton, Tony

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grist, Ian

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Hall, Sir John

      Pardoe, John

      Mr. W. Benyon.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1 leave out lines 21 to 23.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 and also the following amendments:
      No. 8, in Clause 3, page 3, line 12, leave out subject to subsection (3) below,';
      No. 10, in page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
      Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No. 4 is consequential upon changes which have been made. The energy conservation provisions, now removed from Clause 3, and the permanent power to control prices now incorporate the qualifications as to the making of orders formerly contained in Clause 3, (2) and (3), to which this subsection refers. The amendment deletes this subsection (3) altogether. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that it serves the purpose that they were trying to achieve.
      Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 are consequential on the new provisions incorporating the qualifications as to the making of orders at present contained in Clause 3, (2) and (3). As Clause 3(2) will no longer contain a restriction on the making of directions when an Order in Council is not in force it is necessary to make a direct reference to this restriction in Clause 2.
      Amendment No. 9 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 5. It completes the alterations necessary to make Clause 3 solely concerned with the triggering of the provisions to deal with an energy emergency.
      6.30 p.m.
      Hon. Members will have noted that the two Opposition amendments have been tabled on the same provision. We prefer Amendment No. 9 because of its drafting. It is part of a series of amendments as a result of which subsection (2) of Clause 3 will now be directly linked with Clauses 1 and 2, which it qualifies. I hope that hon. Members will support the Government amendment.
      Mr. Gray: This is an example of how the Government have taken notice of some of the suggestions made to them. It would certainly not be for an Opposition hon. Member to argue with a Minis-
      1720
      ter about the quality of drafting. I am sure that the Government's drafting will stand up to the test of time, and since their amendment goes a long way towards what we seek we shall not oppose it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      RESERVE POWER TO CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT DIRECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out
      'Subject to section 3 below,'
      and insert:
      'When an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force'.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

    Clause 3

      IMPLEMENTATION OF RESERVE POWERS
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 in page 3, line 5, leave out
      'in regard to fuel and energy making'
      and insert:
      'affecting fuel or electricity supplies which makes'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 6, after 'energy', insert supplies'.
      Dr. Mahon: We have made a number of amendments to this part of the Bill and I am pleased that Amendment No. 7 has prompted the Government to look at the text. We prefer Amendment No. 6 and hope that the Opposition prefer it also.
      The Government amendment refers to "fuel or electricity supplies", which will enable us to cater for an emergency which affects electricity supplies alone. Amendment No. 6 would give us the flexibility which Amendment No. 7 would not. With modesty, I ask the Opposition not to move their amendment but to adopt Amendment No. 6.
      Mr. Gray: We have no further comment to make on the amendment and are prepared to accept the Government amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, leave out lines 12 to 26.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

    Clause 5

      TEMPORARY RELIEF FROM RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES LAW
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'are' in line 1 on page 5 and insert:
      '(1) The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 does not apply to an agreement satisfying the following conditions, namely—

      (a) it is in writing and made between two or more persons carrying on business in the production or supply of petroleum and—

      (i) is made by them with the Secretary of State and each other, and

      (ii) contains a power for the Secretary of State to terminate it on the ground that its continuance is no longer expedient in the national interest;

      (b) no such restrictions are accepted under it as would (apart from this subsection) make it subject to registration under the 1976 Act, other than restrictions—

      (i) in respect of the matters mentioned in section 6(1)(a) to (c) of the Act (regulations of prices and terms and conditions of sale), and

      (ii) relating only to petroleum;

      (c) it is so expressed that restrictions under it in respect of those matters are operative when, and only when, there is for the time being in force an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act.

      (1A) Without prejudice to the foregoing, an agreement made at a time when there is in force such an Order in Council and satisfying the conditions set out below, is exempt from registration under the 1976 Act (subject to this section) while the Order is in force.
      (2) The conditions for exemption under subsection (1A) above'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14.
      Dr. Cunningham: As my hon. Friend the then Minister said in Committee, we have examined the possibility of widening the exemptions under Clause 5 during an emergency to include agreements regulating price and terms and conditions of sale falling under Section 6(1)(a) to (c) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This amendment meets the Opposition's point. However, because it is in our view essential that any price regime introduced in a crisis is acceptable to the
      1722
      Government of the day, we have made it a condition of exemption that any price agreements or agreements about terms and conditions of sale must be made with the Secretary of State. In addition the Secretary of State, by virtue of paragraph (a) (ii) of the amendment, would be able to terminate any exempted price agreement if he considered this necessary in the national interest during an emergency.
      I hope that the House will accept this amendment, which reflects the Government's intention that arrangements for oil allocation in a crisis should be practicable and effective, and our recognition that the oil industry has a vital role to play in such a task. The exemptions provided in Clause 5 together with the qualifications as to their activation and continuation provide in our view a carefully balanced response to a real problem.
      Mr. Gray: Generous, as always, in our praise when the Government are behaving themselves, we welcome the amendment. The discussions which the Government had with the Opposition and the industry at different times on this subject probably led to this reasonable and satisfactory solution.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 5, line 25, leave out 'this section' and insert subsection (1A) above'.
      No. 13, in page 5, line 28, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1A)'.
      No. 14, in page 5, line 34, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1A)'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 3, at end insert
      'and section 35 of that Act (failure to register within time required) shall apply accordingly.'.
      This is simply a tidying-up amendment to ensure that in cases where, under the terms of Clause 5(5) of the Bill, an agreement ceases to be exempt but continues in force and subject to the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the enforcement provisions of Section 35 of that Act in respect of failure to register in time are applicable.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONSENTS
      Mr. Skeet: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 10, line 28, leave out `,in particular,'.
      I can move the amendment economically, and I hope that the Government will be accommodating. The amendment seeks to leave out the words "in particular". They are important because under Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 no conditions are laid down on consents, either mandatory or discretionary. The Secretary of State has prescribed conditions which appear to be open-ended. If the words "in particular" were omitted, the conditions would be limited to:
      "the description or origin of the gas, or the quantities to be supplied, used or disposed of, or the manner of supply or use."
      Retaining the words "in particular" in the clause would mean that there could be many other conditions. None of them has been itemised.
      Can the Minister of State give me some idea of why he wants these words in the clause and what the additional conditions are likely to be if the words are retained? Will he give an assurance that any conditions will be spelt out to an investor well before he enters into the potential investment? Will the Minister also give an assurance that the conditions will not concern the size of the project, the technology to be used or the location and manning of the plant? Those matters should be left to the judgment of the companies concerned. This is important, because companies have to risk their investment and if they do not understand the conditions in advance they might find that what they hope to be a profitable exercise turns out to be totally non-viable. I hope that the Minister can satisfy me about that. In Committee an enormous number of commitments were made on the gas clauses, and this is one of the problems with which it would be difficult to live.
      Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who was useful in Committee. His attitude towards the Government changed when he realised that we were being constructive and sensible and
      1724
      that we were willing to talk to industry. I acknowledge that. But there is still a lingering suspicion in the hon. Gentleman's mind that we shall misuse these powers if they are not made more precise. I must protest in the nicest possible way that we could not forecast every possibility. I shall not make the point that it was a Conservative Government who passed the basic Act. It is probable that we would have done the same. But they could have not foreseen, and neither can we now, every possible condition in every context at any given moment and have it absolutely "spot on".
      We have to have a right of an option to cover what we cannot foresee. We have had occasions in flaring, for example, where we have exercised powers under the petroleum production licences to prohibit flaring except with consent. There have been five cases so far, all containing conditions about the amount of gas to be flared. None of them has given rise to misgivings because they were discussed with those concerned before we imposed the conditions.
      I do not believe that it is possible for us to administer this fairly without being in close relationships with those immediately concerned, not only looking after their interests but looking after the general interest.
      I should be attracted by the amendment if I knew that the Department and the industry could anticipate every eventuality. But they cannot.
      My argument for rejecting the amendment is two sides of the same coin. The first side is that the Government would be hampered if they were denied the right to impose relevant conditions in addition to conditions of the sort referred to expressly in the subsection. The other side is that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) are based on the false premise that the Government would use Clause 10(5) to impose irrelevant or mischievous conditions. I do not accept that. No Government would behave mischievously in this manner, but they must take into account relevant conditions. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
      Mr. Skeet: That has clarified the position. The Minister seeks to confine

      1725
      Clause 10(5) to relevant conditions only. They will be of the general description of those included in the phrase
      "in particular, be framed by reference to the description or origin",
      and he will not go outside those for the conditions that he is to impose.
      I think that that will satisfy many of the difficulties that I have in mind. It is with pleasure that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 14

      FUELLING OF NEW AND CONVERTED POWER STATIONS
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—
      '(d) section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.'.
      The effect of Clause 14(6) is to make it clear that the provisions of the clause do not affect the provisions of Section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that that Bill, which contains provisions relating to the production of heat and electricity by local authorities, is expected to receive Royal Assent in the near future. Therefore, it is necessary that it now be added to the list contained in subsection (6) of Acts which are not affected by the provisions of Clause 14.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 15

      PASSENGER CAR FUEL CONSUMPTION
      6.45 p.m.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 27, after 'or', insert
      ',in the case of imported cars,'.
      This amendment and Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21, which we are not discussing, are all connected with the same clause and are simple additions which are self-explanatory.
      Manufacturers, in the case of cars manufactured in the United Kingdom,
      1726
      are asked to comply with this paragraph. We have said that importers of cars, in the case of cars manufactured elsewhere, must also comply with the paragraph.
      It is a simple matter, and if this amendment is accepted I hope that I may move formally the others to which I have referred, unless, of course, any hon. Member wishes to ask a specific question about them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 14, line 39, leave out 'relating to' and insert
      'as to the results of officially approved tests on all'.
      No. 20, in page 15, line 1, after 'it' insert
      ',so as to be clearly visible to those to whom the car is displayed'.
      No. 21, in page 15, line 32, leave out
      'required (pursuant to orders under this section) for'
      and insert
      'carried out or, as the case may be, required to be carried out (pursuant to orders under this section) on'.—[Dr J. Dickson Mabon.]

    Clause 21

      INTERPRETATION
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 19, line 18, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 23.
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: Amendment No. 22 is the first of the two amendments that we are considering and is a paving amendment to the second. In fact, the word "and" is misplaced. It should have appeared at the end of line 20.
      The second amendment defines "United Kingdom legislation" referred to in the clauses of the Bill. It makes it clear that the expression "United Kingdom legislation" does not mean only legislation of this Parliament but includes enactments of other legislatures in the United Kingdom.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 19, line 23, at end insert
      ';and
      "United Kingdom legislation" includes any enactment for the time being in force in any part of the United Kingdom.'.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

    Clause 23

      CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Dr. John A. Cunningham: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 32, after 'appointed', insert 'for different provisions and'.
      This is a purely drafting amendment to make it clear that different provisions of the Bill may come into force on different days.
      Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER MATTERS
    Mr. Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 21, line 26, leave out
    'it appears to him expedient'
    and insert
    'he reasonably considers he needs them'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
    No. 26, in page 21, line 31, leave out
    'it appears to the Secretary of State expedient'
    and insert
    'the Secretary of State reasonably considers he needs them'.
    No. 27, in page 21, line 44, after 'are', insert 'by notice in writing'.
    Mr. Gray: We are making very good progress, and we are coming to the stage where, in view of the co-operation of the Opposition, the Government may be prepared to accept one or two very small amendments.
    The purpose of Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 is to impose on the Secretary of State the discipline of reasonable use of the powers and to remove the sole discretion element reflected in the word "expedient". No one is particularly attracted to "expedient", and in our
    1728
    view it is reasonable to ask that these amendments be accepted.
    Any phrase in legislation giving the Government unqualified powers to exercise their judgment should be questioned. In this case, it governs the power to call for information.
    Amendment No. 27 is a very small amendment. Its purpose is to require the call for documents to be made in writing. It seems to us very reasonable to ask that this power should be implemented in writing. It is very difficult to imagine that as reasonable a person as the Under-Secretary will refuse to agree to it.
    Dr. John A. Cunningham: Nicely though the hon. Gentleman has put his proposition, and although we have drafted many amendments in consultation with the Opposition, I must ask the House not to accept this one.
    The amendments to Schedule 2(1) would, firstly, provide that the powers could be exercised only when considered necessary, rather than expedient, and, secondly, have the effect, by casting the condition for the exercise of the powers in objective rather than subjective terms by inserting the word "reasonably", of exposing exercise of the powers to continual challenge in the courts.
    I should like to explain why the Government consider this unacceptabe. The purpose of paragraph 1(2) is to describe the purposes for which each of the powers in paragraph 1(1) to obtain information may be exercised. The intention is that within the purposes described—the purposes are limited—the Secretary of State should be free to act as and when he thinks fit, and that is reasonable. The amendments limit the purpose and this is not acceptable to the Government.
    Much the same can be said of the other amendments, which I ask the House to reject.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment selected for discussion is Amendment No. 28, in page 22, line 14, after 'may', insert:
    'at any reasonable time (or, in a situation which in his opinion is or may be urgent, at any time)'.
    With it we may take Government Amendment No. 29.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 19, at end insert:
    'at all reasonable hours and'.
    This amendment is to meet the Opposition's amendment No. 28, and is in a better technical form.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 30, in page 22, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
    "(2) The powers of this paragraph are not exercisable—

    (a) for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 15 of this Act;

    (b) except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force, for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 1(1).".—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment selected for discussion is Amendment No. 32, in page 22, line 31, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) below" and insert:
    "sub-paragraphs (1A) and (2) below and when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force".
    With it we may take Government Amendment No. 33.
    Amendment No. 34, page, 22, line 46, at end insert—
    "(1A) Except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force, a justice of the peace (in Scotland a justice of the peace or a sheriff) shall not issue a warrant in pursuance of the preceding sub-paragraph unless he is satisfied that—

    (a) admission to the premises was sought and refused by or on behalf of the occupier after not less than seven days' notice of the intended entry had been served on the occupier; or

    (b) admission to the premises was sought in a case of urgency and was refused by or on behalf of the occupier; or

    (c) the premises are unoccupied; or

    (d) application for admission to the premises would defeat the object of the entry;

    Government Amendments Nos. 35 and 38:
    Amendment No. 39, in page 23, line 38, after "may", insert:
    "subject to paragraph 4(1A) above,".
    Mr. Gray: We are being extremely cooperative in hastening on with the busi-
    1730
    ness, and the Government might accept our amendments—[Interruption.] Is the Minister indicating that he will accept them?
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman will not move Amendment No. 32, I shall formally move Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 38, which make a fair swap for his three amendments.
    Mr. Gray: As the Minister is obviously anxious to co-operate, I shall not move Amendment No. 32.
    Amendments made: No. 33, in page 22, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert—
    "(b) the circumstances specified in subparagraph (1A) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (1B) below are present,".
    No. 35, in page 22, line 46, at end insert:
    '(1A) If no Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued are that either—

    (a) admission to the premises has been refused after, if the case is not one of urgency, not less than seven days' notice of intention to enter had been given to the occupier; or

    (b) application for admission would defeat the object of the entry or the premises are unoccupied.

    (1B) If such an Order in Council is for the time being in force the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued are that either—

    (a) admission of the premises has been refused, or a refusal is apprehended, and notice of intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier; or

    (b) application for admission would defeat the object of the entry, or the case is one of urgency, or the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent.'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

    No. 36, in page 23, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
    '(2) A warrant under this paragraph—

    (a) is not to be issued authorising entry for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 15 of this Act;

    (b) except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force, is not to be issued authorising entry for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 1(1).'.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]

    No. 38, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'paragraph 4(1)(b)' and insert:
    'paragraph 4(1A) or, as the case may be (1B)'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mahon.]

  Schedule 4

    REPEALS AND SAVINGS
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 26, line 25, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 29.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendments No. 46, 48 and 49.
    Dr. Mabon: Amendment No. 40 is a paving amendment. Amendments No. 46 and 48 are the important amendments in the group. They are technical amendments providing that orders under Sections 2 and 4(3) of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act shall be treated as though they had been made under the corresponding provision of the Bill. The amendments remove uncertainty as to what offences may be committed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 41, in page 26, leave out lines 31 to 38.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mahon.]
    No. 42, in page 26, leave out lines 39 and 40;
    No. 43, in page 26, leave out lines 43 to 45.—[Dr. John A. Cunningham.]
    No. 44, in page 26, leave out lines 49 to 51;
    No. 45, in page 26, line 51, at end insert—

    'S.I.

    1976/1204

    The Paraffin (Maximum (Retail Prices) Order 1976.'—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]

    Mr. Gray: May we have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? A number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate on Amendment No. 47. If we start that debate before 7 o'clock will it automatically be interrupted at that hour? If so, shall we be able to continue at that point later?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The business will be interrupted at 7 o'clock.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We shall oppose Amendment No. 47. If a vote is wanted I think we should have it now.
    Amendment made: No. 46, in page 26, line 51, at end insert—
    'The above orders are to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if they had been made under section 1(1) or (as the case may be) section 1(2) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits.'.—[Dr. J Dickson Mabon.]
    Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 27, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 4.
    We wish to have an exploratory debate about the Government's position on an issue which causes concern to the public—that of the temporary speed limits and the Government's powers. My case is simple. It is that the present 50 mph and 60 mph limits should be scrapped. The temporary speed limits were introduced as a fuel economy measure in December 1974 and were renewed in December 1975.
    Incidentally, I very much welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is the first time I have spoken since he was appointed to his new job, may I congratulate him on taking up his post at the new Department of Transport, and wish him a successful and brief stay in that job?
    The Act under which the limits were imposed has led to some misunderstanding among the public. As I understand the Act, it enables the Government to continue to use the power to impose speed limits on fuel economy grounds. What it does not do is automatically to renew the 50 and 60 m.p.h. limits which are now in operation. As concern has been expressed by the motoring organisations, it would be a good idea if the Minister would confirm the situation—
    It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has announced his provisional selection of amendments as follows: Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 will be taken together, and with Amendment No. 8 we shall take also Amendment No. 9.
  7.1 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): Perhaps it will help the House in considering this measure if I set out the Government's position. There has been a great deal of public discussion and correspondence on this matter, and I hope that a short explanation will help the House.
  In the first place, I must make clear the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, under which this measure is promoted. Under that Act there is provision for the examination by Parliamentary Commissioners of any opposed provisional order. This is to give objectors the opportunity to argue their case and for the matter to be examined in Scotland. This procedure was followed in this case. A Commission of two Members of each House heard Mr. Nightingale representing the owners of the land concerned and the promotors in Edinburgh in May. The hon. Members for Dumbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) and Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) were members of the Commission. After hearing both sides, the Commissioners made their decision to recommend that the order be confirmed.
  At that stage in the procedure it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to lay the necessary confirmation Bill before Parliament. While he can, in theory, refuse to do this, successive Secretaries of State have always honoured the undertaking given during the passage of the Procedure Act that they would not set aside the recommendations of Parliamentary Commissioners except in exceptional circumstances—for example, where
  1734
  there had been some significant procedural irregularity. There is no question of anything of that kind here. It was therefore my right hon. Friend's clear duty to give the order the normal facilities and lay the Bill before the House.
  The purpose of the provisional order which the Bill would confirm is to authorise the promoters, the Cromarty Petroleum Company Ltd., to acquire compulsorily some 47 acres of land and foreshore at Nigg. This is part of a total area of about 800 acres required for the construction of the proposed refinery and its associated marine terminal. I understand that the promoters have already purchased the remainder of the land they require.
  The Bill is not concerned with any other aspects of the proposal for which planning permission has been given, but the House may wish to consider the matter in the light of wider considerations to which I shall now turn.
  Let me deal first with the subject of planning. The planning history of the area over the last 10 to 15 years has identified the Cromarty Firth as one of the key areas for development in the Highlands where industrial growth can be of great benefit not only to the immediate area but to the Highlands as a whole. This view was taken by the old Ross and Cromarty County Council and by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and, since local government reorganisation, by the Highland Regional Council. It is backed up by a number of planning studies. These include the report of the Jack Holmes Planning Group, commissioned by the Highland Board in 1967. The view has been given expression in a series of amendments to the development plan promoted by Ross and Cromarty County Council and approved by successive Secretaries of State.
  The practical effect of this policy has been the establishment of the aluminium smelter at Invergordon, the oil production platform yard at Nigg and the pipe-coating yard at Invergordon, and the identification of a number of other sites appropriate for industrial development. The policy also led to the setting up in 1973 of the Cromarty Firth Port Authority to control harbour developments in

  1735
  the area. It is therefore a clearly established objective of both the local authorities and successive Governments that the Cromarty Firth should be developed industrially. It is against this background that the application for the building of the refinery with which this Bill is concerned fell to be considered.
  The reasons for the Secretary of State's decision on the matter are set out at length in the letter sent to the Highland Regional Council on 1st March this year, following his receipt of the report of the public local inquiry. Copies of this letter were placed in the Library. I need not go over that ground in detail, but would draw attention to the Secretary of State's main conclusions. He accepted that no overriding national need for further refining capacity had emerged at the inquiry. On the other hand, he considered the new jobs important for the economy of the area. It is estimated that the project would produce about 1,500 jobs during construction and about 450 when in operation. The Secretary of State considered, in addition, that the project would increase the possibility of attracting other developments to the Cromarty Firth. In these circumstances he considered that it would be a very serious step to turn away a development of this kind in an area already identified for industrial growth. Taking account of all the factors, he decided that the advantages of the proposed refinery outweighed the disadvantages.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a purely factual point, do the Government accept the view that to create one permanent local job will cost between £100,000 and £400,000 of Government money? Does that coincide with the Government's estimates?
  Mr. MacKenzie: My hon. Friend anticipates what I shall say later on the financial aspect. No doubt he will have an opportunity to make his comments during the debate. I wish to emphasise that in terms of jobs the decision that has been taken is warmly welcomed by many people in the Highlands. It was certainly welcomed by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as well as by local authorities and local trade unions. Members
  1736
  of the Scottish Trades Union Congress have discussed this matter with me because they are concerned about it.
  A further point that has been exercising the minds of hon. Members is the question of refining capacity. I have been made aware of the anxieties of many of my colleagues on that score. Therefore, it is my good fortune to have with me this evening on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who will have an opportunity a little later to add his voice to our deliberations. No doubt he will then deal with some of the points that evercise the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
  Other questions that have been posed relate to the financial assistance given to the project under the Industry Act 1972. I wish to make it clear that so far no application has been received either by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland from the Cromarty Petroleum Company for any grant under the Act. Therefore, anything I say on that subject is in that sense hypothetical.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister will probably know that the handout issued by the public relations office of the company said that the company intended to make the normal application.
  Mr. MacKenzie: I accept that. I was about to deal with it. I am making it clear that at this moment we have not received these applications. I am dealing with something that I anticipate.
  The regional development grants that are paid under Part I of the Act are very much a matter for the Secretary of State for Industry. Hon. Members will know that they are paid at the rate of 20 per cent. on most capital expenditure on buildings and equipment incurred on qualifying premises in development areas. These include the Cromarty Firth. Premises qualify in terms of the Act if they are wholly or mainly used for the qualifying activities. Oil refining is among these activities, as are other processes to be found in oil installations, although oil storage is not. On the facts at present

  1737
  available I understand that it is impossible to say whether the entire capital costs would attract the 20 per cent. grant. That will depend on precisely what is done on the site and how it is done.
  As to whether regional development grants in such a case represents value for money, I can only say that these grants form part of a complex mix of automatic and selective incentives designed to promote the growth of modern, internationally competitive industry in our assisted areas. It would be dangerous to base a case for altering individual features of this package on the alleged merits or demerits of a particular project that received assistance. Successive Governments have felt it right to devote considerable resources to incentives. In any case the financing of the package has to compete with the claims of other programmes, such as housing and schools, in the normal processes of interdepartmental reviews of public expenditure.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the major criticisms of Government regional policy as a whole has been the fact that it is not sufficiently selective? One of the points in the Chancellor's statement of 22nd July announcing public expenditure cuts was that there would be more selection in future—the implication being that certain companies in certain areas would not get the automatic grants that they have been receiving.
  Mr. MacKenzie: What my hon. Friend is asking me to do is to work under an Act of Parliament that we do not have. We are operating under the 1972 Act. I have been describing the purposes of that Act.
  Selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 may be given to viable projects in manufacturing industries in the assisted areas where it is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment. An oil refinery would be eligible to apply for such assistance. In Scotland. Section 7 is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and in exercising the powers under the section he is advised by the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board.
  I have tried to cover in a short space of time some of the matters that I know
  1738
  have been concerning hon. Members. I know of the concern that has been expressed, but I hope that all hon. Members will appreciate the importance of this development in Scotland and the thought that has been given to it in Scotland by a whole range of interests, including the Highland Regional Council, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and the trade unions. All of these are anxious, as I am, to see progress made in this matter. I hope that the House will now feel able to allow the Bill to make progress.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I naturally hesitate to intervene in what is principally a Scottish matter. Although the House may disagree with what I have to say, I defend my right to say it with equal vigour. I notice that three Members of the Scottish National Party are present and, encouraged by their lack of reticence to intervene in English affairs, I am sure that they will not hesitate to allow me to intervene in what is a Scottish affair.
  I know the area of Nigg, although not, I am sure, anything like as well as other hon. Members present. It is a beautiful area as well as one which is extremely important from an industrial development point of view. We must bear in mind that there are strong amenity and natural beauty aspects to this matter which have to be weighed in the balance. It is not my intention to comment on them. Those who represent the area will do so more ably than I. All I wish to say is that it is one of those parts of our countryside which we should relinquish to industrial development only with the greatest reluctance.
  What has to be asked is whether the expenditure of this public money is justified. One starts by looking at the company to which we are giving £36 million-odd. I know the history of this company and how its parentage traces back to a substantial character. It is curious that the only representation of this company in Britain is a small office in Soho Street. The thought of £36 million-worth of taxpayers' money going in that direction leads me to ask my first question, namely, are we certain that the grant of this money is watertight and that it will not simply go out of the

  1739
  country rather than into the ground at Nigg?
  Are we certain that the company will pay British taxes? We have heard a lot about transfer prices in the past. We have heard a lot about the means by which money is shuffled in and out of refineries by oil companies. The House would not wish to grant permission which would involve the expenditure of this large sum of public money without being satisfied on that point. I am not saying that we cannot be satisfied, but it is up to the Government to satisfy us.
  The curious thing is that although this company is reputed to be, at the back of it all, a company of substantial means which will be able to find the other £144 million which it is estimated is necesssary to build this refinery, it appears to have a special fund-raiser in London. The Daily Telegraph of 1st October said:
  "A fund-raiser sent from New York is working 'semi-permanently' in London to raise the other £144 million required. He is Mr. Steve Stavrides, described to me last night as `a financial expert'."
  If he is busy seeking the other £144 million, why is it that the company says in its statement laid before Parliament:
  "There can be no doubt as to the financial capacity of the company to mount the present project in view of its base in this organisation"?
  It seems curious that, if a company has such funds at its disposal, the presence of this financial expert is necessary to raise the other £144 million in London. If he succeeded, that would not be inward investment, which, we have been told, is one of the advantages. It is borrowing our money to make the investment. That point should be cleared up.
  I want next to look at the economics of this in terms of jobs. The usual cog of light industry jobs in terms of the 20 per cent. grant normally payable is between £1,000 and £2,000 a job. That represents the taxpayer's contribution. For more capital-intensive jobs, however, that figure has been known to rise to up to £25,000 or even £50,000 per job. Indeed, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) made a considerable impact some years ago in criticising the cost per job to the taxpayer of certain industrial subsidies at that time. Many of us had some sympathy with him. Even at the figure of 450 permanent jobs to
  1740
  be provided by the refinery, the cost per job works out at £78,000. That is a phenomenal sum per job.
  Moreover, a new mystery is injected today into the question of the number of jobs. We were led to believe that there would be 450 permanent jobs when the refinery was working, but we read in the Financial Times today that the company has stated:
  "When completed, there would be 450 permanent jobs for staff operating the refinery and the same number of jobs at the marine terminal and in support services."
  Are there to be 450 jobs or 900 jobs? As far as I know, that is the first time that anybody has ever mentioned the extra 450 at the marine terminal.
  Incidentally, I suppose that they would be dock jobs and, as such, subject to the Dock Work Regulation Bill, being taken over by Transport and General Workers' Union men surplus from London. I do not see what benefit that would be to the Scottish economy. But let that pass. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) may wish to comment. I dangled it before him in order to bring him to his feet.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman will recall, with reference to London, that hydrocarbons are entirely excluded from that Bill by Schedule 3.
  Mr. Ridley: I cannot believe that 450 people will be employed at the terminal piping oil ashore. Presumably there is some other port complex envisaged which will handle cargo. I know of no terminal which employs 450. Even Rotterdam, I believe, does not employ that many. There is, therefore, something to be cleared up here. I am not saying that it is wrong. I just want an answer.
  Then there is the problem of refining capacity. We have been told that our refineries are working at 64 per cent. To add to that capacity is unnecessary. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy will tell us about that. In addition, will he say whether it is necessary to have this extra refinery in this part of the country, if it be necessary to have an extra refinery at all? It will deal only with crude from the North Sea and perhaps elsewhere, exporting the products to other parts of the world and some to this country.

  1741
  As I understand it, there is no reason why the refinery should be sited in an area of great beauty as opposed to Grangemouth, the West Coast or any other already industrialised area. It can even be said that the jobs could more usefully be provided in the Clyde area. If there be a proven need for this extra capacity, that might be a better place for the extra jobs.
  Mr. John Wells: It is my understanding that there is over-full employment in the Nigg area at present, and people are travelling 70 miles to work each day, a total journey of 140 miles. Is it not ridiculous to put this extra number of jobs there instead of, for example, as my hon. Friend suggests, in the Clyde area where people are desperate for work?
  Mr. Ridley: I merely offer that suggestion to the Under-Secretary of State for comment, because I cannot claim to know a great deal about working conditions at Nigg, but I know that there is a serious shortage of jobs in the Clyde area.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Which the hon. Gentleman and his Tory friends helped to create.
  Mr. Ridley: We have an economic crisis. The last occasion on which I spoke in the Chamber was on the first Monday after the recess when we debated the economic situation. In that debate, with Members of Parliament wearing their other hats and talking about our economic problems, there emerged a tentative trembling consensus that perhaps what was wrong was that the Government were spending too much money. That thought came from hon. Members on the Government side and from the Conservative Opposition as well as from hon. Members who represent Welsh, Scottish or Irish parties.
  It is not good enough, when we come to another subject, to say "We dealt with public expenditure last week. Now let us spend some money". Be it remembered that £36 million is a lot of money, though not, of course, as much as when the Government came to office. Measured in dollar terms, it is rapidly declining in value. But we cannot have it both ways. We are short of public
  1742
  money, and we cannot, therefore, spread it widely on every project, irrespective of merit.
  If we are to spend money on aiding industrial development, we have all the greater responsibility to ensure that that industrial development is the sort of development which is needed in the British economy, which is located in the right place and which will not lead to difficult problems. If it were not for the Industry Act and its 20 per cent. automatic entitlement, I doubt that there would be many who would feel that this was a project to which money should go.
  We have to economise, and my plea to right hon. and hon. Members, faced not with a general debate on economics but with a specific debate about the employment of £36 million of public money, is that they should not forget the economic crisis, that they should use that selection, that perspicacity and that desire to plan which is so much a party of the Labour Party's philosophy, and that they be prepared for once to tell the Government "No".
  Mr. Dalyell: I begin, as I have on previous occasions, by declaring an interest—the interest of those of my constituents in Bo'ness and roundabout who work in the refinery at Grangemouth.
  There have been references to the trade unions, and in that connection I shall now quote what was said by the secretary of the BP (UK) shop stewards' committee, Mr. Neil Boner. He said:
  "Tam Dalyell has the full backing of our committee, which is made up of refinery workers at Grangemouth, Kent, Landarcy and Belfast. Our views are also shared by other members of the T & GWU in other refineries throughout the United Kingdom who recognise that the whole of Europe is faced with surplus refining capacity and that the building of a new refinery anywhere in the United Kingdom is not an economically viable proposition."
  Since this is but a three-hour debate, I put this simply in the form of a question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. What was said by Mr. John Miller and Mr. Jack Jones when they went to see the Secretary of State for Energy? May we have an account of that meeting? I do not ask that as a rhetorical question. I genuinely do not know the answer, and I think it extremely pertinent to the debate.

  1743
  Although, technically, my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office is correct when he says that the Bill is concerned with no matters other than planning, it is the very crux of the argument put by many of us that no sensible planning decision can be made on an issue such as this without some overall knowledge of refinery strategy in this country, and it is meaningless to talk about this kind of planning decision unless one can look at the wider context.
  Mr. MacKenzie: Perhaps I did not make myself crystal clear to my hon. Friend and others when I opened the debate. What we are concerned about is the confirmation order. It is about 47 acres of land, not about general planning considerations, which have already been settled and laid out in the Secretary of State's letter of 1st March 1976 to the Highland Regional Council.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is a very technical view of the situation, and my response to my hon. Friend is the one I have given him previously in a letter. Back-Bench Members of Parliament can count themselves fortunate from time to time that they can express their views on such an issue as this. By chance—it is only by chance—this issue has come up for us to do something about it. We have some responsibility in the matter, even if we are not strictly in order, technically, and when we have an opportunity to raise our voices on a matter of national strategy we are grateful for the chance to do so. This is where Private Bills can be very interesting in terms of the relation between the Executive and the House of Commons.
  7.30 p.m.
  I shall stick to precisely one issue—the question whether this country needs the green-fields refinery site at this time. It is said by Conservatives that perhaps in some way I have been brainwashed by BP. It is true that on my initiative, since I became interested in this matter, I went to BP, and I have a continuing relationship with that company. But I also went to Esso and Shell.
  The figures that are given are that at the moment we are using only 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. capacity, and projections to the 1980s do not show anything different. If this were just the
  1744
  evidence of the oil companies, it could be argued that somehow or other I had become the creature of the oil companies' objections. But that would be very unfair and probably wrong, because I do not see how they could lie about this even if they wanted to. Most of their refinery workers know the truth that we are using between 60 per cent. and 65 per cent.
  There is evidence, not only from every petroleum journalist, but also from the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation, Lord Kearton himself. I quote from a speech of his which was reported on 10th April in the Glasgow Herald. He said:
  "I will be perfectly candid and say that it would be extremely difficult to justify. This country is possibly over-refineried at present and the existing refineries are working 60 to 70 per cent. of capacity because of the rundown in national consumption. At the moment, people are saying that it might be 1980 or more before we can get back to the 1973 level of consumption. This is why cases for new refineries are very difficult to justify on any commercial grounds."
  I ask one direct question to the Under-Secretary. Is the Department of Energy saying that in its opinion—and in giving the impression, at any rate, of encouraging this project—it knows better than the man it appointed as Chairman of the BNOC? This is a very crucial question. It is a matter of judgment, and we must have an answer to it before we can go any further in this debate.
  Finally, I ask a question of the Treasury. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being on the Front Bench. In paragraph 5.10 the CARPU report says:
  "Recent Treasury estimates indicate that industrial subsidies for smaller scale manufacturing industry tend to range between £1,000 and £2,000 per job created, compared with £25,000 to £50,000 per job created in the larger scale industries. In the development of the Nigg refinery inevitably this figure is likely to exceed £100,000 per job created. Initial per capita costs will be high in the beginning as roads, social facilities and housing are provided in advance of a fully operative industry rate base, which in total are forecast as £40,000 in current values. The cost to the state of each one of the likely 100 local jobs created is £400,000. Benefits from the type of industrial development currently proposed for Cromarty are unlikely to accrue to any degree to outlying areas and communities."
  When this matter comes to the Treasury—I understand that the applicaion has not yet reached them officially—there is a

  1745
  major question whether this kind of money should be devoted to remote Ross and Cromarty or should go to areas such as Clydeside, Lanarkshire, and Merseyside, where there is an existing infrastructure.
  Mr. Hector Monro: The ball is very much at the Government's feet, and when we hear their reply to this debate, we shall be able to make a final judgment. I hope that whoever replies will explain the situation more carefully than it has been explained in the past, because we want to know exactly where we stand if this Bill becomes an Act.
  I have no interest to declare except a fairly detailed knowledge of the area of Easter Ross and a great love of the Cromarty Firth. The flying boat that I flew during the war was called the "Cromarty Firth". This area of Scotland is also the heart of the Clan Munro country. That is why I have an interest in what will happen to this particular part of Scotland.
  We must look at this from the point of view of the planning side. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke of the economic situation that will result if the Bill gets the go-ahead. From the planning side we all accept that this is an area of great natural scenic beauty. At the same time, we also accept the necessity of developments in that area to provide work, and, in this case, a resource for Britain. However, we must balance these two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has been very careful in striking a balance between what is required in retaining the beauty, and the necessity for employment. We must all bear this in mind tonight.
  In relation to the environment, we are all aware of the problems that affect such things as bird life, tourism and transport, and in the end we must come to an impartial decision based on what is best for this area.
  The Bill will have a fairly dramatic impact on the area if it becomes law. Twenty years ago this was a very beautiful area, and by and large it still is. Twenty years ago there was very little development, but since then we have seen
  1746
  and accepted the advent of the distillery and the smelters at Invergordon, and the platform yard at Nigg. Now we have this proposal for the refinery.
  A more difficult question for the Government is if and when they see an end to development in this area. Will there be a limit to the industrial development that will be allowed? Will the area have a green belt or landscaping around these developments, or will there be piecemeal developments indefinitely? Does the Highland Region plan say that once we have the refinery that is the end of all major developments in the area?
  Naturally, if this refinery goes ahead we want to see a spin-off of small industries and other minor developments of a highly skilled nature, which will give valuable employment to the area. Are we subsequently to have another vast imposition on the countryside, which might produce another Grangemouth in the Easter Ross region? All of us believe that this is something that must be prevented at all costs.
  Of course we have to accept what has been done because it is there. On balance, and subject to my next major point, I do not believe that the siting of the refinery alongside the platform yard will diminish to any major extent the already tarnished image of Nigg or, indeed, Cromarty itself. I hope that the design of the refinery will be such that it will not show above the Sutors or out into the Moray Firth. I should be interested to know whether there is some opportunity for the people of the area to ensure, if the refinery is a failure or when North Sea oil resources run out, that the site is reinstated so that it does not become an eyesore, as has happened in the central belt of Scotland.
  We have all read and seen an enormous amount on this subject in the Press, in memoranda sent directly to hon. Members, and on television. The Government must answer a simple question. What control is there over the developer to ensure that, if he obtains the 47½ acres by compulsory purchase he does not sell the site off to another bidder at a higher price? The Private Bill procedure is a very powerful weapon and we want to be sure that it will not be just a stepping stone to enable someone to make a remarkably quick profit.

  1747
  Payments are to be made by the Government under the Industry Act in the form of huge grants. Are the Government satisfied that the project is viable? Will there be adequate oil to refine? Will it be a viable proposition, and will the taxpayer see his money wisely invested? The Minister must give us a clear answer on that. He must have studied the matter in detail before overturning the reporter's decision.
  Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Member's attitude. He has been a Scottish Member for a long time. He knows the procedure on private legislation. It is the promoter's responsibility to ensure that the case is heard in the House of Commons. My task is simply the formal one of laying the confirmation order before the House of Commons. That is what I have done.
  Mr. Monro: It is not as simple as that. This is a very important matter. The Minister must not try to escape through the procedures of a Private Bill. We are entitled to know the answers to the questions that I have posed. Both the taxpayers and those who are interested in the development of Easter Ross have a right to the answers. If the refinery is a success, can we be sure that the taxation paid upon its operations will benefit Britain and will not go to a foreign country?
  If the Minister can give satisfactory answers on these questions I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty in saying that the project should go ahead. However, we must be sure on all the points that I have raised. We do not want the 47½ acres or the whole site being used by some other company for purposes different from those set out in the Bill. It is up to the Government to provide satisfactory answers.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I was very moved by the concern shown by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for the workers of the Clyde. He is regarded on the Clyde with little less than affection and is known as the butcher of UCS because of his plans for shutting down UCS and putting out of work thousands of Clydeside workers and many
  1748
  other people who were dependent on those jobs.
  I must say to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that perhaps the trembling of a consensus is beginning to come into the House. I do not know whether I could have commented better on the morality of private enterprise than the hon. Member who warned the Government to be careful because if the project were given the go-ahead the Government might be milked and the land sold off to someone else at a better price. That is part of the conception mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he spoke of the unacceptable face of capitalism.
  The choice which faces me presents me with a great dilemma. I am being asked to choose between supporting an absentee landlord and a transatlantic entrepreneur. That is not the sort of choice I like to make.
  There is the problem of planning, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumfries and which was raised in a different but equally valid context by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). On both counts the general planning permission system in this country is quite unsatisfactory. We ought to have a much more direct control over the planning of major capital investment projects like refineries. We should not be dependent upon saying that we would like to open a refinery or a major industrial complex and then having to decide whether one particular project should go ahead. There should be much more positive control.
  General planning arrangements present the same difficulty. Local authorities tend to deal wtih particular applications as they come along, and that poses problems. Attempts were made in the past to try to resolve this problem, and that was the genesis of the reform of local government in Scotland and England and Wales. The idea was that by having bigger regions with major planning powers one could forecast beyond immediate applications. By having general structural planning procedures the local authorities were supposed to decide throughout Scotland which areas were available for industrial development and how much development there would be in the area. Companies would know in

  1749
  advance where they stood before they applied for planning permission. However, my impression is that the hopes for planning in the regions have not come to fruition. As far as I know, none of the regions has prepared even the sort of structural plans that we were discussing before local government reform.
  I do not dissent from the argument that the Industry Act 1972 is not selective enough, though I believe that the Government's control over applications is more positive than it is given credit for. It is not automatic. There has to be close examination before applications are granted, but I should like to see the system become more selective.
  I poked a little fun at the hon. Member for Dumfries, but he made a valid point. Before any money is put in we should have certain guarantees. I do not object to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian trying to protect the jobs of people in his area, but one of the major questions, apart from refining capacity, is the cost of jobs, especially in capital-intensive industries, under the Industry Act. I do not know whether it is possible to put a figure on this, but we may have to be prepared to pay a very high price to get jobs.
  When I used to argued, as I do now, that Governments were far too keen on pouring money into the pockets of private enterprise to keep industries going as well as to start new ones, the late George Middleton, former General Secretary of the STUC, who had a strong Marxist background as a former member of the Communist Party, as my Scottish colleagues will well know, used to say that the road to Socialism is never paved with derelict industries. Perhaps I might adapt that and say that the road to prosperity in the Highlands is not paved with areas which are bankrupt of jobs. The Highlands face problems of few job opportunities and not only the export of capital but the export of human beings who have nothing to keep them there. I accept that we should be prepared to pay a high price, if necessary, to get jobs to the Highlands and Islands.
  What is the Scottish National Party policy here? My local paper, the Evening Express, is reporting a campaign by the SNP to sow alarm and despondency among people working in the oil
  1750
  industry by saying that the prosperity of the oil boom is short lived, that these people will soon lose their jobs, and implying that it is the fault of the Westminster Parliament. The SNP should answer here as well as in Aberdeen.
  Its policy of halving the Government targets on oil would mean no more development, a massive loss of jobs and disaster for Scotland. I hope it will not shilly-shally. Let the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) explain why his party is sowing alarm and despondency while at the same time saying that Scotland's whole future depends on oil.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is ignorant of SNP policy. We take great care to publicise it on many occasions. Does he not accept that there is a crisis in the platform industry and that the policy of successive Governments to issue licences in large bursts has contributed to it? Will he also agree that the main benefit which Scotland can gain from oil, apart from the petro-chemical and refining matters which we shall be discussing later, will come from the revenue raised from taxes which can be ploughed back into the economy?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course the revenue will be very important, but if we halve production, we halve the revenue.
  The SNP cannot continue to say that oil will pay for everything in Scotland and then say the revenue is to be cut. Unless fields are to be opened for production, one cannot build rigs, and the fields cannot be opened till they have been explored. Jobs in Aberdeen do not depend on oil rig construction but on exploration and the servicing of existing rigs. SNP policy in Aberdeen is wrong. The SNP is trying there, as it does everywhere else, to deceive the people.
  I hope that when jobs are provided in the Cromarty area the infrastructure will be taken into account. It may be that part of the policy of the Government and local authorities should be that corn-panics ought to take some of the responsibility for providing housing, education and health services. It should not be on open-ended contract. There will be a lot of money coming in and companies should be prepared to make a contribution.

  1751
  However, the final responsibility for providing services will rest with the Government and local authorities and we cannot embark on major industrial expansion without providing the infrastructure. When the smelter went to Invergordon the then Labour Government provided the infrastructure to make the life of workers more tolerable. The present Government have taken account of this need in their policy of giving extra cash to oil-related areas.
  Not everyone finds Highland scenery beautiful; some find it bland. I agree that the Cromarty area is beautiful, but are we to penalise for ever people living in beautiful areas by saying that there must be no industrial expansion there, that they must live in poverty, and that there must be no job opportunities for their families because some of us visit the areas occasionally and find them attractive?
  Are we equally to say that because there is an industrial complex at Grange-mouth the people there must always have industrial complexes imposed on them. Many of the people in Bo'ness, while enjoying their work and the rewards which it brings, are concerned that their environment is not all that it might be.
  Mr. Dalyell: I would withdraw my opposition, not within hours, but within minutes if two things were to happen—first, a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy that we need this refinery on the projected basis; and secondly, a statement from the Treasury saying that it thinks this the best way of using £40 million or much more of public money and better than investment in energy, railways or a hundred and one other projects we could all think of.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Hughes: If it were a question of how best to raise resources or whether the money should be spent in Nigg as opposed to Clydeside, it would have to be answered, but that is not the question. We are not being asked to decide upon alternative places but whether we shall make possible an industrial development in the Cromarty area by passing the Bill. If we do not do so, the prospects of jobs are totally and completely gone. The passing of the Bill does not guarantee that the jobs will come, it does not guarantee that the project will go ahead
  1752
  and that everything will be lovely, but at least it does not close the doors.
  The people of the Highlands have had to live for too long without real prospects because it has been an area to which people have come from outside for the shooting or fishing, for its beauty or for tourism. It has always been kept in that way. I believe that we have a responsibility to pass the Bill if for no other reason—I believe it is a compelling one—than that failure to do so would stop the project, good, bad or indifferent, stone dead. I believe that the opportunities are such that we should not take that risk.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The normal reaction from Highland Members when faced with a proposition of this sort—indeed, I suspect that it is the reaction of Members throughout the country—is "Jobs are a good thing". That is certainly the reaction when we are faced with terrible unemployment, especially when there is the prospect of a range of skilled jobs being available. At the same time one is anxious that they be secure jobs in so far as any sort of employment can be secure in that sense.
  It is worth emphasising what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said—namely, that Highland Members are most conscious of the necessity to conserve and protect the environment and the fine surroundings in which they live. They are also equally conscious of the need to ensure that developments take place in a balanced and sensitive manner. I rather resent being told that such developments should come only very seldom, that I had better watch my amenity and that I do not care properly for my amenity. I resent being told that I do not appreciate the surroundings in which I live. I particularly resent those comments because I have seldom heard those who make them supporting the argument for work and job opportunities over the years that that argument has been made. It is necessary to provide a range of opportunities in the Highlands as well as in other areas.
  I must say, like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), that I have seldom participated in a debate in which

  1753
  I felt so utterly dependent upon the Government doing their sums correctly or knowing what they are doing. The feeling that I am dependent upon the Government in that way is not a happy one, because their par for the course is not awfully good. The Government must genuinely know that Mr. Ludwig is right and has made proper calculations. They must be confident, as many people have said, that he is dependable and will not sell the land once he has obtained it. We must also be certain that if the petro-chemical complex happens it has some certainty and solidity. For myself—I do not speak in a party sense—I should have no objection to the Government taking an equity shareholding in foreign companies in turn for the grant that they generously give. Indeed, that might have helped in some other places that we all have in mind.
  It is difficult for an ordinary Back Bencher to make a proper and balanced view. All those who have taken part in the debate have said that the correspondence they have received has been voluminous. I have not read the vast report to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred. It was commissioned only in July of this year, but those responsible have managed to reach definitive conclusions in a very short time. They must be very clever people.
  Likewise, we have been dealing with the views provided by the company's public relations people, who in offshore oil make a counter-argument to the various stories that have been presented in the Press and to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). For example, they argue that the cost-per-job argument is dispensed with by what is called the output-per-job argument. I should like the Minister to express a view on that. It is claimed in the public relations document that
  "The country will recover its grant after three years on stream from operating costs alone."
  I am not in a position to judge whether that is right or wrong. It may be right or it may be wrong. Likewise, it is argued that refining capacity is needed. The contrary view has already been put by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I do
  1754
  not in any way criticise the fact that he is in contact with BP. We must also bear in mind that BP has an interest and will tend not to be completely objective in these matters.
  This is a highly complex matter and it is hard to get to grips with it in a three-hour debate. If Parliament is to have a say in these matters, as it should when so much public money is involved initially, I do not think that this is the best method. Only a prolonged interrogative procedure, such as that offered by a Select Committee, has any chance of bringing out something of a definitive nature.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Did the hon. Gentleman support the motion before the House to refer this matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses? Would not that have met the point that he has made?
  Mr. Johnston: At that stage the pressure of time was such that the point had been reached when it was rather late for taking that course. That should have been done at an earlier stage. Equally, the House should look rather closely at this private legislation. The Minister bad said that the Government, by the terms of order and procedure, are rather inhibited from answering some of the questions that many Members feel are fundamental to the whole matter. I am in a dissatisfied frame of mind, but it is my intention to support this proposal, albeit with doubts and reservations. We are dependent on the Government having done their sums properly, because they have made their support clear. I hope they are right, for this could be a fine development, fitting well into the balance of industry which has grown up in the Cromarty Firth area.
  Mr. Rooker: I can well understand the diffidence with which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) finished his speech. However, in the early hours of the morning of 2nd August, after a debate lasting two and a half hours, he voted against sending the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I accept that it was put to the House on that occasion that it was too late to take that course and that it would be impracticable. But here we are on 21st October, and the Bill has not progressed.

  1755
  I take a certain degree of credit, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—
  Mr. Ian Campbell: Blame.
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend says "Blame". I accept blame, from whichever side of the House it may come.
  After the debate on 2nd August, through which I sat but in which I did not contribute, I thought that I was doing the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) a favour when, with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I tabled a blocking motion. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Lady asked 12, 13 or 14 pertinent questions. There was some confusion about whether the Second Reading had been moved. However, the hon. Lady was the first speaker and she asked a good many important questions, to which she received only two or three answers. That appeared to be the position after reading the report of the debate.
  For those reasons alone, and because of the matters raised in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and I thought it worth while orally to object the following day to the further procedure of the Bill taking place. We subsequently put down a blocking motion.
  I have said previously, I think on 5th August, that my only interest in this matter is that I have a right, as a Member deciding United Kingdom policy and disbursing taxpayers' money, to take an interest in any matter before the House. I have never been to Nigg, although I have talked to people from Nigg over the last couple of weeks in the House.
  I deeply resent some of the remarks and attitudes from various parts of the House to the effect that this is of no interest whatever to me in Birmingham, and "Why are you poking your nose in?" In fact, I am almost coming round to supporting the devolution proposals, but if such remarks continue I shall have second thoughts before that Bill is presented for Second Reading.
  It is worth pointing out that I have had no contact whatsoever with the promoters of the Bill. Public relations firms have not corresponded with me or sought to engage my interest, although I
  1756
  understand that they have written to other hon. Members, including answers refuting certain statements that I have made in the House. I do not blame them for that. They have a busy time with all those who are doing programmes and writing articles—many of which have been very anti the whole enterprise and have raised many questions.
  My hon. Friend the Minister keeps nodding or shaking his head every time anyone says that it is the Government's responsibility to help Back Benchers to decide what to do on this issue. The issue cannot be fudged by saying that it is private legislation. If it were private legislation, the Bill would not look as it does but would be printed in a different form altogether.
  Yesterday, after tabling amendments, I went to the Private Bill Office and asked whether any certificates regarding the Bill had been deposited there. There is a requirement for certain certificates to be deposited in relation to the Bill. The reply that I received was "This is not a Private Bill, sir." If it is not a Private Bill, clearly it must be a Public Bill. Certainly it is not a Private Member's Bill. Nevertheless, the Private Bill Office does not accept it as being a Private Bill.
  This is a Public Bill going through the House under the Private Bill procedure. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government, whatever Department is involved, to make a statement, simply because the schedule on page 2 involves a rather long preamble before the order is printed. That preamble gives a certain background of the company, stating that it is a subsidiary of a company which is registered in Liberia. In line 21 it also states:
  "And whereas the development so proposed"—
  which has already been referred to as the oil refinery and terminal facilities—
  "by the Company for the provision of the said facilities is in the national interest".
  I am not prepared to be told by what I consider to be a bucket-shop company what is or what is not in tile national interest. That must come from the Government. That is why one of the amendments was tabled to the effect that we wanted Ministers to bring forward a certificate giving their opinion as to whether such facilities were in the national

  1757
  interest. If they were, they would have my support. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian about that. The Government cannot fudge the issue. I hope that the next Minister to speak will meet four-square the arguments and doubts that have been expressed on both sides of the House. This is not a party matter.
  8.15 p.m.
  My other point refers to the decision letter of 1st March. My hon. Friend the Minister made clear that the letter was available to hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State constantly referred, on 2nd August, to the fact that the letter was a public document and that everything was spelt out in its six pages of decision and several pages of conditions. It may be a public document, but it was not placed in the Library until four days after the debate, and only in response to a Question from me. The Library has no record of the letter before then. It had not been deposited and lost. As Scottish Members will know better than I, the Scottish Office is full of shortcomings in making sure that anyone who wants to walk along the Corridor to the Library—I see my hon. Friend the Minister shaking his head again. The Library would have had to say that it had not been deposited by the Scottish Office. It was put in the Library four days afterwards.
  The letter is full of contradictions, particularly concerning the number of jobs. My hon. Friend also said that many interests in Scotland support this project. I accept that. I have been lobbied during the Summer Recess and since the House returned. But there are many interests in Scotland which do not support it. I shall not read out great reams of comment, although I shall read some in the debates on the amendments if time permits. However, I was interested to receive yesterday a Press release from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) telling me how much it supported the refinery being located at Nigg and saying that I should do something about voting for it and withdrawing my resistance. I noticed, however, that the envelope come from a public relations company in London—whose telephone was engaged for all of yesterday, so I could not return the document. How-ever, the Press release says that the
  1758
  Council is independent. There is no mention in its annual reports of the £150,000 that it gets from the Government. It also says that it is non-political. I looked down the list of executive members. I confess that I received a letter this morning from someone in Scotland drawing my attention to the fact that it is not quite as non-political as it may appear at first sight. On the executive there are Members of the House, of different shades of opinion, but no Labour Member. There is a Conservative Member on the executive and a Scottish National Party Member, and two members representing the Scottish TUC. The rest seem to be people with a massive amount of commercial interests, as one would suppose in an organisation concerned with development and industry.
  One of the members—I chose him at random and looked him up in "Who's Who"—is Sir William Lithgow, who, I presume, will support the statement issued yesterday in the name of the Council. He has a direct interest in this matter, at a place called Evanton further down the Cromarty Firth. Sir William Lithgow is involved in commercial enterprises that will benefit directly as a result of this refinery being placed in Nigg Bay.
  Mr. Max Madden: This information is of great interest. Will my hon. Friend name the Conservative Member and the Scottish National Member who are on the executive of this organisation?
  Mr. Rooker: I wondered whether I would be asked that question. It was only when I was sitting in my place that I realised that I did not know their constituencies. However, one is the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and the other is the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve). I make no bones about that, but it is said that the organisation is non-political and of all shades of opinion, yet there is no one on its executive from these Labour Benches. Admittedly there are two representtives of the Scottish TUC. Although the executive is said to be nonpolitical, there are representatives from this House. Any other organisation claiming to be non-political and wishing to involve hon. Members would make it its business to ensure that all shades of

  1759
  opinion were registered on the executive. I am merely making the point that no one from the Labour side of the House is on that executive.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should know that certain members of the executive of the Scottish Council are elected from among the membership of the Scottish Council, to which individuals, as well as organisations, pay subscriptions, so there is an electoral process as well as an ex officio process.
  Mr. Rooker: I would not want to mislead the House. The people on the executive come from various bodies, and some may be there in personal capacities. It so happens that some are Members of Parliament, nevertheless, and the letters "MP" appear.
  Another matter that I wish to raise concerns the report by the Community and Resource Planning Unit, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. It is a massive document which I only received yesterday. I have spent six hours on a train today and have had plenty of time to read through it. I do not wish to quote at length from the numerous pages, but it is worth pointing out that this report was commissioned by residents in the area. Its one defect is that it tends to be a little anonymous.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Before my hon. Friend goes too far into this, may I say that I accept entirely what he said about the Scottish Council, but who are the people who prepared the report? What is their commercial interest in the area? Does he think that this might have influenced their views?
  Mr. Rooker: It is a commercial organisation. I rang them up because the report did not state whether it was prepared by a resource planning unit or a university or an institution. It seemed a little anonymous. I was told "We are a commercial consultancy organisation". I believe that it is headed by a man called Mr. Moss; at least, his name seems to be on the document.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Did the company tell my hon. Friend who commissioned the report?
  Mr. Rooker: That was what I asked. I was quite clear about it. The report, however, is a little anonymous. It says:
  "In July 1976 a group of residents in Easter Ross appointed the Community and Resource Planning Unit to undertake a brief planning study, draw conclusions and make recommendations concerned industrial development in the area."
  I understand that the organisation has obviously looked through a lot of documents and has quite clearly been to the area.
  I would only mention two points from the report because it is verbose in its length. It states:
  "By comparison with other oil refinery developers Cromarty Petroleum had not undertaken an adequate programme of research and analysis in the development of their scheme. In our opinion"—
  they having looked at all the documents, talked to a lot of people and gone through the council minutes when the original planning decision was first of all refused—
  "we feel that the fear of some of the landowners likely to be beneficially affected by the planning decision, and an unstructured industrial policy for the Cromarty Firth all added to create panic among members of the former Ross and Cromarty Council when first faced with the planning application for the refinery."
  Reference was made to the problems of a local authority, of whatever size, being faced with a major planning application in this matter. It is quite substantial. Certainly it is substantial enough to concern people. It refers to
  "the power of some of the landowners likely to be beneficially affected".
  During the course of the recess a gentleman from Scotland sent me a copy of the former Ross and Cromarty Council development directory. Section 1/5 of that directory deals with this area and this very site. There is a map which clearly marks who owns the various sites. It clearly marks the highland fabricators' site, land owned by Cromarty Petroleum as well as land owned by a Mr. J. C. Robertson. On the opposite page is a statement of development of policy, and two paragraphs refer to the number of workers possibly employed on the Cromarty Petroleum Company refinery.
  The document then says that there are 160 acres of land shown for oil storage. It adds that we should contact Mr. J. C. Robertson. Clearly, whoever this Mr. Robertson is, he is one of the beneficial

  1761
  landowners because his land already had planning permission for the oil storage a long time before today's situation arose. In fact, Mr. J. C. Robertson was a member of the former Ross and Cromarty Council and I think he is now a member of the Highland Regional Council. When one looks at the record of the Ross and Cromarty Council minutes when the original planning decision was turned down—it was only later reversed at the instigation of Mr. Robertson and other people—one begins to see that the beneficial interest of landowners is substantiated.
  It is quite remarkable that the Scottish Office had the matter reported to it in February 1975 by a Scottish ratepayer. It is significant that in the development directory published by the county council the only private individual who gets a free advertisement happens to be one of the members of the council who was a member of the planning committee. This was taken up by the Scottish Office with a man who lived in a place called Rosemakie. The Scottish Office replied "Sorry, we cannot do anything about this gentleman on the council. It is entirely up to them."
  The fact that the councillor can get his free advertisement in this way is beside the point, but clearly this gentleman is one of the beneficial landowners.
  I shall refer to the number of jobs which will be created, because the way that many of us will vote will depend on this. If we knew how many jobs would be created, we would have some basis on which to discuss this matter. There are three official figures. The Ross and Cromarty Development Director mentions 350 jobs. The decision letter of 1st March issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to a limited amount of permanent employment—about 400 jobs. The number of jobs started to creep up even then. My right hon. Friend dismisses the fact that they would last for only 40 to 50 years because, apparently, there is a limit on the life of this refinery. Nevertheless, the number of jobs has gone up from 350 to 400.
  8.30 p.m.
  I now turn to the letter sent by the company to the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday. The number of jobs has now jumped, apart from the 1,500
  1762
  temporary construction jobs, from 350 to 450 on a permanent basis, and an additional 450 in essential support services and on the oil terminal. Are we talking about 350, 400, 450 or 900 jobs? The answer to that question affects the calculation of the amount of public money involved in the creation of each job. Oil refinery experts claim that these figures are above the number of jobs that can be expected to be provided by an oil refinery of the size proposed.
  It is incumbent upon the Front Bench—whether the Scottish Office, the Department of Industry or the Treasury—to tell us the number of jobs. If all the detailed work has been done on this project, the Government should know that figure. We shall be pushing later on the amendments and in the Lobbies, if necessary, for the exact number of jobs involved.
  We are told that a fund-raiser from America is trying to find the £144 million capital required in addition to the £36 million of public money that will be automatically calculated. As no amendment on this subject has been selected, it will not be possible for me to raise this matter later. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule—which sets out the order—refers to the Lands Clauses Acts, which are a set of statutes going back to 1845. The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1945 is incorporated into the order, with the exception of three sections. Sections 15 and 16 of that Act are included in the order, and they require that all the capital required for the undertaking—the undertaking being the refinery and terminal facilities, not just the company—must be raised in toto before the compulsory powers given under the order can be put into force.
  A certificate to that effect has to be deposited with the sheriff. In England under similar legislation the certificate has to be deposited with two justices. Perhaps one sheriff in Scotland is worth two justices in England. It is necessary to prove to the sheriff that the £144 million and the £36 million are available before he can issue a certificate, and only then can the compulsory purchase powers for the 47 acres granted in the order come into force.
  The powers granted must be used within two years, otherwise they are completely lost. What will be the procedure?

  1763
  Clearly, it will be necessary for the company to get on to the land in the immediate future. It cannot wait for several months while the fund-raiser from America raises the £144 million.
  We are told in the Bill that the Cromarty Petroleum Company is a straightforward company registered under British company legislation. It is further stated in the Bill that the company is wholly owned by Universe Tankships Incorporated, which is a corporation registered in Liberia. The statement sent yesterday on behalf of the promoters of the Bill to every hon. Member explains that Universe Tankships Incorporated is a subsidiary controlled by the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, which is based in Zurich, Switzerland. Some of us wonder whether any profit made by the company will come by way of corporation tax to the British Treasury or whether it will be siphoned off to a charitable institution with offices in Switzerland.
  People have gone to Zurich and done some research. A free-lance researcher journalist, Bill Williams from Alexandria, has had inquiries made in the cantonal register of companies in Zurich. The Ludwig Institute has a capital of 50,000 Swiss francs divided into 50 shares of 1,000 Swiss francs each. Where do the promoters say that the Ludwig Institute is a charitable corporation, as its name clearly implies, the articles of the Ludwig Institute state that it is formed exclusively for the purpose of medical research, with the exception that it is permitted to acquire and sell land. Clearly it must be in breach of Swiss company law because it is operating a tankship company. If it is not in breach of Swiss company law, it must be in breach of our company law. I received this information only recently. I was hoping that the debate would take place later so that I should have time to take up the matter with the Department of Trade. Clearly there is a contradiction here. The company cannot be operating legally under both Swiss and British law.
  The Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research has a set-up in London about which nobody knows anything, not even the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. It is supposed to be based on the Chester
  1764
  Beatty Research Institute. It is strange that until June the Imperial Cancer Research Fund had no knowledge of it whatsoever.
  Mr. Wells: I agree with everything disagreeable that the hon. Gentleman is saying about these people. Much as I should wholeheartedly like to support him, I believe that what he went on to say was erroneous. In the last debate on this matter, it was said that no reputable cancer institute in this country had heard of these people. I believe that the House was inadvertently misinformed and that the hon. Gentleman is perpetuating that error. I have no brief for these people—I am dead against them—but the hon. Gentleman was in error in his last few sentences.
  Mr. Rooker: I checked the last debate. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) asked who was running the British end of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. The answer from the Opposition Front Bench was:
  "It is chaired by Lady Compton, and includes Lord Halsbury and Professor G. A. Smart."—[Official Report, 2nd August 1976; Vol. 916, c. 1387.]
  The head of the British section is Professor T. Symington, who is in "Who's Who", but who has no mention of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research against his name. Neither has Lord Halsbury, a former adviser to the Distillers Company. One cannot be more eminent than that in medical circles. No mention is made in any of their "Who's Who" entries of being, tied up with this body.
  I accept that there is a British end, but the main point is that the Swiss end is not allowed by Swiss law to engage in anything other than medical research or the acquisition and sale of land. That is the crux of the matter.
  If we pass the Bill, there is no guarantee that an oil refinery will be built. The antecedents of the company show that, under Swiss law, it is allowed only to buy and sell land. Do we need to say any more?
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I intervene briefly on the question of the environment and conservation policy in particular.

  1765
  I declare my interest as a member of various conservation societies and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has made a submission in this matter.
  I want to make two brief points. This matter has been the subject of a planning inquiry and of the planning inquiry decision being overruled. I think that that calls into question the Government's conservation policy regarding wild life in Scotland. This must be one of the obligations that we must seek to balance. Obviously, we cannot seek to balance conservation precisely vis-à-vis the number of jobs that may be provided by this project. All conservation societies accept that, where there is overriding economic advantage in a planning project, such as is believed to be the case here, it should overrule conservation interests.
  The Minister will be aware that in this matter the conservation interests of the Cromarty Firth are considerable, not only on national but on international grounds.
  Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government's conservation agency, the Nature Conservancy, is currently negotiating to establish two reserves within the firth. Therefore, it is relevant to ask: where are the extenuating circumstances in the Government's conservation policy?
  The Minister will agree that in Scotland there has been and will continue to be substantial debate on the conservation issue. In the case of the Shetland, Orkney and Firth of Forth developments, conservation interests have been put on one side. In this case, according to hon. Members on both sides, there must be genuine doubt about the overriding economic circumstances involved whether it be in terms of the refinery capacity argument which was put by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) or on the argument presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about just how many permanent jobs will accrue from the development.
  There is a large element of doubt. The conservation case is relevant and it is right that it should be aired in the House.
  Nowhere is this more vital than when there is already a clash with Government conservation policy. If the overriding economic considerations are established the Minister must indicate how the Gov-
  1766
  ernment view the development of conservation policy in an area like Scotland because priority can move from one to another. I hope that the Minister will comment on the conservation issue. The Minister of State, Scottish Office may shake his head, but in other capacities when he was not presenting the Bill to the House he would recognise the environment and conservation problems in oil development, transient or otherwise. Any project may in the end run out of time, but once the environment has been destroyed its recovery is impossible.
  There is nothing in the promoters' document that shows that they are aware of the possible conservation problems, but the Minister will be aware that in relation to oil refineries and tankers hazards are involved. It is desirable that promoters be provided with stringent planning conditions to guard against hazards that could lead to major pollution.
  I seek clarification on the reason why the Government believe that overriding economic circumstances are such that their conservation intentions are put on one side. In this case an oil refinery is to be brought very close to an area of international biological importance. This appears to be another case where the conservation argument is set on one side. At some point the buck will have to stop.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall make two or three points in the context of the previous discussion. I deplore the attacks made on my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr exonerates him because he said that the subject does require examination. Things have to be said, and part of the whole sorry business is that we did not have this debate earlier. Manifestly, the company and the proposal should be investigated, but I do not necessarily agree with the opposition to the Bill tonight.
  First I shall deal with the question of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is right to say that it would be simpler for all of us if we were discussing a precise proposition with a precise grant—which some estimates put at £36 million—and the precise number of jobs that will be created, but we are not

  1767
  doing that. The justification is that this is a planning Bill related to an order from the Secretary of State, and that it is not the final proposition that has to go through the sieve of examination. Nevertheless, it is clearly an important step towards that, and it should have been considered in this way.
  8.45 p.m.
  Those who criticise the company have also used the money argument in relation to the taxpayers' money—the £36 million—for the provision of 400 or 450 jobs. We are working in the dark, and I want to look at this for a moment. It seems a large amount of money. However, we have to keep in mind two or three other matters. The first is that all major, modern, technological developments cost a great deal of money. One has only to compare this with, say, farming. I was the other day on a farm where the capital value was more than £1 million, and it employed only four people. In other words, the capital costs there can be compared with those of the refining industry, and this is a fact of modern life. There will be no large-scale technological developments without massive sums of money. Therefore, if we are to say that £36 million for a technological development of this kind is too great when one considers the number of workers who will be involved in it, we are in effect saying that there should be no Government grants to any modern technological industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr would not argue that.
  However, there is another argument. It is not merely a question of the amount of money per job involved. We are dealing with a particular area which is unlikely to see in the foreseeable future another opportunity for a major industrial development. There may be developments ancillary to this, to the smelter and to the Nigg yard, but there is hardly likely to be another new venture of any kind. Therefore, we are not dealing with a precise area. We are dealing with the Highlands Region and, therefore, the cost must be looked at from the point of view of the additional value to the area or region.
  There is another argument as well, and it is the one which some of us pre-
  1768
  sented when we fought for the creation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is in his place. That Board was one of his great achievements. We all knew then that one problem was that a certain rate of development would mean a sucking off throughout the Highlands into specific parts of the Highlands. In other words, an industrial job in one area could suck off the rest. Here, there has been a measure of industrial development which requires consolidation. It is not so much a major sucking off from the hinterland of the Highlands as the consolidation of a new industrial point which has been established. A labour-intensive industry on a large scale would have this precise sucking off effect from the hinterland, whereas a technological industry of this kind will not have the same effect as a large-scale, labour-intensive industry. There are industrial arguments involved in this, therefore.
  The other point is that we tend to look at the cost of developments in relation to the provision of jobs as a raw output. If I fault the Government's economic strategy in general it is for the crude economics with which they equate public expenditure as being lost, whereas it reflects itself either in output or in income. The same applies here. It is not merely a matter of £36 million of investment working out at £100,000 per worker. There is an addition. There is also an output. In this case, the addition will involve a foreign income to the country in relation to that output. Therefore, we cannot follow with any respectability the crude argument on this. That is quite different from saying that my hon. Friends were wrong to raise this matter and to demand a discussion of the background.
  That brings me to my next point. If my hon. Friends were justified in saying that this had to be examined and if I am justified in saying that the expenditune is justified, a third equation is raised, which is, how best we should pursue planning operations and control industrial developments.
  There is a third solution, which I argued in relation to oil industry development in the Highlands. A company would say "I have a good site. May I

  1769
  have permission to build?" Because everyone was terrified of losing the necessary employment, there was a tendency to say "Yes". Instead of planned development of oil sites, planning permission was given from point to point; but amenities matter in the Highlands. The Government should have said "Our estimate is of X number of sites for onshore developments, and we shall choose them. We shall apply for public purchase of the land and it will belong to us". It is an environmental matter, and could be dealt with by public control of that kind. Over-creation of onshore sites might not have happened.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend know that the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation is against the proposition for another refinery?
  Mr. Buchan: I wish that my hon. Friend had waited till I got to that topic. It is not in line with the general argument I am putting now, which is the question of public involvement. I am not an expert on oil requirements, as the Chairman of BNOC is, but I am not sure that he is necessarily any more authoritative on the question of usefulness here than a number of other people are, particularly one or two of the academic economists.
  If we have the oil resources that we expect from the North Sea, why should we believe that we shall not require more refining capacity? We know that oil production in three years' time, when the refinery comes on stream, will be considerably bigger. Therefore, I cannot accept that there is a case for basing the argument on the present 64 per cent. capacity. We must consider what will happen in three years' time and for the rest of the century. As the purpose is the production of refined oil rather than crude oil, we must also bear in mind the value to us across the exchanges.
  We need to talk sweet reason to two people—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now, apparently, the Chairman of BNOC. We are the people who should estimate whether we require a petrol refinery and where it should go, and control the production from it and own it. It should have been a public development. It is part of the craziness of our present economic strategy that we see
  1770
  this as only an output expenditure instead of an investment. This is where I disagree with my two hon. Friends, but I agree that their objections concerning the company could have been met by a solution along these lines. There has been support and criticism from various sectors. Attention must be paid to the people concerned.
  Reference has been made to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. It was said that that council was not independent because it was given Government money. It was said that the council had Tory members and a SNP member. Indeed, I understand that the President of the SNP is a member of that body. Nobody has asked me to join it and nobody has asked the Chairman and President of the Labour Party in Scotland to join it. Therefore, we must examine the situation carefully.
  The trade union movement in Scotland is in favour of these proposals, and we also know that they have the approval of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Above all, the workers in the area—a total of 6,000 people—welcome the proposals. They are under no illusions about the problems for the company. I am sure that it will be found that those workers would take the view that the refinery should be public.
  We are in doubt where the Tory Party stands on this matter. I know that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) supports the project, but I was disturbed to hear one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  The other people about whom we are in doubt are the members of the SNP. We do not know their policy on oil matters, and it would be useful if they would tell us. There are one or two moral problems involved. Have SNP Members come down in favour of the project? At one moment they appear to be nodding agreement and at another they appear to be registering disagreement. It would be nice to know where they stand.
  We in the Labour Party are in favour of the Scheme. I understand the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is the energy spokesman for his party. I believe that the SNP policy on oil will be damaging for Scotland, and, indeed,

  1771
  immoral. Its view is "We want the money that has been paid by the United Kingdom in investment in North Sea oil." Is it saying that it wants the £36 million that has already been paid by the British taxpayer?
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the lion. Gentleman think that the £3,600 million a year that will arise from Scottish oil revenue is immoral in terms of where it will go? Why does he support that situation?
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the Shetland situation. He is expecting the people of England and Wales to pay for the investment and for others to be in at the profitable end of the deal. That surely is immoral. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a figure of £3,600 million, but he must think of the depletion rate, which is another important consideration. On the other hand, the SNP calculates the resources on the whole 100 per cent. exploitation. It cannot go for half the rate of depletion and then use the figures based on the whole rate. That is another kind of immorality.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic was so poor. Does he not accept that, if the depletion rate were reviewed in the way that the SNP has proposed, the revenues would come down, that Scotland's needs of about £1,500 million would be met and that a surplus would be available for investment? If the depletion rate were cut the oil reserves would last longer and production would be of greater value in the future.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: I am talking about the equation we have been dealing with year after year and about the number of things that can be supported on one year's revenue. The SNP is saying that it will halve the amount and then double its length, halve the resources and double them. What nonsense. I wish that it would stop treating the people of Scotland as if they were 2-year-olds.
  There are other problems if the resources are to be depleted in this way. If the SNP is saying that it will drop all this nonsense it will have to pay something back to those who have invested in it, like the constituents of my hon. Friend
  1772
  the Member for Perry Barr. Construction money and Government grants have already gone into this scheme. The taxpayers of England and Wales have already spent money. Government investment would have to be paid back. The ownership of the oil, in so far as there is any ownership of it in the United Kingdom, will have to be taken into account and payments made. Halving the depletion rate means halving the jobs in industry—posibly more than that, because they are onshore jobs. Tens of thousands of workers will be thrown out of work tomorrow if the depletion rate is halved. There is a huge hole in the policy of the SNP.
  There is, finally, the question of Shetland, because it has shown no sign that it believes in the immoral policy of "Scotland's oil". If the SNP were honest it should be saying that this is Scotland's oil—Shetland and God willing. It is saying that it is prepared to give autonomy to Shetland but will take all of the oil for Scotland. This is imperialism with a vengeance. The SNP should drop this nonsense and tell us where it stands.
  I have argued that the project should go on. I regret that it has been done in this way and I hope that we have learned a lesson from this. The land should be owned by the people, particularly those in the Highlands. In that way the planning problems would be solved. The ownership of all development should be vested in the nation. That is the way forward. That is one of the things we have learned from this sorry and unnecessary delay. I ask my hon. Friends, having accepted much of the criticism about the company, to allow this proposition to go forward.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: There are three elements involved in our consideration of this Bill tonight. The first is the acquisition of land, the second is the question of the refinery and the jobs likely to come from it, and the third is the investment of public money. I will deal with them in that order.
  I can see no objection to the acquisition of 47 acres when 850 acres have already been acquired. What is happening is that the land is being acquired from one absentee proprietor by a multi-national which in a sense will also be an absentee proprietor but at least one that is

  1773
  prepared to provide jobs and to invest in the land. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan), having regaled us for a quarter of an hour or so with irrelevancies, would kindly be quiet.
  On the land question, there is, as I say, an objection, in as much as the acquisition is by an external proprietor, but one hopes that the planning conditions laid down by the Scottish Office will help to redress any weakness which may arise therefrom. In any event, we are dealing with only a minor amount of land, 47 acres, compared to a large area which has already been acquired.
  It would have been preferable if the land had been in public ownership and if the Government had leased it to the company on appropriate conditions.
  Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman says tht it would have been preferable if the land had been in public ownership and the Government had leased it to the company. What is the difference between that and the present landowner leasing it to the company for 99 years, as he has expressed his willingness to do?
  Mr. Wilson: I should not necessarily trust the existing landowner to lay down in the lease conditions which would be suitable and give sufficient protection to the public. That is the difference.
  Mr. Moate: If the conditions of the lease were subject to independent arbitration or were required by a condition attached to the Bill, would the hon. Gentleman find that acceptable?
  Mr. Wilson: No doubt, if other suggestions had been made they would have been considered, but no such suggestion has been made, and I gather from reading the material that has been provided that no lease had been brought to the attention of the Ludwig organisation.
  Mr. Wells: That is a half-truth.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that, but I am dealing with the question of public protection, and where public development of this kind is in issue and, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says, in many respects the antecedents of the company are in question, it is desirable to have as much protection as possible. I should
  1774
  not have expected hon. Members on either side to quarrel with that.
  I see nothing in principle against acquisition from the private owner by an organisation which intends to start a refinery, especially since there will be compensation paid for the land so acquired.
  If that be right, we come next to the question of the refinery itself. I agree with a lot of the comment made about the need for development in the Easter Ross area, an area which has been deliberately built up by Government policy to have an industrial background and industrial infrastructure. It would be of great value to the Highlands if we had a centre of industrial or economic power located there. If this project comes to fruition it will add considerably to job and economic stability in the area. Nevertheless, I do not think that the local residents would be altogether satisfied with the refinery by itself if that were an end of the matter, and it is hoped that the development will lead to something else.
  However, I have some questions about the refinery, the type of enterprise which it is to be and the range of refining which will be conducted.
  Mr. Ridley: May I take the hon. Gentleman through the calculation? It is suggested that we are to give £78,000 per job. Is he aware that, if that money were invested by each recipient, each of the job seekers could easily have an income of £10,000 a year without doing any work at all? Surely that would make them far better off than they would be by working in the refinery.
  Mr. Wilson: I accept that that might be regarded as a form of social credit or dividend payable, but I did not know that the hon. Gentleman, who has espoused many an economic theory in his day, had taken that one up. I shall come to the question of public money later, so I reserve my observations till them.
  It would be wrong to consider that this is a refinery or a processor of hydrocarbons which is isolated, because in Scotland at the present time there are developments taking place. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is interested in the future of Grange-mouth, and so is the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. There are proposals

  1775
  for the ammonia plant at Peterhead which, according to reports in the newspapers, seems to be making some progress, and the natural gas liquification plant of Esso and Shell, also in the Peterhead area. It is also reported, without any substantial foundation, that Esso is considering the possibility of an ethylene cracker plant in Scotland. That would be a great step forward, because many petrochemical developments could come from it.
  I have my doubts whether this particular type of basic refinery is the most desirable, but, on the other hand, we are not faced with a choice between different types of refinery in Easter Ross. All we have is one specific proposal before us.
  There has been a lot of talk about the over-capacity which exists. I was interested in an article in the Petroleum Economist in October this year which said in an article entitled "Search for European Energy Policy":
  "Last year, the oil refining industry in the Community lost around $7 on every barrel of main products sold. Yet the industry is faced with the need for huge capital investments for the conversion of processing capacities to restore the balance between refining yields and products demand, which has swung in favour of more light products—gasolines and naphtha—at the expense of heavy fuel oils."
  It may be argued that this trend favours the establishment of the kind of refinery which is proposed for the Easter Ross area.
  The article goes on:
  "The climate for such investments is not made brighter by an expected continuing overcapacity in relation to foreseen demand into the early 1980s and the prospect of increasing competition from new export refineries in oil-producing countries."
  Therefore, it does seem that there is a worldwide trend towards establishing oil refining and petrochemical industries in the countries which are producers of oil. This trend has been followed by a number of the OPEC countries in the Middle East.
  There are doubts about whether this refinery will be commercially viable, but the fact remains that this organisation is willing to put up a substantiial amount of its own money. I shall be extremely interested to hear the Under-Secretary's view on viability.
  When we come to the question of finance there must be some reservations
  1776
  in the minds of many hon. Members about whether the public money required—£36 million to £40 million—should be provided, or if it is even necessary. Sometimes we take the view that all industrial activities have to be subsidised. This is a false view. There are many types of industrial activity that do not have to be subsidised and whose return validates the investment. This investment will still take place, even if no Government money is being supplied at all. We should keep uppermost in our minds the fact that companies in the oil business have enormous resources at their disposal, and if they think that there will be a return from having a refinery they will not hesitate to invest the money.
  The Minister of State has said that under the Industry Act the Government's hands are tied. We all accept that this is a discretionary grant and the Government do not have to make it, but I understand that the Government have accepted guidelines which suggest that where there is an application made in given circumstances and where a grant was given on a discretionary basis in similar circumstances in the past, those guidelines must be adhered to. The Government therefore do not have a free hand when application is made. If my interpretation is not correct I would welcome a correction from the Minister or from the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the grant were discretionary some of us would not have been bleating, as I have been for a long time, about the need to have Treasury Ministers and a Treasury statement. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out an extract from a letter sent to me on 18th October by the Minister of State. Department of Industry, who said:
  "As to whether these grants represent value for money I can only say that they form part of a complex mix of automatic and selective incentives designed to promote the growth of modern, internationally competitive industry in the assisted areas. Successive Governments have felt it right to devote considerable resources to the incentives, but the financing of the package has, in any case, to compete with the claims of the other programmes you mention in the normal processes for the interdepartmental review of public expenditure."
  There is the possibility of the direction automatically of considerable sums well

  1777
  above £40 million of public money. That is what worries some of us.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for giving that material. I would still, perhaps, require an interpretation of it, because the reference to "automatic and selective" in one breath is not entirely clear.
  With these huge projects of, say, £10 million or even £20 million—and here we are talking about £200 million—where, obviously, the grant will mean a considerable investment of public money, there should be a greater degree of flexibility. In other words, in the lower ranges industrialists and others should be able to know, when they put in their application in the usual way, whether they are likely to get a grant. With a massive project like this it would make sense if the application could be made to the Government and if the Government would have the discretion to turn it down or to offer, say, from £10 million to £40 million. If the Government were to give money on that scale they would, of course, have to make not just a crude analysis of how many thousand pounds per job was involved, but also the economic return in terms of output and, in the longer term, to what extent other industry might be attracted by the original investment.
  Many of us would feel doubts about the project if it were to absorb a great deal of the industrial development budget for Scotland. The sum of £40 million is equivalent to the annual income of the Scottish Development Agency if one considers that it is £200 million spread over five years. I should like the Government to tell us whether the payment of £40 million would have any major impact on the amount of money available for curing Scotland's serious unemployment.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member is arguing from a double standard. He is saying that if the money is paid to a company which is providing jobs and is helping the economy that is in some way detracting from solving the country's economic problem. How can that be logical?
  Mr. Wilson: Hon. Members would be concerned if, say, the whole budget of
  1778
  the SDA were spent on providing 450 jobs when unemployment in Scotland is running at 170,000. I understand that the average amount per job spent on industrial assistance is about £5,000. Yet here we are talking about a sum eight or 10 times as great as that. We must have an assurance on that score.
  One of the problems is that we are dealing with a commercial concern the antecedents of which are not too certain. The Government are involved in a major way, and it will be interesting to hear the summing up speeches from the Under-Secretaries of State for Energy and Scotland answering questions that have been put to them in a genuine way. They must answer in detail and not in general.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): The most surprising thing about this debate has been the complete misunderstanding by many hon. Members of the nature of the Bill and of my presence at the debate. It is astonshing how many hon. Members have referred to the Government's responsibilities and have asked for replies on issues that are either clearly outside the terms of the Bill or are not the responsibility of my Department.
  This is a Private Bill, and it was introduced under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. It is clearly not a Government Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the confirmation Bill, but that is the only responsibility of the Scottish Office and the Government have no further responsibility for the drafting, the arrangement of the clauses or any other aspect of the Bill. It is astonishing that so many hon. Members of much longer experience than I have ignored this fact.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I have listened to a great deal of the debate. I am not making a winding-up speech; I am merely giving the view of the Department of Energy. Time is short, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I am here because my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked my

  1779
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to see that the views of his Department were expressed in the debate. We agreed that this would be done. As far as I am aware, no other hon. Member approached the Department.
  Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No.
  Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made representations to the Lord President's office and to the Government Chief Whip demanding the presence of Ministers from the Department of Energy and the Treasury. When they all appeared, no one was more pleased than I.
  Dr. Cunningham: I said that no other hon. Member had approached the Department of Energy. I do not deny that my hon. Friend approached the Lord President, but no one other than my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian approached us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and other hon. Members raised a number of points about the effect of this proposal on the Government's policy towards oil refineries. He mentioned, among other people, Lord Kearton, the Chairman of the BNOC, and also spoke about the commercial decisions of companies. Clearly this is not a matter for the Department of Energy. People make commercial decisions in their own way, in their own time and on the basis of their judgment of the potential in the market. It is surprising how many Opposition Members ignored that fact in their remarks and tried to ascribe to the Government powers which we do not have and in respect of which, if we sought to take them, we should be violently opposed by hon. Gentlemen.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned matters raised by the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The questions were asked of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and were taken up in a letter to the company. The company's reply was received, and both letters were published yesterday. Copies are available in the Library as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Rooker) has rightly said——
  Mr. Moate rose——
  Dr. Cunningham: We have been asked to comment on a number of other issues which are clearly not our responsibility. It has been astonishing to listen to a number of hon. Members speaking about environmental matters as though they are the responsibility of the Department when in fact the application was the subject of the longest-running public inquiry in Scottish history. That is a matter of fact. It is not a matter for the Department of Energy. We are here to make a decision on a Private Bill on a free vote. If Opposition Members cannot make up their minds on that basis—clearly many of them have not been able to do so—they should not be in the Chamber speaking for their constituents.
  I turn to the responsibilities of my Department. The need for the project has been questioned, the argument being put that there is already a surplus of refinery capacity. That matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian along with other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about our power to control refinery development. In fact, we have that power. It has been taken under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. However, the application referred to in the Bill was made before that Act became law. I should have thought that that was a well-known fact, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter so that it can be clarified.
  Our present refinery capacity is more than sufficient for our present national demands. It will take some time for the growth in demand to overtake that excess, although that will eventually happen, especially bearing in mind that we expect to be landing all the oil that we need for domestic needs by 1980. That means that there is no overriding case for the refinery in terms of present United Kingdom needs. That was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He made that clear in his decision letter following the local planning inquiry.
  All the evidence suggests that this is not a project directed mainly to the United Kingdom market. That is clear

  1781
  in the published correspondence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy took up this matter specifically in response to inquiries made in the letter written by the Transport and General Workers' Union to which I have already referred.
  It is intended that North Sea oil will be used for the bulk of the refinery's throughput. The export of most of the output of high value products on long-term contracts is anticipated. It is also intended to produce substantial quantities of petrochemical feedstock, of which we are currently net importers. This is intended to be mainly an exhort refinery. That removes the worries about an additional product surplus in the United Kingdom market and the effect of that on existing refinery facilities and employment in them.
  In his statement of 6th December 1974 on refinery policy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, as he now is, drew attention to the advantages of refining North Sea oil in this country before export. He also said that, while we were likely to have enough refinery capacity to meet our own needs in the 1980s, companies might be able to make a case for additional projects to supply export markets—that was in 1974—or to link with pretrochemical developments.
  9.30 p.m.
  The assurances that the company has given are entirely consistent with this policy. It is clearly unlikely that Cromarty Petroleum would be going ahead with its investment plans if it did not see good market opportunities. The company has undertaken to consult fully the Department and the British National Oil Corporation about its refining and marketing plans. I therefore have no reason for believing that this project will in any way conflict with our own long-term oil interests.
  If it goes ahead, the capacity will be available, we understand, in 1980 or 1981. By then we expect to be self-sufficient in oil. The decision to go ahead by the company and its success will rest on the market prospects, and that is a matter on which the sponsors must make their own commercial judgments.
  Sir John Gilmour: I was one of the Commissioners who considered this matter. Paragraph 6 of the submission that the Cromarty Petroleum Company has sent to us today states that the merits of the proposals have been endorsed after detailed consideration by Parliamentary Commissioners. I should like to make it clear to hon. Members that all that we were concerned with was whether there should be a compulsory purchase order for this particular bit of land, and we in no way gave any consideration to whether there should be a refinery. That was all that we were asked to do.
  It is, therefore, up to the Scottish Office, after overturning a planning inquiry and granting planning permission for this refinery, to show that this is really in the national interest for Scotland. If it can be so shown, undoubtedly it ought to be built.
  It is a quirk of how these procedures work out that if the Commissioners had felt able to accede to the request of the proprietor to grant a lease, I think that the objections would have been withdrawn. The Bill would have gone through without any opposition and we could not have had any discussion on it. Hon. Members may feel that some of our procedures might be altered so as to make certain that we can discuss planning permissions which can be overturned after the reporter has made his report.
  However, in the light of the fact that the land on which these jetties are to be built will very largely have to be dredged away in order to make the necessary jetties for the large tankers on the outside and for the small tankers on the inside, we felt that it was not a practical proposition that there should be a lease of this land. We therefore concurred with the compulsory purchase order. It was only for that reason that certainly I, as a Commissioner, came to that view, and this was the opinion formed by the majority of the Commission.
  Mr. Dalyell: When the hon. Gentleman was doing this work in Edinburgh on behalf of Parliament, did he feel entirely comfortable that his limits were so narrowly defined? On reflection and with hindsight, does he think that this kind of very narrow inquiry is the right

  1783
  way of tackling this extremely complex problem?
  Sir J. Gilmour: This is a matter that bears examination and argument. On the other hand, it would be very difficult for Parliament to agree to put the powers into the hands of the Secretary of State to take a planning decision, and, after he had taken it, to say "We are sorry but we shall not agree to it", and then to reverse it. One of the things that people say about how we can help industry most is "Let us not have industrial disorder. Let us get on with the job and let us say what people may or may not do."
  It would be easy for Parliament to take the power to override a planning decision taken by a Secretary of State.
  I hope, therefore, that, after due consideration, if we get a proper explanation of the necessity for the building of the refinery, the order will be confirmed.
  Mr. William Ross: I am the cause of all the trouble. If I had turned down the application made by Ross and Cromarty County Council to grant planning permission to the company, this debate would never have taken place. Had I done that, there would have been a much louder noise and many more people would have asked why I had refused to let a project go ahead that would produce about 400 jobs in a part of Scotland that we had singled out for future industrial development.
  I am surprised to hear hon. Members pretending that we should be discussing something other than what we are discussing, which technically is 47½ acres of land. All the rest of the land has been bought, but one absentee landowner, for reasons best known to himself, said "No".
  Mr. Peter Rost: It is his land.
  Mr. Ross: But he is prepared to lease the land for 99 years or take a share in the action. In other words, he wants out of it as much as he can get.
  Mr. Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ross: I am sorry, I have a limited amount of time. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) has spoken. I heard his speech on a previous occasion and I did not interrupt him.
  1784
  Not long ago the Conservative Government introduced a Bill to get rid of the long leases which cause trouble in Scotland and to enable people with long leases to turn them into feu tenure. That is quite alien to Scottish tradition. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was concerned about the proprietor, although he would probably be much more appreciative if the Highlands and Islands Development Board had taken over the land.
  New powers have come to local authorities, and the same is true in relation to refining capacity. The application came to us before we had powers for the proper planning of refining capacity either in Scotland or elsewhere. I wonder how many hon. Members voted against that Bill. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) might reflect on that.
  An hon. Member representing an English constituency voiced concern about conservation. I do not know whether he knows this area of land. I was there about a month ago, when I saw members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and they supported the project. This is not a mountainous area; far from it. Highland Fabricators is already there, pipe-coating is done in the area and there is an aluminium smelter. The people who put the environment first today are the people who put forward the same views in discussions on those projects.
  In discussion after discussion, inquiry after inquiry and project planning after project planning, it was decided that this was the area in which we should be able to begin to transform the Highlands. We are fortunate in that oil gives us another chance to do that.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was wrong in saying that the inquiry on this project was the longest inquiry there had ever been. He has never heard of Drumbuie. It was not Drambuie, but Drumbuie. That name is written in the heart of the former Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now in another place. That inquiry went on and on and it eventually came to me to make the decision.
  The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty knows very well that I made the right decision on environmental grounds. I have never been one to ignore the environmental aspects of Scotland. At

  1785
  the same time, I had not the slightest doubt at all that Drumbuie was absolutely vital, and that was admitted by the reporter. I think that the language that was used was that the environmental difficulties were not insurmountable. It came down to the question of the national need for oil.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy has given the right answer. In December 1974 we had, for the first time, a policy outlined by the then Minister in respect of refining. One of the things he made clear was that we would appear to have an adequate capacity up to about 1980. He said that, consistent with the policy of the particular company, it might be commercially desirable and it might not conflict with a policy for further capacity which might be related to exports.
  The question of the number of jobs was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr. He seemed to think there was some mistake in the letter that I carefully wrote and read. The one thing that there must not be in a decision letter is any conflict or mistake of that kind, because it could throw blight over any decision which is reached. In any planning letter, one should rest upon the facts which have been brought out in the inquiry and which have been agreed by both sides. The figure of 400 jobs was one which was agreed and accepted at that time. Let there be no doubt about that. Four hundred jobs in the area means an awful lot in addition to the 1,800 jobs in relation to construction.
  The other point was the question of cost per job. What surprised me was that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) realised that at one time there was an industrial policy in this country for regional development. A direct relationship was laid down between the cost and the number of jobs. There was a relationship of cost per job. It was not inflexible and it was probably higher in the Highlands area than anywhere else. However, that was wiped out by the 1972 Act.
  I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was in the Government at that time. By that time he had decided to depart—or the Prime Minister had decided that they would be better without him. I think
  1786
  that the hon. Gentleman had a bit of gall even to mention Clydeside tonight—him of all people mentioning Clydeside. That was the cause of his departure. He must remember the phrase "butchering UCS" He was the man who was ruthlessly prepared to create unemployment in the Clyde. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to believe what he said, but he has to live with it as far as Scotland is concerned. Some of his hon. Friends also have to live with it.
  Mr. Ridley: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—now Govan Shipyards)—has actually lost nearly £50 million since that time. Has he thought whether more gainful and secure employment could have been provided on Clydeside by that sum of money?
  Mr. Ross: It comes to the same thing. If one had not gone ahead with that project, would one have spent this money in the Highlands? Of course not.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) suggested that this money was coming from the SDA. I am surprised.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not suggest that.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman did. I took his words down. It has nothing to do with the SDA. It has nothing to do with a discretionary grant. It was an automatic grant under the 1972 Act.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman studies Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I said it was equivalent to the annual budget of the SDA, which would have been £40 million.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was from a limited sum of money which was available for Scottish development and that by spending it there it could not be spent elsewhere. I suggest that he is quite wrong. It is an automatic grant.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Shell project and some other projects. Shell projects have been mentioned in connection with constituencies south of the border. They get an automatic 20 per cent. capital grant if they are in development areas. I can take the hon. Gentleman to chemical developments which

  1787
  cost millions but employ only a handful of people.
  It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Bar should raise the question of whether these grants should be automatic or discretionary. But we must live in this world. My hon. Friend has every right to make a speech on this matter. I would defend his right. I used to make speeches on English matters, and the English did not worry about me. It may be that they could not understand what I was saying. But my hon. Friend made a very good speech on this matter.
  I recall that the ex-Leader of the Opposition used to make points about these grants, and they have been referred to by the STUC. But this matter is now within an Act of Parliament. Grants have been made for different developments. Therefore, we would be wrong to use this argument as a justification for voting against the Bill.
  Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could give us some guidance on this matter. This is probably one of the most important matters which has had to be decided since the war affecting my constituency. I should like to participate in the debate, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends also wish to take part. It is obvious that we shall not finish before 10 o'clock. Indeed, I apologise for interrupting the very interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Could you, however, tell us whether it is correct that the Government have indicated their willingness to give further time for this debate in the very near future?
  Mr. Speaker: That will be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, who will no doubt consult the usual channels about a further date if we do not reach a decision tonight. I am sure that that is the course that will be followed.
  Mr. Ross: I shall finish in exactly one minute. I want to hear the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who has to live with this situation. I know the feeling of the people in his constituency. They want this project to go ahead. The local authorities, the STUC,
  1788
  the local Labour Party and the constituency Labour Party want it. I, too, want to see this project go ahead. I hope that hon. Members will have second thoughts and allow it to go ahead.
  Mr. Gray: This has been an interesting debate, and I do not think that anybody who supports the project would complain about the length of it.
  Although there has been a great deal of sniping tonight, I believe that the company has nothing to hide. I have made exhaustive invesigations about the activities of the company. It has proved to me that many of the rumours and suggestions that have been made are without foundation.
  It is interesting that since we debated this subject on Second Reading considerable public interest has been aroused. I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that a considerable amount of this public interest has been stimulated by one of the major national oil companies—British Petroleum. I suppose that the company is absolutely entitled to have its say, but if I had anything to do with the Ludwig organisation and I had any doubt about the viability of the project it would certainly be removed by the activities of the British Petroleum Company.
  Mr. Moate: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that any of his hon. Friends have been influenced in their opposition at this stage by British Petroleum.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend must not misrepresent what I have said. I can see that I have hit a sore spot. I clearly said that the British Petroleum Company was perfectly entitled to its views and to stick to them, but that I was sure that this would do more to convince the scheme's promoters of its viability than anything else.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) declared an interest in the subject. He told us that he has had discussions with BP and that he is worried about the future of his constituents, although I am sure that he has no need to worry. Those who oppose the Bill on the ground of jobs cannot have it both ways. We are told that the company is making exaggerated claims about jobs, and that the number of jobs involved is too small.

  1789
  I do not suggest that any of my hon. Friends would be influenced in their judgment of this matter by the activities of a national oil company. I have the greatest possible regard for the way in which BP has carried out its activities in the exploration of the Forties field. In Mr. Matt Linning, it probably has one of the finest of the oil generation in this country. Nevertheless, its activties in this regard are questionable and mistaken.
  On 1st September 1976 an article in The Times was headed:
  "BP renews attack on project to build refinery at Nigg Bay".
  The article said that Mr. Monty Pennell, BP's deputy chairman, stated in a letter to a Scottish hon. Member that he had considerable doubts about the project. The article stated that
  "His letter to Mr. Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for West Lothian and an opponent of the plan for a £100 million refinery at Nigg, has been forwarded to Mr. Benn".
  Large and powerful as BP is, it does not have a monopoly of forward planning. Some of the criticisms were picked up by Professor Ian Fells, the Professor of Energy Conservation, Department of Chemical Engineering, at the University of Newcastle. Referring to BP directives he said that he could only conclude that BP had got its forward planning seriously wrong some years ago. He went on:
  "This means the consumer is paying for the mistake of over-provision and the chemical engineering contracting industry can gloomily anticipate another ever deeper trough in orders. … Of course, BP may subscribe to the ' no growth' lobby in which case their objection makes sense. But if they do they should come clean and say so."
  I thought that that was a very fair article, and the sentiment was echoed by yet another acknowledged authority in oil planning in Scotland. On 12th October, the Aberdeen Press and Journal carried the headline,
  "Economist raps bogus refinery argument."
  It referred not to the hon. Member for West Lothian or to any others who objected; it referred to the sort of arguments that were being deployed by people within the industry who really should have known better. I quote briefly from what Professor MacKay, late of the University of Aberdeen and now of Heriot-Watt University, said:
  1790
  "It is not without note that one of the major opponents of the Nigg Refinery is BP. It should not be part of our economic policy to say that because there is excess capacity in an industry we should not allow competition."
  That, quite simply, is getting at BP again. Later he said:
  "I would back the company's commercial judgment against the Government's any day."
  However, in this case the Government's commercial judgment and that of the company seem to agree, so I think that it is a pretty strong case.
  I turn now to the problem of refinery capacity. This is a matter that has been argued from a number of sources. Although existing refinery capacity is adequate at the moment, there is no guarantee that there will be, in effect, all that we require in the early 1980s. This company, which proposes to build its refinery at Nigg Bay, has announced that it will not be operational until the early 1980s. It is to be a new refinery. The number of jobs appears to be in question, but I do not think that the actual number of jobs involved at this stage is all that important.
  I say with all sincerity to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that he does not know the area. I know the area very well. I was born and brought up in the Highlands. I saw most of my friends having to go south. Some of them possibly went to the hon. Gentleman's part of the country. They had to go, for the simple reason that work was not available. For the first time this century, in the Highlands of Scotland we have the chance of creating a complex that will provide continuing employment enabling people to live and to stay there, with the result that their families will not have to move away.
  I suggest to the hon. Member for Perry Barr that probably in innocence—I do not think that there is any malice aforethought on his part—by his action he has put at risk a development of £150 million or £160 million. That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.
  Mr. Rooker: No.
  Mr. Gray: As Members of Parliament, we criticise the lack of investment, yet, when we have someone who is prepared to make this kind of investment in a part of Scotland which vitally needs

  1791
  it, we raise every conceivable issue to try to prevent it happening.
  Mr. Rooker: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that this Bill should have passed through the House without a debate?
  Mr. Gray: It may be that the hon. Member for Perry Barr was not here when I began my speech. I said that the debate had been very useful. Certainly I do not suggest that the Bill should pass through the House without debate. I am suggesting that questions have been asked and that I believe that answers have been given. It is wrong of people to try to block a project of this
  1792
  nature for reasons which perhaps are not obvious to us all.
  Time is running out. I hope that I may be able to continue at a future date.
  Mr. Wells: This debate has been a useful—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Energy Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  ENERGY BILL [Lords]
  Postponed proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.
  Schedule 4

    REPEALS AND SAVINGS
    Mr. Norman Fowler: As I was saying in moving Amendment No. 47, the debate is exploratory. We have 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. so-called temporary speed limits, introduced as a fuel economy measure in 1974. They were renewed in 1975 and they come up for further renewal, if that is the Government's decision, in about four weeks' time.
    The effect of the Act with which we are dealing is, I understand, not to renew those limits but to give the Government power to make speed limit orders on fuel economy grounds, but if the Government want to continue with the limits they must come back to the House for renewal. When I say "come back", let us be clear exactly what that means. The procedure is by negative resolution. Last year the Government renewed these limits but allowed the House only 12 minutes' debate. The debate was adjourned in December and was never resumed, in spite of all requests.
    The Government behaved in a discreditable and shabby manner. Thousands of motorists have been prosecuted under this law, yet Parliament was refused any effective means of challenging or questioning the proposals. That is not treatment that the Government would have attempted in any other part of the criminal law. With the motorist their attitude seems to be that anything goes.
    That is in the past. It gives me no great confidence in the Government's future actions. Before we can judge whether the powers which are the subject of the amendment are necessary, we must know the Government's plans. The 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. limits will lapse at the end of the next month unless the Government move to continue them. The Government must already have made up their mind whether they intend to go
    1794
    ahead with them. The House, having a rare opportunity to debate the question, will want to know what decision has been made by the Department of Transport.
    I should like to say why I believe that these limits should be scrapped. First, they lead to uncertainty and confusion. There is now a plethora of speed limits—30 m.p.h., 40 m.p.h., 50 m.p.h., 60 m.p.h. and 70 m.p.h. By any standard there are too many. What is worse, two of them—the 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. limits—are unmarked. Although the legal position has changed, no signs mark that change.
    Motorists on relatively short journeys can travel through a bewildering number of different speed limits when those changes are unmarked. That breaks the golden rule that every effort must be made to make the motorist aware of the law. Certainly the motorist in the United States is made aware of the situation, because in that country a general 55 m.p.h. limit operates. At least the motorist knows the position. The limit in the United States has been not only marked but extensively advertised on television and in the Press. However, in the United Kingdom the Government have not attempted to get the message across. Frankly, their position is that they do not give a damn for the motorist. Nevertheless, let them reflect that a law that leads to genuine confusion is bad law—and our present system amounts to just that.
    I have no sympathy for the motorist who flagrantly ignores speed limits—and such people certainly exist in the total number of prosecutions. In the last two years, no fewer than 25,000 motorists have been prosecuted for failing to observe unmarked 50- or 60-mph limits, and many feel a great sense of injustice. It should be an unwavering principle that the law should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair.
    Generally, relations between the police and the public are exceptionally good, and the Government should aim to maintain that situation. Let them not forget the point made by the Willink Committee on the police in 1962 that one of the most critical areas to consider is the relationship between the police and the motorist. If that relationship is wrong, a great deal of the relationship between the police and the public in general will be wrong.

    1795
    The 50- and 60-mph limits are justified on the ground that they are fuel-economy measures. Indeed, that is why they appear in the Energy Bill. How much fuel do the Government estimate is being saved by these limits? To date, the Government have been remarkably unforthcoming on this matter, but the fuel-saving aspect is the whole justification for these provisions. If the Government cannot give reliable information on the savings, an already crumbling case will collapse into ruins.
    The Government, when pressed, sometimes justify the measure on grounds of road safety. As a transport spokesman, I regard that argument as important, but I wish to know the evidence. However, that does not affect our main case—namely, that the law should be simpler. If the Government want to argue on road safety grounds, let them come forward with the evidence, and certainly with a much simpler procedure than the present one.
    There is strong public feeling on this matter. The motoring magazine Autocar has campaigned strongly and vigorously, and I pay full tribute to that journal for its efforts. We all know from the many petitions that have been presented to Parliament that many motorists feel very strongly about this matter. For far too long the Government have ducked a debate. They can do so no longer. Renewal of these powers will come before the Department of Transport during the next few weeks, and at this stage the Government must know their plan. We shall regard it as totally unsatisfactory if the Government's reply this evening is simply to the effect that they are still considering the subject.
    The time has come for the Government to come clean on this issue. They have a shabby record. If the Minister does not believe it, I suggest that he reads the history of this matter. I hope that the Minister can at least do something partly to redeem that record.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The whole House, indeed the whole country, is familiar with the atmosphere of torpor and congestion that generally pervades the roads following the introduction of these two temporary speed limits. Yet the curious anomaly persists
    1796
    that, although these limits were introduced for one reason, their retention is defended for a totally different reason. They were introduced, we were told, to save fuel, as part of some window-dressing exercise at the time of the energy crisis. It presumably looked good, and perhaps it was part of the habitual practice which occurs at times of crisis to try to impress our creditors.
    Even at that time, it was admitted that it would save only a fraction of a fraction of the fuel costs. Since then, as has been said, 25,000 people have been prosecuted. But the reason for retaining the limits has shifted from that of saving energy to that of preventing accidents. Yet there is no statistical evidence to show that accidents are prevented by this expedient.
    Leaving aside the curious practice of defending a measure on grounds totally separate from those that were originally put forward for its introduction, there is a total absence of any statistical evidence, other than of the simplest kind, relating the total number of accidents to previous years. This ignores the number of vehicles on the roads and the fact that the increased cost of petrol probably means that people use their cars less. Accidents are a function of total mileage, and it seems probable that people are doing, on average, a smaller mileage. The statistics are suspect in the general way in which they have been presented.
    Another reason sometimes produced, one which was given to me by the former Transport Minister in reply to a Question, is "In any case, most motorists observe the limits". That is hardly surprising when we consider the heavy penalties to which they are subjected. If a motorist's licence is endorsed three times in three years for exceeding the speed limit, it is taken away. The House will agree that one of the heaviest penalties which an otherwise law-abiding citizen can pay is to be deprived of the means of getting to and from work, enjoying his leisure and taking out his family. When this is simply for having infringed a largely bogus measure it is an enormous penalty.
    The argument that everyone observes the limits and, therefore, those limits can be kept because people are accepting them is highly specious. Psychiatrists tell us that people exceed the speed limit because they have a super-abundance of

    1797
    male hormones, or some such fashionable argument. To those who contend that motorists are observing the limits, it can be said that if the speed limit was reduced to 20 m.p.h. and was enforced—if you will forgive a certain medical crudity, Mr. Deputy Speaker—by the castration on the spot of those exceeding it, it is possible that the deterrent effect would mean that there would be no accidents at all. It could be said "What a splendid measure this is".
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly all motorists suffer from a disease known as the "malady of supposed urgency?"
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Clark: I suppose that the idea of the malady of supposed urgency has some substance at times, but I cannot accept that it should be associated with penalties of such severity as are attached to these statutory requirements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, the requirements are not accompanied by warning signs. People put their driving licences on the line, without any means of knowing the sort of circumstances in which they are likely to be apprehended.
    Moreover, as always happens with the introduction of legislation of this kind, much money is spent to make it even easier to apprehend law-breakers. Anyone who drives on a motorway sees the raised lay-bys marked "Police vehicles only" all over the country. Who pays for them—the central Exchequer or the local authority? Somebody has paid for them.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State for Transport were present it might be possible to address these questions with some hope of answer?
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): My hon. Friend and I are here to give answers.
    Mr. Clark: I hear what the Minister says, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made an important point. As I recall it, on the last occasion this subject was discussed in the House the Secretary of State's predecessor was present but the total time then available to the House was about nine minutes. On this occasion, I do not know whether
    1798
    hon. Members on either side think it satisfactory that a Minister in charge of an entirely different Department claims that he is empowered to give answers. We shall see what answers he gives, but it remains unsatisfactory that we are compelled to consider this question in depth on an occasion of this kind.
    I was speaking about expenditure. Additional expense has been incurred in installing comprehensive radar equipment in police cars solely for the purpose of measuring the speed of motor cars, and, be it noted, motor cars travelling in a straight line. It cannot be done when a motorist is executing a dangerous manoeuvre or going round a corner, for example. The speed can be measured only when vehicles are travelling in a straight line. I doubt that the putative saving in fuel costs is as great as the extra expenditure on the various items of equipment, structural modifications alongside motorways and the rest.
    I am sure that all my hon. Friends agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he suggests that this is all part of the Government's congenital nature, in that they seek to regiment every kind of private activity. Here is a wonderful opportunity for them. They can pretend that it has something to do with saving fuel, and they then bring in not one but three different categories of restriction on people without giving them the means of knowing at any given moment the sort of restriction to which they are subject. I know that there is a distinction between dual-carriageway and single-carriageway roads, but this distinction can be blurred, depending upon whether the two carriageways are separated by a continuous strip of paving, a grass strip or white lines of varying width.
    In my view, the Government welcome these restrictions because they welcome anything of this kind which is unclear, since one can then always find in favour of the central authority which seeks to regiment individual citizens. One of the means which gives independence, a certain unpredictability and an entrée into the world of material possessions is the motor car, and to this the Government have always objected most. They approve of people who make motor cars—we all know about that—but those who possess and use motor cars have been

    1799
    victimised by all kinds of petty legislation. This may relate to seat belts, to dazzling them with headlights at night or to paying more for the MOT test.
    There are endless varities of petty niggling laws which are being imposed on the motorist. They are not being imposed in the interests of road safety or of energy conservation. Such arguments are spurious. Their real purpose is to regiment the motorist, and we are determined to lift this burden from his shoulders.
    Mr. Peter Rost: In my view, the speed limits of 50 and 60 m.p.h. have become counterproductive in terms of energy conservation. I would be the first to support them if it could be shown that it was sensible to put them on a compulsory basis and if it could be proved that the limits were making a useful contribution to energy conservation, but this is not so. I believe that people are anxious to conserve fuel themselves by better motoring practice and that they are prepared to discipline themselves simply because of the market price of petrol. This is a far better discipline and incentive than a restrictive measure which only adds to the difficulties of enforcement and involves extra costs. It also antagonises a large section of the community against a bureaucracy which seems to be insensitive to the real needs of the situation.
    I hope that the Government will accept that the time has come to abandon these particular restrictions. I hope that they will use part of their publicity and promotion campaign as well as their energy-saving campaign to advise those motorists—only a small minority who need reminding from time to time—how much money they can save on fuel by sensible driving practices, including voluntary restraint in the use of the accelerator. This would be far more sensible and would ensure far more co-operation from the public and less antagonism towards the police and bureaucracy, as well as making a far more valuable contribution to energy saving.
    On the question of penalties I think it is quite immoral—not merely unfair, but downright immoral—that penalties should be imposed which lead to the cancellation of the right to drive a vehicle
    1800
    after three offences which have nothing to do with driving dangerously or endangering the public. If one were fined for speeding and prosecuted for dangerous driving, there would be every justification for eventually having one's licence removed, but to be fined in the interests of energy conservation for exceeding an arbitrary speed limit should not be an offence of the same weight as that of endangering the public. There is an important moral distinction here.
    Mr. Viggers: I am not proud to make this speech. I have an interest to declare which is known, no doubt, to the magistrates at Petersfield in Hampshire. I was convicted of exceeding the 50-mph speed limit.
    This subject has nothing whatever to do with party politics. If we on this side were in power, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) would be defending this measure from the Government Benches against attacks by the Labour Party. This is an example of the torpor of Government. We saw it with the Drought Bill, when the country baked and roasted and nothing happened until the drought became obvious even to civil servants and the Government. The impositions were then put on. When the floods came, the Government did nothing and the Minister with responsibility in the matter travelled around the West Country turning on standpipes in flood conditions.
    We now face a similar situation. The energy crisis caused the imposition of speed limits which the Government have failed to remove. They should do so now. The only argument in favour of the limits is fuel saving. They may be defended on the basis of road safety, but that is not why they were imposed originally. The saving of fuel is not sufficient cause for maintaining the limits, for one overwhelming reason.
    I give you my word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I trust you will accept it, that I did not know when I was charged with exceeding 50 mph that the limits were still in force. As a lawyer and a Member of Parliament, I ought to have known——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I do not know whether the

    1801
    hon. Member is asking me to accept or reject his lack of knowledge on these matters, but what he has just told us is characteristic of lawyers.
    Mr. Viggers: I am almost silenced by your witty intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not know that the limits were still in force. If I did not know, how could the 2 million people in this country who are incapable of reading understand that the limits are still in force? I put it to the Government that the uncertainty of the present position is so great that there must be vast numbers among the 25,000 people found guilty of motoring offences who had no idea that they were guilty of an offence.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield made an important point when he said that it was vital for the police not to be exposed to a situation in which they were charging persons who were innocent of intent. If I did not know that the speed limits were in force, how on earth could the "man on the Clapham omnibus" know?
    Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not wish it to be thought that I was concealing an interest, and, therefore, I too should declare convictions in the past and prosecutions pending.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that submission to the House. I can assure him that he will not be castrated.
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is it necessary to declare one's bills, past or present, in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I do not consider a fine to be an interest in this matter.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If one has been fined, it is helpful to declare that fact.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wiggin: In that case I, too, must declare that I have an endorsement on my licence for speeding with a trailer.
    We often hear comments from constituents and others that the value of this House is constantly being debased. I find it appalling and astonishing that such an important matter, which affects millions of people, should be debated in this way, late on a Thursday when both
    1802
    sides of the House know that the rest of the business is not sufficiently controversial to require a full attendance. This is not the first time that this situation has occurred. The order was dismissed in nine minutes on the last occasion when it was brought before the House.
    Apparently there was not time to debate the seat belts Bill last week, yet we found time to discuss the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and next week we shall be considering a Bill dealing with endangered species. It is appalling that matters of life and limb, commerce and transport and the lifeblood of the nation should be debated in this way.
    If we are to prevent this House becoming a butt and a mockery to the nation, we must complain when the Government's business managers bring on this sort of thing at this hour.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter was not brought on at this time of night. It started as the main business this afternoon.
    Mr. Wiggin: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it happens to be on at this time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that it was brought on at this time.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am not going to argue with you about the semantics, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it is too late to do that—but I regard it as an insult to the nation that we should be dealing with something of such vast importance in such a way. Its introduction into an Energy Bill when it ought to be in a transport Bill is the root cause of our problems.
    As far as I am aware, no other limitation of speed has been brought in by any measure other than a Road Traffic Act or its equivalent.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Not so.
    Mr. Wiggin: I hope that the Minister or his colleague will put me right if I am mistaken, although I object to having an Energy Minister replying to the debate. The Secretary of State for Transport should be here. His predecessor attended the Finance Bill Committee when we discussed cherished number plates and, although he regretted having

    1803
    done so, he considered it his responsibility to deal with that part of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that tonight we should deal with the amendment which is before us.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am dealing with it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It refers to speed limits. It is rational that we should have proper evidence of the savings produced by this measure in terms of gallons and lives—if that is to become an argument.
    The Transport and Road Research Laboratory, the police and other responsible people will argue that a 50 m.p.h. limit—and we should remember that only seven years ago there was no limit on our main roads—is correct. If one pursues their argument a little further, however, limits of 40, 30 or even 20 m.p.h. would be correct because the lower the limit, the greater the saving of life. Unhappily, we have to accept some penalty for being able to transport ourselves conveniently and rapidly, and that penalty is the tragic and mounting toll of road traffic casualties.
    The fact that the Government turned their back on the simplest and easiest way of stopping the casualties by introducing the compulsory wearing of seat belts is entirely their own fault.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It was a House of Commons decision.
    Mr. Wiggin: It has nothing to do with the decisions of the House. The Government brought in a measure and they did not back it. They brought it on at strange times and on different days.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the seat belt measure.
    Mr. Wiggin: I was discussing casualties. I understand that this limitation is argued by many authorities as a means of reducing casualties. Many other countries have speed limits of this sort, but they do not argue them on the ground of energy saving. They are argued on the ground of saving life. Surely we cannot have a sensible debate if we do not introduce that aspect. I sincerely hope that the Minister will mention it. It must be relevant. It is a factor that I shall consider before deciding how to respond to the amendment. It is surely
    1804
    connected with the way in which lifesaving measures and transport measures are being handled.
    Another point about the 50-mph general speed limit on roads other than motorways and dual carriageways is the conflict that the ordinary motorist will have with the police. I do not want to enter into an argument about whether the police should have to deal with all traffic offences, although I know that they wish to keep the right to do so, but the fact remains that at every corner of every reasonable "B" road at every hour there will be dozens of cars breaking the 50-mph speed limit. It is not difficult now for a police patrol car to position itself at a corner and catch a rash of offenders in a fairly short time. That can be done by officers sitting in a patrol car only a few miles from their base. I know for certain that any police officer who is experienced in these matters would agree.
    It is no good passing legislation that the average members of our population will not willingly obey. Certainly they will not willingly obey the 50-mph speed limit—[Interruption.] I did not catch what the Minister of State said from a sedentary position. Does he wish me to give way?
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I have been provoked into dealing with this matter. This provision arises from the legislation that the Conservative Government introduced in 1973. We are seeking to continue it for a very short time so that we can get all the statistics for which the hon. Gentleman asks. The hon. Gentleman cannot make these assertions without proving what lie is saying by producing statistics, and he has not done so. He should be reasonable and allow the amendment to be accepted. In six months' time we shall review the whole matter.
    Mr. Wiggin: I utterly reject that argument although I can understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to use it. We are sent here by constituents to represent their viewpoint. I do not claim to be the great oracle in reading the views of my constituents, but I know that they do not react favourably to a 50-mph limit. I know that they are breaking it by the dozen every hour of the day. I do not think that any Member now present in the Chamber—unhappily, there are only a few of us here—would deny that.

    1805
    I do not wish to be a party to passing laws that the majority of the population does not and will not obey. If the hon. Gentleman is truly serious about fuel economy—the fact is that the Government are not really serious about petrol economy—he knows that there is a vast bureaucratic machine for dealing with the matter. For example, there were petrol coupons that were issued but never used. If the Government are so serious, why did they not use them? It seems that expense was incurred for no purpose. I find the Government's argument totally fragile and transparent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) referred to penalties for motoring offences, and especially to exceeding the speed limits. One of the offences that attract an automatic endorsement is parking a certain number of yards from traffic lights. There are many people who collect an endorsement for what is really a parking offence. The Government are now seeking permission to bring in a speed limit which, I suggest, the vast majority of motorists will not obey. People do not go out thinking that they will commit a crime when they commit a motoring offence. It is not an offence in the true historical sense of "offence" or "crime".
    The Member is now delving into an area that is not normally part of his Department's responsibilities. He must accept that, when the Bill goes through, he will have brought suddenly into his field a whole new world with which his Department is not equipped to deal and upon which it has no authorisation. I for one would not wish to rely upon its advice.
    I hope that the question of speed will be dealt with in the hon. Gentleman's reply to the debate. I do not think that the right way to deal with road speed is to constrain people to the point at which frustration and impatience build up. Those of use who drive many miles a year—unhappily, I do—know that it is the personality behind the wheel that matters in road safety. It is the very constraints imposed by the law that are often dangerous. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether the constant watching of one's mirror on a motorway does not cause as many accidents as lifting the limit from 70 mph to 80 mph or 85 mph,
    1806
    which would be a more comfortable speed for the modern motor car.
    Road traffic laws are already far too complex. To impose by statute speed limits of 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 miles per hour, which is what in effect the order will produce, is to impose too many. A great step forward in road safety would be made if a more rational approach to the whole question of speed limits were introduced. I am not saying that with that there might not be a great increase in fines. It is extremely important that if we have speed limits they should be adhered to. The margin established with police forces is now well known to motorists. That margin allows people to break the law knowing that perhaps they will not be prosecuted.
    Here is an area in which the Government should be totally constructive instead of proposing what is, in truth, a road safety measure in the guise of an Energy Bill and doing it without the necessary evidence.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): Whatever else we should or should not consider, it is clear that we should not have any debates at this time of night on any subject, judging by some of the speeches we have heard recently. We reject entirely the rather childish allegations that in some way the present Government have a down on motorists and that we either seek to hedge them about with petty restrictions and delight in people breaking the law, or are engaged in setting limits which we know will upset or frustrate people. All of that is nonsense, and it has no place in a rational debate in the House of Commons.
    We have had a great deal of breast beating and revelation from Opposition Members. They have made it clear that, whatever people may be doing up and down the country in response to the existing speed limits, Conservative Members do not have a very good idea of the Road Traffic Acts or a very good ability to stay within present speed limits. That is a matter for them. I am delighted that we have not had a similar response from Labour Members.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Will the Minister give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am intent on responding to the speeches in the debate and some of the wild allegations. [Interruption.]. The Opposition spokesman says "What a nasty speech." I am replying to the kind of allegation that has been made by his colleagues and himself. If that is nasty, he should have thought about that before he set the tone for the debate.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Surely he will.
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has been a Member of the House long enough to know that if a Minister, or any other hon. Member, does not give way, he does not give way.
    Dr. Cunningham: We have been criticised for another error of fact, and we have been blamed for the subject being debated at this time of night. That clearly is not so, as you yourself pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    10.45 p.m.
    Another error of fact, which I had better get out of the way, relates to the seat belts legislation. There was a free vote of the House on that Bill, as there has been in the past. The Government can hardly be blamed, whatever the outcome on that. Indeed, most people would agree that it was right that such a matter should be the subject of a free vote.
    Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am bound to say that I welcomed—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. Cunningham.
    Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Cunningham: I welcomed the speeches and the general tenor of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). They were in marked contrast to some of the other speeches we have heard tonight.
    One thing on which I can agree with the Conservative Front Bench is that the
    1808
    purpose of the provision is to continue permanently the enabling power under which speed limits, for the purpose of saving fuel, were fixed. That will not by itself make speed limits permanent. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) asked me to clear that point up. I willingly do so. We are at one with him on this matter.
    Regarding the effect of the amendment, it would prevent the preservation of the Fuel Control (Modification of Enactments) (Speed Limits) Order 1973. That was introduced by the Conservative administration. That order was made under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973. The present Bill provides for the repeal of that 1973 Act. Therefore, unless the order as such is continued under this Bill, it will lapse as soon as the 1973 Act is repealed. I think that that has entirely cleared up that point. The House will recall that the order was made during the 1973–74 energy emergency. It is an enabling order giving powers to make specific speed limit orders for fuel-saving purposes. These provisions have been continued since that time. The general limit of 50 m.p.h. was ended at the end of the emergency. Subsequently this Modification of Enactments Order also enabled the making of the order of December 1974 setting a 60 m.p.h. speed limit on dual carriageways other than motorways and a 50 m.p.h. limit on other roads.
    When the regulations were introduced in December 1974, it was on the basis that excessive speed wasted petrol, as well as costing lives. The limits were an assessment of what should be done having regard to fuel saving and safety. As both sides of the House have agreed, we should still be doing all we can in this country to conserve petrol and reduce our oil import bill.
    I agree that the limits we have are broadly similar to limits which obtain in other countries in the Western world. However, it is true that there have been vigorous representations against the use of speed limits, on grounds both of safety and of conserving energy. I do not dissociate myself from the points which have been made in that respect.
    We believe that people should be in absolutely no doubt that there have been considerable protests of that nature. I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will be pleased—in spite of his

    1809
    displeasure at my earlier remarks—that we therefore accept there should now be a careful reassessment of the position and of the usefulness and acceptability of the present limits.
    Mr. Viggers: May I ask why consideration was not given to the subject before?
    Dr. Cunningham: Consideration was not given to the subject before because the proceedings were terminated very rapidly after the subject came on for discussion in the House.
    My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Transport agree that there should be a public discussion of the evidence, the pros and cons and all the arguments before a final decision is taken. We accept that it may well be that on a number of grounds the present limits are not quite right from either the fuel economy or the safety point of view. We accept that point, which was put very forcefully from the Opposition Benches.
    However, the present limits are set by a temporary speed limit order which is due to expire on 30th November. If the fuel economy provisions were allowed to lapse there would be no automatic return to a national limit of 70 mph, which is the upper limit on motorways. If the present order which expires on 30th November is not extended or revised, there will be no speed limit on most of our country roads, except for the motorways which are not affected by it.
    We recognise that it is not feasible to consult representative organisations and consider their views by the end of November. I think most people would argue, rightly, that that is far too short a time scale, and we accept that. We are determined to give people the opportunity to think about the matter and to consult each other and the Government. We also want to allow ourselves sufficient time to weigh up the views that are put to us.
    I hope that the Opposition will accept the proposal to allow six months for consultation with a wide range of public interests about the economic and road safety arguments for and against the existing limits. I give the House the undertaking that a consultation document will be circulated as soon as possible setting out the various considerations to
    1810
    be taken into account. It will include the results of a survey carried out during last summer on, among other things, the observance of the limits. Early next year the Government will decide, in the light of the replies to the consultation document, what speed limits it would be appropriate to adopt next spring.
    I hope that with this assurance the Opposition will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Before the Minister sits down, I hope he will allow me to say that the last part of his speech was considerably better than the first part. What annoyed my hon. Friends was his gratuitous insults to hon. Members, which I hope he will take the opportunity of withdrawing.
    The Minister made an important statement. Will he be specific on when the debate in the House will take place? One of the Opposition's major complaints is that on the last occasion when the limits came up for debate only 12 minutes' debate was allowed. We regard that as totally inadequate. I recognise how far the Government have gone tonight, but will the Minister give an assurance that a full debate will take place within the next six months before any further changes are made?
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks. I cannot be specific about the date of the debate. The hon. Gentleman must know that this is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. I have given a firm assurance on the main items that were of concern to the Opposition, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances as a guarantee of our good faith. I cannot say more than that.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: I still regret the hon. Gentleman's comments, which are not in keeping with a Minister of the Crown. In view, however, of the important assurance that the Government have given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 48, in page 27, line 4, at end insert—
    'The Order in Council above is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it

    1811
    had been made under section 4(3) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it, and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits.'.
    No. 49, in page 27, line 13, leave out 'the above orders' and insert
    'the orders set out in this Part'.—[Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: I spoke on Second Reading but did not have the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee. Therefore, I do not think that it is out of place, because it is not particularly late by the traditions of the House, for me to make some observations on Third Reading.
    The Minister of State said it was untrue that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was itching to intervene and to exercise new powers relating to energy. It was obvious that the Opposition did not agree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that he was substantially right.
    Indeed, my difficulty regarding the Bill is of an entirely different character. The trouble with the Department of Energy at present is not that it does too much but that, in areas where only the Department can decide, it does too little. It does not seem able in many respects to make up its mind on anything at all. Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell the House whether the wider powers granted by this measure will assist the necessary powers of decision in the Department immediately or whether we shall have to wait for an emergency?
    Under Clause 7, the Minister may give directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the control of power station stocks. But for how long shall we have the CEGB with us? Lord Plowden's committee, which worked so hard on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry, recommended that the CEGB and the Electricity Council should be abolished and that a strong central executive should be created in their place to take over both generation and distribution. It is quite some time since the Plowden Committee reported,
    1812
    but we have had no news as to whether there will be any action. I should have thought that at least a White Paper would have assisted.
    Under Clause 8, to take yet another example, the powers of the British Gas Corporation and of the Minister regarding natural gas matters have been greatly strengthened. Under Clause 1 the Minister may control gas prices. That provision is no doubt for use in an emergency.
    In the meantime, there is no indication of any policy on the depletion rate of gas supplies or a true cost pricing policy in relation to alternative energy supplies. There is silence from the Department. In consequence, the surplus of electricity generating plant grows while our plant manufacturers look for orders and their employees face the prospect of the dole. Here is an area where decisions by the Minister should not be delayed, though I fear that they will be.
    Lastly, but most important of all in the context of this Energy Bill, we need a decision whether, in the judgment of the Government, it is necessary to prepare for or to ignore the risk of an energy gap towards the end of the century. Dr. Marshall, the eminent Chief Scientist to the Department, is convinced that there will be such a gap, and I am sure he is right. That is why a decision on the fast breeder reactor is imperative.
    The Chief Scientist appeared on television recently and put his view forward, but the political arm of his own Department seems to think that the gap will vanish if only enough people succeed in talking it out of existence. That is a most extraordinary way even of not reaching a decision. I do not object to the Department having the extra powers of the Bill, but if the House grants them we should in return at least have a policy.
    11.1 p.m.
    Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has made a short but pertinent contribution to the Third Reading. He reminds us that the Energy Bill, now reaching its final stages, is the only legislative contribution that has been made to energy policy during the current Session of Parliament, other than the Coal Bill which dealt with the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board and was passed earlier in the Session. The

    1813
    hon. Member rightly alerts us to the provisions of Clause 7 and its implications for the organisation of the electricity supply industry. He also drew our attention to the clauses which affect the Government's whole pricing strategy in relation to the various components of total energy supplies.
    We missed the hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee because, even in the more leisurely circumstances of that occasion, these issues were canvassed in a fairly charming, reasonable nonpartisan fashion. Despite that, the answers were not at all helpful. The hon. Gentleman is well advised to cling to the last straws provided by the Bill, because I have tabled a Question for Monday on the Government's intentions in respect of the Plowden report and I understand that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East has a similar Question. I think that we shall be disappointed by the replies. We both travel with that degree of scepticism which is all too common in politics.
    On Third Reading the House must consider whether the Bill, with the armoury it contains, really provides a basis for the Government to proceed with their policy for energy. The Bill is sad and disappointing when related to the expectations that were raised by the reference to energy in the Queen's Speech almost a year ago.
    In Committee we had a most constructive debate, working on the helpful foundations which had been laid in another place, where the Bill was first debated. I might say how much I appreciated the assistance which I received from all my colleagues in the Standing Committee. Understandably, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) feels mildly exhausted by the events which immediately preceded this Bill, but he was a great pillar throughout the Committee stage, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost).
    The reservations which the Opposition still have about the Bill are very largely contained in Clause 1. They concern both the problems of end use and the powers of price control. As the Bill has finally taken its shape, both these
    1814
    contentious matters are contained in Clause 1.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East has made conservation very much his speciality, and I know that he feels a keen sense of regret, which we share, that there was not another method whereby the conservation aspirations of the Bill could have been contrived. The rules of order do not enable me to refer to a clause which is not in the Bill, but it is our judgment that New Clause 1, which was voted down earlier today, would have been very much preferable with the conservation aspects of the legislation cast in that form.
    What I am about to say I shall try to put at a reasonably temperate level, because if I put it at an intemperate level the atmosphere would not be conducive at this hour. Our worry is that, both in respect of end use and in respect of the powers of price control, there is the prospect of the politicisation of management decision in energy matters, especially in the oil industry. I say that in the presence of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, who has had more experience than any of us of surveying a series of Governments who, for one reason or another, have sought to intervene in the management of our public utilities, on the whole with a net disadvantageous consequence. Therefore the warning is writ large, and I feel that it is one which to some extent has been neglected in the fashioning of the Bill.
    If we consider the powers which the Government are seeking concerning end use—the conservation powers—it remains the settled conviction of the Opposition that price is still as good a conserver as we know. We seem to be recruiting to our ranks the Under-Secretary, whose appointment we welcome. We wish him well and hope that he will perhaps stay in that post a little longer than his immediate predecessor—although his immediate predecessor had such a valuable apprenticeship that he moved to a better-paid, if not an otherwise more rewarding, occupation.
    When talking to the British Junior Chamber in Brighton, the Under-Secretary said that
    "energy saving is not merely a going concern, but a profitable one."

    1815
    I am not a theologian about these matters, but I prefer to hear Ministers talking about profits than about other forms of motivation, because I think that they lie a shade nearer the basic realities of human nature.
    Inasmuch as the price mechanism can be used to serve the end of conservation, on the whole it is likely to be most effective. But there are many other considerations which the Government may have in mind where conservation provides a useful cloak. This is a matter which was referred to in our debates earlier today.
    The Minister of State will say that he has considerable powers under the submarine oil pipelines legislation and that one is being hyper-sensitive to suppose that he would have to have recourse to Clause 1 to secure these objectives. But I have no doubt that the Government are very concerned about the location of petrochemical developments. Anyone listening to the debate on the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill earlier this evening, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty took such a distinguished part, will realise that this is a matter which will command wide attention in the House. As the Minister reminded his audience at Stavanger recently, in respect of a proposed North Sea gas supply system, there are considerable consequences in terms of investment location of great interest to him in his political capacity. We understand that.
    The Minister said:
    "There are companies interested in exploiting this valuable feedstock. What we must ensure is that petrochemical development is carefully controlled, taking full account of the environment, of infrastructure considerations, of employment, as well as its financial viability. This we are determined to do."
    I note those words. I do not invest them with any sinister significance, but when Governments have these wide-ranging objectives there is always a well-founded anxiety that the end-use provisions of Clause 1 could well determine that end when I feel that there might be more appropriate legislative means.
    I turn to the second point which has given us anxiety and which we sought to rectify by our votes—alas, frustrated—on Report. I refer to the powers of price control. The Minister based a
    1816
    great deal of his argument upon the paraffin order. He will not be disappointed to have seen on the Order Paper a Prayer seeking to annul that order. Whether this great parliamentary drama will have the opportunity to be unfolded, so that the great divide between us can be fully revealed, I know not. But the case for price control cannot really rest upon the paraffin order. The more the House knew about the working of that order, the more it would be fascinated.
    The reality is that there has been a substantial increase in the use of paraffin, as there has been a substantial increase in the use of Calor gas, related not to any of the provisions of the paraffin order but merely to the substantial rise in the price of electricity which persuaded many people to see whether there were cheaper alternative fuels.
    I do not challenge the Minister of State, but at least I invite him to place statistics before the House. We should like to know the exact profile of the average consumer of paraffin. Is it the elderly person on low income? Has the tremendous expansion in paraffin consumption been a result of an enormous increase in the significance of this category in the community, or are we persisting with an order in respect of this fuel largely out of nostalgic considerations, quite unrelated to current economic and social circumstances? I believe that it will be very difficult to sustain the case that the paraffin order is fulfilling some social objective. I doubt whether data can be produced to sustain that argument.
    However, what worried me in particular was that when the Minister of State was answering points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty about the price control measures he gave a roll-call of interests which had asked that there should be powers of price control, and inevitably and predictably they were all consumers of oil products. They were happy that the impact of the Government's legislation would be to hold paraffin at a price lower than would otherwise be the case.
    I have the gravest reservations about the long-term beneficial consequences of permanent powers of this character. We have only to look round the Western

    1817
    world to see where Government intervention in response to that kind of lobbying has been counter-productive to the national interest. I quote from a talk given on 19th October in New York by G. A. Wagner, President of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company:
    "the patchwork of United States energy price controls still encourages consumption, and retards the search for more oil and gas to halt the rapid decline in domestic production."
    That is evidence of the state of affairs in North America and should be a warning to this country. I hope that it will be taken as such by the Minister of State.
    I trust that when the hon. Gentleman comes to consider that quotation, and indeed the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, he will do all he can to assure the House that it will not be the Government's intention to use these powers in a manner detrimental to the level of profitability of the oil industry. We have to be reconciled to a high level of profitability to ensure that degree of investment that will be necessary to give this country a reasonable choice in energy sources.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said in Committee:
    "The next point I want to make is that I do not believe that Governments are capable of pricing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 29th June 1976; c. 142.]
    The right lion Gentleman puts these things in rather more direct controversial language than perhaps I would use, because I find myself occupying the middle ground. Nevertheless, the doyen of the Liberal Party seems to have hit on a fundamental truth: that our experience of Government centralised agencies taking a view on energy prices has on the whole tended to intensify our difficulties and problems rather than ameliorate them.
    This Bill had a fairly controversial launching in the House of Lords. What was once the handiwork of the Department of Energy became the aristocratic handiwork of the other place. We tried to improve the measure, but, alas, the Government were not prepared to accept the Bill in the terms in which it reached this House. I fear that both in respect of the end-use and price-control provisions they have left the Bill with two major flaws. On those points we have our pro-
    1818
    found reservations. Therefore, the Bill goes its way improved but certainly still imperfect.
    11.20 p.m.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We have all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). It was almost his maiden speech tonight. He has had a good go at everything. When I was rescued from the obscurity of the Back Benches, as Chairman of the Manifesto Group, and was made Minister of State at the Department of Energy, the question was whether I would have an interesting dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
    That was not really the question. I have had a most interesting dialogue with the hon. Member for Oswestry, who is—if I may say so with respect to my right hon. Friend—a much more interesting political personality. My right hon. Friend is a very moderate man. The hon. Gentleman is such an extreme man that I find it fascinating to listen to his arguments. He is an absolute purist in terms of laissez faire and the working of the market and all the rest. I would love to believe him, but all the evidence is so much against him.
    Take, for example, the simple instance of the paraffin order which I innocently introduced as non-political exhibit No. 1 in the defence of the use of these powers. It was introduced by the Conservatives originally. It was a perfectly justifiable instrument. It was sustained by us, altered in different ways. It was certainly in defence of these powers. It may have been open to abuse in various ways which the hon. Gentleman described, but if I had divided the House, as I threatened to do, I would have carried half the Tory Party with me as well as the whole of the Labour and Liberal Parties, including the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), whom I see in the Chamber.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East will continue to make the same valiant contributions to our debates on these matters as he made in Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who is now Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, for all he did on this Bill. He worked closely and well with me and a better companion I could not find—apart, of course, from my hon.

    1819
    Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who is now Under-Secretary at my Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes did well and certainly improved the provisions of the Bill during our discussions.
    I take the view that Ministers ought to change a Bill when they discuss it in Parliament. No Bill is perfect when it is introduced. It ought to be altered as Ministers go along. There is no dot or comma that is sacrosanct in any Bill. Alas, the Bills—and they occur—that have never changed from start to finish are not the Bills that they ought to have been.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Like the European Communities Bill.
    Dr. Mabon: That is one. The Industrial Relations Bill was another. There are various others I could cite. I do not want to embarrass my own side in this respect.
    Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he and I valiantly walked through the Lobby to try to secure, without success, changes in the European Communities Bill?
    Dr. Mabon: That was a most unhappy part of my life, not because I was with the hon. Gentleman but because it was such a painful affair from beginning to end. However, we have arrived where we are and I am pleased that we are now in the Market. That is the end of the argument for me.
    With regard to the Plowden Report, I agree that the replies have been disappointing, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East. We must wait and see how matters develop because this is a difficult one, particularly in these days of devolution and the arguments that go on about the concentration of industry and so on. However, that is not part of this Bill. All I say is that this is a matter which my right hon. Friend is seriously considering.
    Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to dwell on the point, but will he deal with the Clause 7 point? Can he confirm, so that we may get it clear, that, devolution or not, the Plowden proposals do not affect
    1820
    the electricity supply industry in Scotland at all? Both the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board are totally outside the terms of the Plowden recommendations.
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice. I am speaking not entirely as a Scotsman but as a British citizen. Members of different areas in England are entitled to their views in this matter. I am not taking sides. All I am saying is that there is this question of devolution in England which impinges on the administration of nationalised industries. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to tempt me into argument, because all I am saying is that new factors are emerging which are not irrelevant to these questions.
    There have been references to the politicisation of oil. That has happened in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, much in the same way as it did with sugar. The politicisation of sugar took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We can hardly beg the question in the matter of oil. Oil is a highly political subject, right the way from OPEC and the "Seven Sisters" through our own regime in this country, and even in Europe for that matter. It is highly political, and we cannot dodge that.
    On the international side, the Bill enables us to fulfil our international obligations under the international energy programme, on all of which I understand that hon. Members on both sides agree. Under the IEP we are obliged to hold specified levels of petroleum stocks and to furnish information. We agree to do all that in the Bill. Also, we honour our obligations to the EEC.
    We extend the Government's control over the supply and use of natural gas, to which the hon. Member for Bedford, who is not here now, referred. Natural gas is a resource of great value which the country can ill afford to squander, and, as a strong Presbyterian, I take the view that the flaring of gas is a wicked thing to do. One ought to try to use it and harness it as God intended us to do, for the benefit of mankind. I hope that we shall be able to use the gas, not recklessly flaring it as though we were a Kuwaiti or Middle East petroleum country but using it for the benefit of our own people and others.

    1821
    There remain areas of contention in the Bill. This is not the last Energy Bill which will come before the House. I come now to the points made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty—I understand why he cannot be here now—who asked six important questions, and very Scottish-style questions they were, calling for a straight "Yes" or "No". I am sorry to say that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in that way.
    First, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty asked about the exercise simultaneously of general powers under the prices legislation and the specific powers under the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government are at present using the general powers under the Counter-Inflation Act and we are using specific powers under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, a Conservative Act of Parliament. How can the hon. Gentleman complain? The Price Commission deals with oil price applications for an overall increase—one is before it now—but it does not control price increases in respect of individual products. This can be done only through the rather clumsy mechanism which the Conservatives gave us in the 1973 Act.
    The 1973 Act was an effort to refine and make more sensible the way of dealing with petroleum products. We have not taken a decision about longer-term arrangements for price control. It is a little too early to say anything about that, but I take the very sensible point which the hon. Gentleman made.
    In response to the hon. Gentleman's third, fourth, fifth and sixth questions, I cannot give unqualified answers but I give an assurance that the Government would not introduce new controls without full prior consultation with the industry.
    I was asked about stocking directions to the generating boards under Clause 7. These stocking directions are given to enable stocks to be held on a system rather than on an individual power station basis. The number of private generators affected is so small that it is not reasonable, I think, for me to develop that matter further.
    I come next to Clause 14 and the exemptions for mobile and standby or small generators. In implementing Clause 14, we intend to make an order under subsection (4) to exempt from the notification requirement mobile genera-
    1822
    ting stations which are for emergency use only, and we envisage exemptions also in respect of stations of less than 10 mW.
    I do not think I can take matters further now, save to express my gratitude to the Opposition for the good reception they have given to the Bill. Despite all their speeches in Committee and here tonight, they have helped us to take the Bill to the statute book. They could have been very difficult and blocked it completely, which would have meant that we should not honour our obligations to our friends overseas and the international agreements which we have signed. The Opposition have not prevented that, although, with their great talent for speech and the deployment of argument, they could have done so. They have accepted the essence of the Bill and, while it is not perfect, it is a good measure. I am grateful to them for assisting it in its passage through the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
    Motion made,
    That the Weights and Measures (Additional Metric Weight) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that under Standing Order No. 73 this measure has not had the effective Question put at any stage of its progress until tonight. It was reported as item 7 of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, which are to be printed but are not vet available in the Vote Office. Therefore, hon. Members have had no chance to decide whether they should agree to or oppose this measure. I hope that there will he an appropriate interval in future. I raise this point tonight because the freedom of Back Benchers in this House is important.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned that the instrument had been reported to the House, and that fact was recorded in

    1823
    yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. This being so, and the motion having been made, I have no option but to put the Question forthwith under Standing Order No. 73A.
    Question put and agreed to.

  HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: The situation in respect of handicapped children in this country is strangely anomolous. If a pregnant woman with a two-months-old foetus goes to her doctor, and he suspects an abnormality, the advice is an instant abortion. If a child is born miserably and utterly handicapped everything is done to preserve life and every encouragement is given to the mother to keep the child in a home environment. Of course that is right. What is wrong is how little help the State gives to those whom it deputes to carry out this work.
  One does not hear a great deal of complaint about this. The old truism that people do not know what they are missing applies here. Kids raised on Lancashire hot-pot do not yearn for smoked salmon soufflé. Parents do not know what can be done, and nobody tells them that the living hell that a handicapped child has condemned them to can be alleviated.
  I am grateful for the selection of this Adjournment debate because it is one that was selected at an earlier date when, unfortunately, I was unable to be here. Obviously it is quite inadequate to have only half an hour to speak on the plight of handicapped children, and I had to decide whether to speak for 29 minutes to make my point, or to take the traditional 15 minutes and await the honeyed words of the Minister. But I saw the Minister, and we came to a decision. He has promised that if I keep my speech short, he will not make the usual tedious remarks about what a good and caring chap I am for raising the matter. I am glad that I have raised it—not for the praise, but to bring it to the attention
  1824
  of the House and get action from the Department of Health and Social Security.
  I accept, as everyone in this country must, that our financial resources are limited. I do not accept that we make the best use of them. I do not accept that people are sufficiently aware of the problems facing handicapped children. If we could make people aware of these problems the miners would make aid for handicapped children a prerequisite to a £100 a week pay claim and industrialists would forgo their golden handshakes until something constructive was done.
  In most places—I am privileged to represent a county that is as concerned and as knowledgeable as any in the land—the system fails in two respects. The first is in the provision of medical help to handicapped children. The second, which is almost as important, is in the provision of support for the child's parents.
  I should like to take a quick gallop through the issues and explain what is wrong. Let me begin with homes for the handicapped. Perhaps the most important aspect of these homes, which is seldom implemented, is the education aspect. What seems to happen now is that a home is opened and in one year it is full. The same people stay there until they leave for a geriatric hospital. The outwork that those people do, which possibly makes the place self-financing, is also totally decadent. Every time I see the prototype wicker basket something inside me screams out in anguish at the lack of originality and the lack of understanding that has caused some bored teacher to take the easy option.
  In this age of specialisation, oddly enough the opposite to specialisation has happened to health visitors. They are the Jacks and Jills of all trades without specialised knowledge of the handicapped. Some visit too often, but most do not visit often enough. Most parents are reluctant to call them, because there is no crisis. There are few crises in terms of the health of handicapped children. Handicapped children are neither better nor worse it is the parent who is worse, and the visitor cannot do a lot about that.
  The Department is required by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—and everyone should bear in mind the enormous gratitude the nation has to

  1825
  the Under-Secretary for putting that Act on to the statute book—to keep a register. But the Minister will know that this register is seldom anywhere near complete. Let me read an extract from a letter sent by the Secretary of the Eastern Counties Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. He says:
  "Families may not know of statutory social services and vice-versa, or may not have confidence in them. Cut off from services, parents are sometimes unaware of the existence of benefits and allowances, voluntary workers, facilities for short-term care, help with transport etc., and have no one to advise them on future needs and possibilities. A sympathetic G.P. is very helpful. However, some doctors persist in taking mental handicap as a medical condition simply, ignoring its aspects as a social and emotional problem for the family."
  The situation is that in the case of both physically and mentally handicapped children, at birth the mother relies on the tact of the practitioner or the nursing staff. Mothers can be left, sometimes overnight, knowing that something is wrong but not knowing what it is until these people are available. Here, the hospitals and maternity homes should have guidelines for the most humane possible procedure involving parents, and immediate support for the mother in the form of support workers, social workers and health visitors. Possibly a parent group should be alerted.
  In the first year—this is particularly so in the case of mental handicap—too many parents are left without help. The general practitioner gives no information and suggests a return visit in six months. The health visitor may be uninformed about the likely progress of the child or the existence of assessment clinics and available help. Here, families with a mentally handicapped child should have allocated to them a specialist officer who has an obligation to talk to them, and to whom they can turn. He should supply the first link between the various authorities—the general practitioner, the area health authority the social services department, and so on.
  It is crucial to improve communications between these agencies and between them and the voluntary bodies, because too often agencies are in dispute with each other and are jealous of each other's ability to help children.
  We now come to late diagnosis. Mothers may encounter great difficulty
  1826
  in obtaining referral to a specialist for diagnosis through their general practitioners. Other qualified workers may recognise the handicap and be unable to say anything if the GP is not willing to act. Early diagnosis is now considered vital. Valuable time may be lost. There must be some channel for the use of any qualified worker who recognises the possibility of a handicap to ensure that it is investigated. This cannot be stressed enough.
  Professional confidentiality sometimes works against the best interests of those whom it is meant to protect. My wife is the Chairman of the Mentally Handicapped Society of Ely, which provides a baby-sitting service for parents. It is paid for by the society, which is run in co-operation with the local social services department. The society wishes to make the service available to all parents in the area, but it is not allowed to know the names and addresses of parents who are not members. The social services department informs the parents direct, but the society cannot provide a back-up service.
  In a letter to me, the head of social services said:
  "I am very interested to hear that you are willing to explore the possibility of starting a mother and child playgroup, but I am afraid it would not be correct for me to pass to you the names of mothers with pre-school age mentally handicapped children. We would not provide this information to anyone."
  Here is a community in which people want to help others, but professional confidentiality is preventing these good people from getting in touch with children who desperately need their help.
  Many multiple-handicapped young people need expensive equipment. There should be a bank of teaching aids, language masters, therapy aids and special cutlery in every area on which schools and hospitals could draw on a loan basis. At present, people buy these items, and when a handicapped child grows up or gets better there is no way in which the equipment can be passed on to others.
  In education, school places should be available from the age of three or four, or even sooner, for all handicapped children, and opportunities should be given to them to continue their education until the age of 19. At present, only lip service is paid to this. Education authorities, although empowered to keep children until

  1827
  the age of 19, rarely do so, and are rarely able to do so because of the pressure of numbers for school places. There are not enough places available in adult training centres, and a serious shortage is forecast for next year. In these centres there must be more emphasis on education. Priority should be given to plans for residential provision to achieve the target in the Government's excellent paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped."
  My main plea is for more foresight and interest. When the debate was announced, I was touched to receive a call from the Department of Education and Science to say that the Minister was taking an interest. We need more interest and more understanding from more people.
  When schools are built adjacent sites should be investigated to see whether provision can be made there for mentally handicapped pupils. When the Department of the Environment makes money available for a sports centre, it should do so on condition that the centre is to be used by handicapped children for a certain number of hours a day.
  I ask the Treasury to bear in mind the total inability of the severely handicapped to cope with cuts. When cuts are made, the handicapped—not the miners, the seamen or the police—are the special cases. The phasing out of the invalid trike was the one of the cruellest cuts. It was said that the trike was dangerous, but I have never met a handicapped person who did not value mobility above personal safety and independence above the inadequate bus fare allowances that will be the successors to trikes.
  I am happy that the previous Prime Minister should award an honour to the manufacturer of raincoats, but I would much sooner have seen honours go to those who deserved them, namely, the teachers, the parents, the architects, and all those who gave extra care, thought and time—of which many had so little—to this cause.
  Life is an ongoing state, and so is being handicapped. The sick and the well can decline or improve, but there can be no improvement without care, thought or concern. If we send all handicapped children to places where they make baskets, there will be nothing but decline.
  1828
  To the handicapped, a hospital or residential school is a home, not a place where they spend a few days or weeks until they get better. Hospitals for the handicapped must adapt, so that they are acceptable as homes for those who are in them. It is a measure of the compassion of a society whether the handicapped are given the love, care and facilities of a society that they need. As a nation, I should say that we are on the borderline of compassion—no more than that.
  I end by introducing two case histories from a report that my wife submitted to the local doctors, teachers, social workers and parents of Cambridgeshire after two years of "caring" for all my constituents but especially my handicapped constituents. She writes:
  "Nothing can make the parents' realisation that their child is handicapped less than a deeply emotional and shocking experience. The diagnosis of the child's condition is a medical one but once given to the parent, it immediately gives rise to complex social issues. The earliest one with which we should be concerned is how to avoid adding to the parents' distress by insensitivity or lack of preparation.
  "The first case I would like to quote in this context is of a mongol child … who was born at 8.45 p.m. and the mother realised there was something wrong as the baby was not brought back to her and she saw the staff looking at her. She asked the midwife and the nurse separately what was wrong and was told the doctor would see her later. In the meantime, the maternity home telephoned the father and said: 'your daughter has Downs Syndrome; will you come in the morning?' He had never heard of Downs Syndrome and neither had any of his mates. He said afterwards that he went through agonies during the night. His wife lay awake in the ward thinking that her baby was dying and in the middle of the night, got herself out of bed to go down the corridor to find out if she was still alive. The midwife told her the truth about the child at 6 a.m. and the husband came in later, but he was not by this time calm enough himself to be able to comfort his wife. The midwife and the doctor had both wished the mother to have a good night's rest before hearing the bad news."
  The second case concerns a mongol child who was born last November. The mother wrote:
  "Our daughter was two days old when my husband was told she was a mongol, and five days old when I was told. My husband was told by the doctor while he was visiting me and told not to tell me.
  Later, my own family doctor came to my home to tell us together. This was much the better way to be told as he explained so well to us both, as all my husband was told at the hospital was that our baby was a mongol; there was no explanation why or what it

  1829
  meant; I think we should have been told together as I would have liked to comfort my husband as that was the time he really needed me. Instead he had to hide his feelings for three days."
  That is the point that I wish to bring before the House, and I give way to the Minister.
  11.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Notwithstanding what was said about dispensing with the normal proprieties, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will at least allow me warmly to congratulate him on his persuasive and skilful advocacy in opening this somewhat adjourned Adjournment debate. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the debate was to have taken place earlier this year. I know that both the hon. Gentleman and his wife take a keen personal interest in the welfare of handicapped children and have done so for many years. They do a great deal of exemplary work for disabled children and their families.
  I have but 11 minutes in which to reply to a speech that contained many questions as well as many points with which I would wholeheartedly agree. Naturally I shall try my very best to respond as positively as I possibly can in the time available.
  To have a handicapped child can impose very severe strains on a family. I should like first, therefore, to say something about what is being done already to help these families.
  The hon. Member emphasised the role that the National Health Service has to play in helping handicapped children and their families. The most effective action that the NHS can take in regard to mental and physical handicap is to try to prevent its occurrence wherever possible. In my view, there is much scope for preventive action through improving services during pregnancy and childbirth. As a follow-up to my Department's consultative document, entitled "Prevention and Health—Everybody's Business", we intend soon to issue a paper on care in pregnancy and early infancy.
  My Department is keen to ensure that all health care activities with a preventive purpose in this area are co-ordinated so as to provide a comprehensive service
  1830
  with the prime objective of reducing the incidence of handicap. Before conception, the service would ensure rubella vaccination for the mother, the availability of family planning advice and the provision of genetic counselling for those at risk of certain inherited conditions. During pregnancy, a high standard of ante-natal care is required with pre-natal diagnostic facilities where necessary. I am especially concerned that older women should he offered tests to detect Down's Syndrome, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am hopeful that services for the detection of neural tube defects can be expanded in the near future.
  All these matters will be dealt with fully in the proposed follow-up paper I have mentioned. It is important also that birth should take place in well-equipped hospitals, where the full range of modern obstetric and pediatric techniques is available, and also that there should be a prompt clinical examination of the newborn.
  By encouraging continued development in these areas, we hope that over the years ahead we shall see a real decline in the numbers of children born with severe handicapping conditions.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that all babies are examined at birth for observable abnormality, including Down's Syndrome, and that arrangements are made for any care or treatment that might be needed. There is also special surveillance of all handicapped children to make sure that everything possible is done to minimise handicaps. Between six and 14 days after birth, all infants are tested for phenylketonuria, a disease which can result in mental handicap if untreated, so that appropriate dietary treatment can be initiated as soon as possible.
  There is evidence that effective, special and intensive care for sick and low birth-weight newborn babies can both save lives and reduce the incidence of mental and physical handicap in the survivors. The consultative document "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England", which was published earlier this year, gives high priority to improvement of standards of special care for the newborn.
  The birth of a child with a handicap that can be immediately diagnosed must be regarded as an acute emotional and

  1831
  social crisis for the parents. A booklet on "Care of the Child with Spina Bifida", prepared in 1973 by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, stressed the skill that is required in counselling the parents of a child with this condition. It suggested that the father should be involved in discussions about care at an early stage. Repeated opportunities should be provided for both parents to discuss their anxieties with professional advisers. Ideally, one member of staff should assume particular responsibility for stimulating these discussions. The importance of repeated opportunities for such discussions, both in hospital and at home, cannot be overemphasised. I am sure that this advice holds good for all types of handicap which are apparent at or soon after birth.
  The importance of the multi-disciplinary assessment for children with suspected handicap has been recognised for a number of years. It is referred to in policy circular HM(71)22, "Hospital Facilities for Children". Our consultative document on priorities also recognises the importance of providing comprehensive assessment and follow-up services to help handicapped children to reach their full potential.
  Comprehensive assessment services encourage the participation of parents, and provide them with support and advice in the management of the child. Parents' discussion groups, toy libraries and supplies of appropriate literature may be arranged and the parents put in touch with appropriate voluntary organisations.
  The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the problem of confidentiality of information about handicapped children. That is an extremely important matter. I think the key to overcoming the main problem lies in parental involvement in making plans for the child. When a child is first referred for multi-disciplinary assessment, the parents' permission should be sought to share information among members of the team. When the child's needs are discussed with the parents in a counselling session following the assessment, as they always should be, permission can be sought to tell any voluntary organisation which may be able to help about the family's needs. Such permission is most unlikely to be refused.
  I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point that the parents of mentally handi-
  1832
  capped children often find difficulty in knowing just what services are available to them and how they may be approached. This difficulty is increasingly being countered by the provision of guides to services prepared by the authorities concerned with particular areas and circulated, not just to parents, but also to members of all professions who may come in contact with the parents or the child. These guides are to be strongly commended and I hope that, even in these difficult times, those authorities at present without them will give their production serious consideration.
  In my own area, the city of Manchester has recently published an excellent guide to the services available to mentally disabled people. On the further point of a specialised co-ordinating officer for services to mentally handicapped children, I can only say that the importance of the problem of service coordination is well recognised by my Department. I hope that there will shortly be available a comprehensive guidance pamphlet prepared by the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped and I am sure that the advice it provides will be very carefully studied by service planners.
  Another question to which the hon. Gentleman also referred was that of coordination between all the agencies that can help. How often do we hear of parents who are quite overwhelmed and bewildered by the complexities of the welfare "machine" and do not know which way to turn? This is not in any way an indictment of the advice and help given by statutory organisations or by the voluntary sector; it is simply a reflection of the highly complex range of needs of the handicapped child and his family.
  One of the big and intractable problems of our time is how to make the "machine" accessible and understandable to people who are in a distressing situation which is new to them. What they need is a "single door" approach to make the face even of the largest institutions seem more human. This approach can help to reduce the fears that so often afflict the parents of a handicapped child. I am, therefore, most grateful to the National Children's Bureau for its important initiative in

  1833
  recently establishing the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children.
  One of the main aims of the new council is to provide the "single door" approach to the very wide range of help which is now available from so many different agencies. I am much impressed with the council's work so far and by the quality of its first pamphlet "Help Starts Here", which I understand will be followed by other publications. I am also very interested in the seminars and "workshops" which the council has mounted. The membership of the council represents a great deal of talent and expertise, covering all the interests of handicapped children. I am naturally very glad to have been able to authorise payment from my Department of a grant to the council of £30,000 over three years. This example of voluntary organisations working together is one that might well be followed by other organisations in the voluntary sector. I commend the National Children's Bureau for the initiative it has taken.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would agree with the hon. Gentleman that many handicapped children need to start their education at the age of 2 or 3 and many need to continued it after the age of 16. Further study is required, however, into the numbers who would benefit and also into the forms of provision that are desirable. It is generally accepted that a range of facilities is needed to suit the requirements of individual handicapped children. The Committee of Inquiry into Special Education, chaired by Professor Mrs. Mary Warnock of the University of Oxford, which will be looking at the educational needs of handicapped children at both these stages, is expected to report early in 1978.
  Adult training centres play a key role for mentally handicapped people when they leave school. They help the mentally handicapped to develop and to make the fullest use of their abilities. I always
  1834
  like to emphasise the abilities of disabled people. Many people fail to see that it is not just the disabilities but also the abilities of handicapped people which count. The work skills and social skills taught there not only help mentally handicapped people to cope with the many problems of everyday life that most of us take for granted but enable some of them to move to sheltered or outside employment and so become properly integrated into the community.
  All these matters are being considered in depth by the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped, which is taking day services for the mentally handicapped and, in particular, adult training centres, as one of its priority areas for policy development. A subgroup is now at work on a pamphlet on the role of these centres, which it is hoped will be of value both to practitioners and planners.
  The Consultative Document on Health and Personal Social Services Priorities reaffirms that our primary aim is to ensure that mentally handicapped people are looked after in the community whenever this is possible. It is in the formative years that children need the close and warm relationships that a family gives, and which are so difficult to provide in a large institutional setting.
  Another aspect of support for handicapped children is special cash provision, which is comparatively new but increasingly important. The attendance allowance was the first cash benefit to become payable. Today the allowance is being paid to the families of some 40,000 severely handicapped children——
  The Question having been proposed aften Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Paroled Prisoners
  Paroled Prisoners
  Film Censoring
  Film Censoring
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Conspiracy Law
  Conspiracy Law
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Mr. Thorsen
  Mr. Thorsen
  Crime (Statistics)
  Crime (Statistics)
  Police (West Midlands)
  Police (West Midlands)
  National Council for Civil Liberties (Meeting)
  National Council for Civil Liberties (Meeting)
  Mugging
  Mugging
  Moroccans (Rape Conviction)
  Moroccans (Rape Conviction)
  Kew (Bail Hostel)
  Kew (Bail Hostel)
  Race Relations Board
  Race Relations Board
  Justifiable Homicide
  Justifiable Homicide
  Qasim Jan
  Qasim Jan
  Magistrates' Courts (Matrimonial Cases)
  Magistrates' Courts (Matrimonial Cases)
  Hull Prison
  Hull Prison
  Au Pair
  Au Pair
  Murder and Assault
  Murder and Assault
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MINISTERS' ROLES)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MINISTERS' ROLES)
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  LONDON
  LONDON
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  BATTERED WIVES AND CHILDREN
  BATTERED WIVES AND CHILDREN
  BRETTON
  BRETTON
  POLPERRO
  POLPERRO
  CHANNEL ISLANDS
  CHANNEL ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENT
  Waterways
  Waterways
  Government Offices (Furniture)
  Government Offices (Furniture)
  Household Waste (Recycling)
  Household Waste (Recycling)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Building Demolitions (Tenants' Rehousing)
  Building Demolitions (Tenants' Rehousing)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour)
  Building Integrity Division
  Building Integrity Division
  Northampton (Empty Houses)
  Northampton (Empty Houses)
  Building (Sub-contracting)
  Building (Sub-contracting)
  Big Ben
  Big Ben
  Rates
  Rates
TRANSPORT
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  A27, Worthing
  A27, Worthing
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Slater Walker Securities
  Slater Walker Securities
  Monetary Measures and Cost of Living
  Monetary Measures and Cost of Living
  Self-Employed Persons
  Self-Employed Persons
  Government Loans
  Government Loans
  Government Borrowings
  Government Borrowings
  Child Allowances and Benefit
  Child Allowances and Benefit
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Food Imports (Duties and Levies)
  Food Imports (Duties and Levies)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
TRADE
  Securities Market
  Securities Market
  Cars
  Cars
  Micro-electronics and Cars
  Micro-electronics and Cars
  Whalebone
  Whalebone
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training)
  Mr. George McDonald
  Mr. George McDonald
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Hospital Consultants
  Hospital Consultants
  St. Bernard's Hospital, Hanwell
  St. Bernard's Hospital, Hanwell
  Dental Examinations
  Dental Examinations
  Fluoride (Children)
  Fluoride (Children)
  Dentistry (Gum Care)
  Dentistry (Gum Care)
  Pensions and Benefit (Union Representations)
  Pensions and Benefit (Union Representations)
  Zachary Merton Maternity Unit
  Zachary Merton Maternity Unit
  Doctors (Consultation Costs)
  Doctors (Consultation Costs)
  Departmental Offices, Scotland (Work to Rule)
  Departmental Offices, Scotland (Work to Rule)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
DEFENCE
  Forces Overseas (Costs)
  Forces Overseas (Costs)
  HMS "Mauritius" (Accommodation of Personnel)
  HMS "Mauritius" (Accommodation of Personnel)
ENERGY
  Windscale
  Windscale
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Portugal (British Citizens)
  Portugal (British Citizens)
  Transkei
  Transkei
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS AND THE LAW
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS AND THE LAW
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Disabled Students
  Disabled Students
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
SCOTLAND
  Murder and Assault
  Murder and Assault
  Rates
  Rates
  Construction Industry (Employment)
  Construction Industry (Employment)
INDUSTRY
  Herefordshire
  Herefordshire
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Electrical Plant
  Electrical Plant
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Trades Description Act
  Trades Description Act
  Performing Rights
  Performing Rights
WALES
  Employment (Hospital Building, Bangor)
  Employment (Hospital Building, Bangor)
  A55
  A55
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
EMPLOYMENT
  Voluntary Service
  Voluntary Service
  Unemployment Benefit (Strikes)
  Unemployment Benefit (Strikes)
  Occupational Pensioners
  Occupational Pensioners
  Unfenced Machinery (Regulations)
  Unfenced Machinery (Regulations)
  Trade Unions (Certificates of Independence)
  Trade Unions (Certificates of Independence)
  Health and Safety Regulations
  Health and Safety Regulations
  Safety Representatives
  Safety Representatives
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons (Statistics)
  Unemployed Persons (Statistics)
  Income and Wealth (Royal Commission)
  Income and Wealth (Royal Commission)
  Working Hours
  Working Hours
  Collective Bargaining (Information Disclosure)
  Collective Bargaining (Information Disclosure)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Leinster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TRAFFIC SPEED LIMITS IN LONDON
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the review of speed limits in London proposed by the Minister of Transport in his Policy Statement to the House of Commons on 5th March 1969.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, a Joint Working Party of officials was set up to review the speed limits on London's main roads. It comprised representatives of the Greater London Council, the Metropolitan Police and the Ministry of Transport. A detailed survey of 794 miles of road led to a recommendation that the limits should be raised on 175 miles, of which 125 miles were on principal roads for which the Greater London Council are responsible. However, progress in implementing the report has been slow and only 21 miles have actually had the limit raised to what the Working Party regarded as a realistic level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has a number of orders for trunk roads in the offing and I understand that the Greater London Council are consulting the London boroughs about proposals for a limited number of orders for principal roads.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful and, as always, courteous reply. As only 12½ per cent. of the recommendations
1472
have been implemented so far, and as this goes back to 1969, would she agree that this seems to be a rather small amount of implementation? Does the Secretary of State have the right under the Road Traffic Act 1967 to command that the rate of implementation be increased and will these powers be requested shortly in view of what she has just said?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. There seems to be some reluctance locally to accept that the raising of limits to a realistic level does not lead to higher actual speeds, although experience is all to the contrary. The Greater London Council is negotiating with all the London boroughs. Up to now the Department has been reluctant to interfere with the local authorities but, as I said, my Department now has some orders in the offing and, if necessary, we shall be instituting the procedures.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when my noble friend refers to raising the speed limit to "a realistic level" may I ask her what she means by a realistic level? Is she talking about raising it from 30 mph to 40 mph or from 40 mph to 50 mph?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it varies according to the type of road. There has been this review of 794 miles about which it has been suggested that on some the limit should be raised from 30 mph to 40 mph, on some from 40 mph to 50 mph and so on; each road is looked at on its merits and according to the use it gets. The realistic speed is the one at which I think it would be fair to say most people normally travel now, without accident, when they do not adhere to the speed limits. Where we have unrealistically low speed limits it is difficult for the police to enforce them, but where we have what we think are realistic limits it does not take so many police to enforce them and we can perhaps be more realistic about the whole thing.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that one of the chief problems with speed limits is that of enforcement and that with a very reduced police force, as we have, who are engaged on other and more important work, it will be extremely difficult to enforce any limits that are made?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the whole House is filled with admiration of her definition of "a realistic speed limit"?
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that she is enunciating a very dangerous doctrine; namely, that the law should adapt itself to the level at which it is commonly broken?
Baroness STEDMAN: I was not suggesting that, my Lords. I was saying that the common practice throughout the country appears to be that when we have a very low speed limit motorists do not adhere to it but travel at four, five or six miles per hour faster than that limit. If we had what appears to be a more realistic limit, provided no more accidents occur than occur at present, it would be much easier for the police to enforce that limit.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a realistic speed limit depends on whether one is a motorist, pedestrian or other road user and that that should be the most important factor taken into account when considering what is a realistic speed limit, as distinct from whether the law can be enforced?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that the Joint Working Party took that into consideration. Those on it represented not only the Greater London Council and the police but the Ministry of Transport and people concerned with pedestrians as well as road users.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if she will extend the speed limits on the present proceedings in this House?
Baroness STEDMAN: I should be delighted to do so, my Lords.

TRIUMPH SPITFIRE CAR AND GERMAN AWARD
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted that the West German Automobile Club has awarded its annual Silver Lemon for a new car with the worst defects to a Triumph Spitfire from British Leyland.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government arc aware of Press reports not only on this matter but also of those dealing with the comparison by a German magazine, Auto, Motor and Sport, of the readiness of availability of a representative selection of spares for a wide range of imported cars, in which British Leyland came out joint best.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that friendly, though rather complacent Answer, which did not really answer the specific point of my Question. Can he tell me what action is being taken to ensure that we do not win this award again next year?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as knocking British Leyland seems to have become a national sport, and as this is the first occasion on which a British vehicle has won the "Bitter Lemon", one may assume that foreign cars have been winning it in the past.
Lord STOKES: My Lords, while I should perhaps declare that I have a personal interest in this matter, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the owner of this particular car had parts availability within 24 hours and that he has actually bought another British Leyland car, which must indicate his satisfaction? May I also ask whether it is the view of this House that Questions of this sort asked here do no good for British industry and certainly do no good for British Leyland.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

WESTMINSTER HALL AND FURNITURE STORAGE
3.9 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it would be possible to find somewhere other than Westminster furniture.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am advised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that arrangements are being made to provide alternative temporary storage facilities for small batches of furniture in transit. However, there is no other suitable area available for the temporary storage of the occasional very large delivery of furniture.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether it would not be possible for the furniture in future to be kept in the warehouse where it is, and not brought into the Palace of Westminster until such time as the place where it is to go is prepared to receive it?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the furniture was replacement office furniture for the offices which had suffered from bomb damage. It all arrived in one delivery. It seemed to my Department to be much more sensible to have it all deposited there and then to move it straight into the offices, rather than have it delivered to a warehouse and then have to have it taken out again. The cost would have been much higher. If it is any satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, we are making arrangements to have a purpose-built trailer provided which will be parked in the Peers' Court, from which it can be removed as and when necessary.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment is the person and Westminster Hall is the place where, above all, an example of how to look after an historic building and how to display it to the public ought to be shown? It is disgraceful that so many visitors, both from this country and from abroad, should constantly see Westminster Hall used as a furniture store.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not feel that it is right to say that it is "constantly" used as a furniture store. Normally we only have large deliveries of furniture about once a year and they come in our Summer Recess, which is generally a little longer than the one we had this year.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if she will have this furniture sent up to Yorkshire, I can, at a suitable fee, provide a storage place for it?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the cost of getting it back from Yorkshire would make such a scheme exorbitant.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that scaffolding to maintain the roof is kept in the Hall on a fairly permanent basis, and also that rolls of carpet, furniture and other items have been there for months and months? As my noble friend said from the Front Bench, Westminster Hall is the only ancient part of the Palace of Westminster; cannot something be done to keep it clean, tidy and neat?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I said, we are making arrangements for alternative storage accommodation to be provided.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is it not a fact that this nonsense has only arisen since the Ministry of Works was taken into that giant Department, the Department of the Environment? The Ministry of Works had some historical basis and a degree of sensitivity about Westminster Hall, which is the most famous and illustrious part of Parliament; is it not about time that the Department of the Environment was broken down and set up in a proper way?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not believe that having a Ministry of Works rather than this coming under the Department of the Environment has anything to do with the fact that the IRA bombed part of the Palace of Westminster and that we have had to repair the damage and to do the refurnishing.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness where the furniture was stored before Westminster Hall was used?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this furniture is to replace furniture that was damaged. I have only been a Member of your Lordships' House for two years and I do not know where furniture was stored before that on previous such occasions.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, for most of its history Westminster Hall has been used as a storage place for the citizens of London.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not think that the newest part of the Palace—to wit, the car park—might have been more suitable as a storage place than the oldest and most venerable part?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should have thought that Members would prefer to have their cars in the car park.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say where the trailer is to be stored when it is not storing furniture? Is it to be permanently in the Peers' Court?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I cannot give the actual destination, but I am advised that it is a trailer that can be removed from the Peers' Court as and when necessary, so presumably we have some idea as to where we are going to put it. I have not, however.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY SALARIES
3.15 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 why it is that they have failed to authorise certain salary increases for key members of the Civil Aviation Authority.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, The Top Salaries Review Body made certain recommendations for salary increases in its December 1974 report but the wider considerations relating to higher incomes referred to by the previous Prime Minister in his Answer in another place on 20th December 1974 have so far prevented their implementation. The Government are conscious of the problems which have been created as a result, but there are also serious difficulties attached to the implementation of these recommendations. The matter remains under close review.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are now certain senior employees of the Authority just below the level to which I have referred who are receiving higher salaries than those immediately above them? Is the noble Lord aware also of the remark in the last annual report of the Authority which said, in relation to this matter, that the effective functioning of the Authority is therefore now in jeopardy?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the factors to which the noble Lord has called attention. With regard to his first point, it is true that this is a very serious anomaly, but it is the nature of any cut-off level or period that anomalies will be created on one side or another. We recognise the difficulty, as I have said. The matter is under review, but it is not the appropriate time nor am I the appropriate person to make a statement about it.
As to the reference in the annual report, there was a strong warning in the report, but I am glad to say that no resignations have occurred. I feel that it was rather an overstatement to suggest that the effective functioning of the Authority is in jeopardy.
Lord PANNELL: But, my Lords, is the Minister aware that there is nothing sacrosanct about the recommendations of the Boyle Report? Members of Parliament and Ministers have suffered in the past because the recommendations of the Boyle Committee have not been carried out and we have had the ridiculous situation of a Minister in charge of a

1479
Department getting less in the way of a stipend than the third official in his Department.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, one recognises that also as one of the anomalies that arise, but the overriding consideration is that these pay policies, at both the higher and the lower levels, are a very necessary part of the attack on inflation.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, can the noble Lord bear in mind when the Government are considering the future of higher salaries, that a section that has been most hardly hit by the freeze is that of the managers in industry, and that until that is put right we shall continue to lose some of our most promising leaders and shall not get the productivity which is so essential for our success in putting our balance of payments and our exports right?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, I do not accept the implication of the first part of the noble Lord's suggestion. There are others lower down the scale who are hit very much more.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord just give an assurance that this matter will be kept under urgent review and the anomalies corrected at the very earliest possible moment?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that was the reason why I included in the original Answer the information that the matter is being kept under review. Of course anomalies will be corrected when the economic situation permits.

CROMARTY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
3.19 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall not pretend that the measure to
1480
which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading is not a controversial one. It deals with an issue on which sincerely held opinions have been deeply divided for a long time, and we on this side of the House recognise that there is a very deep divide between the Government and the Opposition and that it may well be that there is little, if any, meeting point between us.
But the issue is whether today it is socially acceptable to set aside in National Health Service hospitals accommodation and facilities to enable consultants to treat their private patients. When the National Health Service was established in 1948, the late Aneurin Bevan accepted as a means of securing the wholehearted co-operation of consultants in the new service that the practice of the former voluntary hospitals of setting aside a few beds for patients who wished to receive and pay for private treatment should, for the time being, continue in the National Health Service; that was the new National Health Service. Although he made it clear in his book In Place of Fear that he had not contemplated that it would continue indefinitely, the arrangement has in fact continued for the best part of 30 years. In that time demand for private treatment has diminished with the development of a comprehensive National Health Service. Increasingly, however, in recent years the co-existence in the same hospital of a small private sector and public provision of essential medical services has come to be regarded by many patients, and by a large number of people who work in our hospitals, as socially divisive, a source of serious grievance, dissension and, I regret to say, in some places, as your Lordships know, confrontation.
The root of the dissension and confrontation is the widely held belief that it is morally indefensible that those who can afford the high cost of private treatment or the cost of insuring against it, say with BUPA or one of the other provident associations, should be able to arrange for non-urgent hospital treatment sooner in the National Health Service than if, like the majority of patients, they had to rely solely on the National Health Service. In short, it is a widely held belief that the continued existence of pay beds has conferred, at the expense of the majority, an unacceptable

1481
degree of privilege on those who can afford to pay a premium for jumping the queue.
In the Government's judgment, access to a service that is financed by the community as a whole should not be influenced by any consideration other than the relative urgency of the individual patient's need for treatment. No one, my Lords, would dream of denying immediate access to the Health Service if life was endangered. Society as a whole recognises that where it is a question of life and death immediate access should be afforded regardless of a patient's means or financial circumstances, and all our arrangements for emergency services are directed to that end. In fact, 42 per cent. of all admissions to National Health Service hospitals are classed as emergencies.
Difficulty begins only where one is considering essential but non-urgent admissions. It is, I am afraid, a fact of life that demand for health care is infinite, and that ascertained need for treatment exceeds the capacity of available resources to meet that need immediately. In a perfect world no doubt, where resources would be unlimited, there would be no need for waiting lists, no need for queues. In the real world in which we live we have got to face the fact, whether we like it or not, that some rationing of health care is unavoidable.
One issue which this Bill seeks to resolve is how such rationing should be effected; whether a priority should be assessed in terms of clinical and social needs, or in terms of the individual's ability to buy a higher priority than his clinical condition really warrants. In the Government's view there can be only one answer in National Health Service hospitals: priority must he assessed on clinical and social need alone. The Government are satisfied that so long as it is possible for a patient to receive treatment privately in a National Health Service hospital, it will be difficult to ensure that that will happen, or to satisfy the public at large that ability to pay a private fee does not in some way influence the speed of admission.
The National Health Service exists to provide a comprehensive health service for all citizens, irrespective of their means. It is not, therefore, in business to meet the special needs of private patients. The
1482
fact that it has continued to set aside some of its resources for the benefit of private patients is regarded by many of the most ardent supporters of the Health Service as morally objectionable, socially unjust, and a potential source of abuse.
That view is shared by the Government, and that is why my Party laid the policy of separation before the electorate in the successive General Elections in 1974; a policy which the electorate endorsed twice. I need not remind your Lordships that the policy was strongly opposed by the medical and dental professions, and equally strongly supported by the representatives of Health Service staffs. No one, however, could accuse the Government of acting precipitately in this matter. For nine months after my Party was returned to power we tried in the Owen Working Party to discuss future arrangements for private practice with representatives of consultants. And what happened? We were told that they had no mandate to discuss private practice, but we continued to try.
I will not weary your Lordships by recounting the events which led up to the publication in August last year of a Consultative Document or of the discussions between the then Secretary of State and representatives of the professions—discussions in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, acted as an intermediary. I do not see the noble Lord in your Lordships' House and perhaps it might well be considered a piece of impertinence on my part to say how indebted the Government, and I think probably everybody in your Lordships' House, are to him for the part he played in what we have come to call the "Goodman proposals".
I do not think that it is going too far to say that the Goodman proposals marked a dividing line between a period of increasing dissension and confrontation in the National Health Service and a period of calmer counsels. I would not pretend that the Goodman proposals offer the perfect solution. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to admit that. They are essentially a compromise formula that recognises the deep division of view between, at one extreme, those who see advantage in the continued existence of private medical practice in the National Health Service and, at the other, those

1483
Who—quite frankly, like myself—see it as morally objectionable. They offer a formula for giving effect to the Government's commitment to separate private practice from the National Health Service, while at the same time providing for those who believe in private practice reasonable opportunity for making suitable alternative provision outside the National Health Service. They allow for the immediate phasing out of 1,000 pay beds, which I ask your Lordships to bear in mind are very little used, and thereafter for the pace of the phasing out of the remainder to be determined by a Health Services Board who will be quite independent of the Secretary of State. They lay down four basic principles for the guidance of the Board and provide for private patients to have access to National Health Service facilities for highly specialised treatment on an occasional basis and, a point to which the professions attached great importance, they provide for private practice to be guaranteed by legislation.
As I said earlier, the Government undertook, if these proposals were acceptable to the professions, to give effect to them in early legislation. The British Medical Association thereupon held a ballot of its consultant members and approximately 12,200 consultants in England, Wales and Scotland received the ballot papers. The ballot put to the consultants a rather severe dichotomy: Would you rather accept the proposals of 15th December 1975 as a basis for legislation or resign from the National Health Service? Out of 12,200 consultants, the British Medical Association received 7,039 replies; 63 per cent. of the 7,039 consultants were prepared to accept that the Goodman proposals should be incorporated in legislation. That means that of the 12,200 consultants, only 21 per cent., 2,604, were opposed to the Goodman proposals but, as I say, as a result of the ballot based on the Goodman proposals industrial action was halted and this Bill was prepared.
The Health Service Bill was introduced in another place on 12th April of this year. Since that date there have been almost continuous discussions of its provisions both within and outside Parliament. My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services has had several meetings with representatives of the medical
1484
and dental professions. The Chief Medical Officer has had discussions with representatives of the Joint Consultants' Committee, the Department has consulted the Independent Hospitals Group on numerous occasions. There was continuous consultation up to 30th September with the National Health Service health authorities about the best distribution between individual Area Health Authorities and preserved Boards of Governors of the 1,000 pay beds whose authorisations are to be withdrawn within six months of the Royal Assent.
Simultaneously, from 18th May to 3rd August, through 29 sittings the Standing Committee in another place was scrutinising this Bill, not just clause by clause. I think the noble Baroness would agree with me if I said, word by word, line by line. There were something like 500 Amendments considered. They spent upwards of 70 hours discussing this matter. I only say this because I believe, my Lords, there can be few Bills so meticulously, so thoroughly and, let me be quite frank about it, so constructively considered. A number of highly important changes were made, with the Government's agreement, both during the Committee's consideration and also, as a result of it, at Report stage. So careful and intent was the examination of the Bill by the Committee that the Government yielded to the strong persuasion of honourable Members of the Opposition to grant two days for Report.
My Lords, there can be no doubt that this Bill has derived immense benefit from both the customary Parliamentary scrutiny and from the enormous amount of consultation with interested bodies outside. The Government wholeheartedly acknowledge that errors and weaknesses have been identified and have been eradicated. One of the major improvements, I would suggest, was the addition at Report of the provisions which will include the Health Services Board and its Committees among the bodies in respect of which the Health Service Commissioners are empowered to conduct investigations. So the Health Services Board will be subject to the authority of the Health Services Commission should the need arise.
The Board will, I think, gain in stature. Not only will it be fully independent, as

1485
the proposals brought forward under the aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, envisaged; it will also be openly required to maintain the high standard of administration required of bodies subject to the Health Services Commissioners. Moreover, the Board will, when acting in its quasi-judicial capacity under Part III of the Bill, also be under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. Noble Lords, may therefore, be assured that both the administrative and the judicial integrity of the Board will at all times be subject to supervision.
Your Lordships may wish me to recapitulate the main provisions of the Bill. I do not propose, because of the time, to go into them in great detail. I know sufficient about your Lordships to know that many of you will have studied them in very great detail. The Bill as it now stands consists of four Parts (containing 24 clauses) with five Schedules. Part I and Schedule 1 deal with the constitution, status and method of appointment of the Health Services Board and its Scottish and Welsh Committees: they contain the important provisions which delineate the Board's relationship with Parliament, with the Crown (in particular with the Secretary of State), with the Health Service Commissioners and with the Council on Tribunals.
Part II begins with the declaration that consultants cannot be compelled by regulation to hold wholetime contracts, which would imply the loss of the right to practise privately. It goes on, in Clause 3, taken with Schedule 2, to require the Secretary of State to remove within six months of Royal Assent, the authorisation of 1,000 pay beds, distributed between the Area Health Authorities of England, Wales and Scotland in the manner set out in Schedule 2. Clauses 4 and 5 describe the way in which the Board must carry out its function to make proposals (which the Secretary of State must implement) for the revocation of authorisations previously given for pay beds and private out-patient facilities. Clause 6 lays an additional duty on the Board, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the best method of achieving Common waiting lists for NHS and pay bed patients requiring admission to NHS hospitals. The provisions of Clauses 7 and 8 are concerned with the new system under which patients who require highly
1486
specialised treatment which is not available at all, or accessible to them, in the private sector can be admitted, as private patients, to NHS hospitals on an occasional basis, and in carefully specified circumstances. The rights of general practitioners and others to preserve and make new arrangements with the Secretary of State to treat their private patients in health centres is also dealt with in Clause 9.
Part III contains the provisions for the setting up of a new system of control of some forms of hospital building in the private sector. The Board will have to operate that system. Developers of large acute private hospitals—that is hospitals providing over 100 beds if in London or with over 75 beds if outside London—will need to apply for authorisations from the Board before local planning authorities will consider an application from them for planning permission. These authorisations will be granted unless the Board is satisfied that the development in question would cause detriment to the National Health Service. Other acute private hospital developments will have to be notified to the Board (your Lordships will find that in Clause 14) but the Board will have no powers of control over these. The reason for the inclusion in the Bill of the notification procedure is that the Board must at all times—and it seems to me to be perfectly reasonably and will be acceptable to many of your Lordships—have adequate accurate information about all private sector developments of a kind likely to be relevant to the consideration of whether pay beds in a given area could be phased out. The four principles on which the Board must base its recommendations about phasing out pay beds include the existence or not of adequate alternative facilities in the private sector. I think most noble Lords will consider this to be of supreme importance.
Clause 19 makes a link between the Bill and existing nursing homes legislation under which at present private nursing homes and hospitals are registered by health authorities and are supervised for the quality and standards of the facilities, accommodation and staffing. The clause amends the nursing homes legislation, so that an additional ground for refusing orcancelling registration would be, in the case of a new development of the kind requiring an authorisation from the Board, the contravention by a

1487
developer of the requirement in Clause 12 to obtain an authorisation before building a private hospital. These Amendments also raise the penalty for carrying on a private nursing home or hospital without being registered from a maximum fine of £50 (which has been in existence at that level since 1936) to a maximum of £400 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment.
My Lords, I think it must be clear now, I hope beyond doubt, what are the aims of the Government in bringing forward the Health Services Bill. The care with which the independence, the rectitude and the balance of the Health Services Board have been attended to, cannot but lead to the evolution of a rational, just and methodical approach to the task of phasing out pay beds from National Health Service hospitals. There will be nothing hasty and nothing arbitrary in the way in which this is done. Similarly, in the testing and delicate field of considering applications for authorisation for the building of large acute hospitals in the private sector, the obvious standing and integrity of the Board must have its effect on the way in which these decisions are made.
In other places, there have been misrepresentations of the Government's intentions. I believe that some of these have been quite deliberate because the Bill itself is explicit, and the Government have explained time and again the reasons for the provisions of Part III. The Bill cannot and does not empower Ministers to squash, squeeze or hustle private practice out of existence; that is, out of the private sector itself—out of the National Health Service, yes.
Since the first announcements of the Government's policy, during the spring and summer of 1975, and increasingly since the publication of the Bill, the Department has kept itself as informed as possible about actual and planned increases in the amount of hospital provision in the private sector. I want to say something about that because I think it will surprise a good many of your Lordships. We know, for example, that between the spring of 1975, when the Government's policy was first announced, and the expected end of the "initial period", that is May 1977, about 300 new
1488
beds for acute treatment in the private sector will have become available in London alone. This will bring the total number of private sector beds for acute treatment in London to approximately 2,000, almost half of the total number of such beds in the whole of Great Britain. In addition, we are aware of a number of well-advanced plans for further expansion of the number of acute facilities in the country. All we say is that for obvious reasons if it is a hospital of over 75 beds outside London or over 100 in London the Secretary of State must know what these developments are for.
I trust that the Government's assurances of good faith are not going to be viewed with suspicion by your Lordships. We do not desire or intend to do anything further in the matter of private practice than carry out the provisions of this Bill; we do not therefore have plans to abolish private practice. Our aim is to foster harmony between the people who work in the National Health Service and who work in the field of health for the people of Great Britain.
We sincerely hope by this Bill to remove a long-standing source of bitterness, anger, frustration and disruption, and to get back to the most important thing; namely, the care of patients. It is because we are concerned with the care of patients, particularly those who have to use the National Health Service, that we have brought in this Bill. My Lords, I commend the Bill to you and hope that you will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wells-Pestell).
3.49 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for introducing this Bill to us today and for explaining so clearly its purpose and its background. It is always a pleasure to work with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and on many occasions in the past we have found ourselves in complete agreement over a great many things, but as he himself has indicated it will not be the case on this Bill which is a highly contentious measure. I regret to say that the only congratulations I can offer him are offered because he has made the best of a very bad case. At the start I should like to offer my good

1489
wishes to the maiden speaker this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Stone, and to say from this side of the House that we wish him well.
The Bill before us is important. It comes to us at a very late time in the day. As I understand it, it has only just managed, with one day to spare, to avoid being caught by the Parliament Act. I believe a month is required from the First Reading to the end of the Session, and in fact the Government have allowed one day over that time. However, I find it astonishing that the House of Lords, whose prime function is as an amending Chamber, should have so little time to consider a Bill which must inevitably affect all patients in the National Health Service in hospital now, a Bill which has been subject to a great many tied votes in Committee in another place and one on which finally the guillotine fell.
It comes to us at a time when the House seems to have been in almost continuous session since September, and many Members of your Lordships' House must feel that enough is enough. It seems to me that all the more deplorable such an important Bill should arrive here so late and with so little time for debate; for, despite the fact that the Bill has been looked at very thoroughly by another place, there area great many detailed points to which we shall want to return on Committee; and quite properly we should return to them on Committee. I cannot accept the reason given by the noble Lord that at two Elections the population voted for this measure. He will be as well aware as I am that only 28 per cent. of the population supported the Labour Government in October, 1974, and to claim by any stretch of the imagination that most people want this Bill is simply wishful thinking.
The fact is that although the Bill is entitled "Health Services Bill", it does absolutely nothing to help the National Health Service patient or to improve his care. I listened with great care to what the noble Lord said in making out his case and I cannot see that he advanced one single practical way in which the ordinary National Health patient will be better off when this piece of legislation reaches the Statute Book. I have looked very hard for evidence to find out how this Bill would make the care of a patient
1490
better. It is because I have been unable to find any at all—because I do not believe any exists—that we on this side of the House are opposed in principle to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has explained the Bill, which does, broadly speaking, two things. First, it phases out 1,000 pay beds from the National Health Hospital Service; secondly, it introduces new controls over private hospitals, their building and maintenance. By the separation of the Health Service and private practice it created a kind of medical apartheid.
I am sure that no one wants the care of the National Health Service patients to decline. The doctors do not want it and I am sure the trade union leaders and their members do not want it; nor do the Government or the Opposition. At first sight it may be contradictory to say that we believe that National Health Service patients will be worse off because of this Bill; but so often is it the case that the full effects of a piece of legislation are not appreciated at the time that that legislation is going through the House. It seems to me therefore worth while to consider what will be the practical effects of this piece of legislation on the Health Service.
The first effect must he on the doctors, and because of that, its effect on the patients. I do not come from a family of doctors; but all my family have been engaged in the professions, particularly in education. The fact is that in the education world, if you get a good head of a school he or she will attract and will appoint good staff. The pupils, as a consequence, will be well taught. So it is in medicine: the quality of the service is measured by the quality of the staff. We in this country have, rightly, been proud of the National Health Service, which has been in many respects the envy of the world. It is the present generation of consultants and others in the Hospital Service who have to a very large extent given the National Health Service the reputation that it has. One consultant who came to see me put it to me that he was glad in 1948 to join the National Health Service. Before the National Health Service, medicine was not always an easy profession to enter, especially for a young man or young woman starting out.

1491
The introduction of the National Health Service meant that it was no longer necessary for a doctor to see enormous numbers of private patients in order to make a living, and that the staffing of the hospital was geared to the needs of the population and not dependent upon a generation of need by private patients. There were therefore great advantages to the doctor in joining the National Health Service; and beause there were great advantages to the doctor, there were great advantages to the patient, and a bargain was struck.
It is no exaggeration to say that many consultants have worked far more than the hours they are obliged to work by contract, and many will work as much as 30 hours a week over and above what they are obliged to do, because they believe in the Service. Part of the bargain was that they should be allowed private practice and that they should be allowed private practice in hospitals. The consequence has been, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may say—and I do not doubt for one minute his sincerity—that they feel that this trust has been broken. The argument for taking the private beds out of the National Health Service hospitals is that somehow the doctors are doing something that is morally wrong.
What is being said—and all that the doctors are asking for—is the right to sell their skill in the market place after they have fulfilled their contracts, and frequently more than fulfilled their contracts, to the National Health Service. This, after all, is not a surprising request. If a plumber or an electrician works in the evening or at weekends in his own time, taking private clients after he has fulfilled his contract to his employer, what has he done that is wrong? If the teacher in his spare time coaches a backward child with reading difficulties and gets paid for it, is this a crime? Indeed, if the university lecturer lectures to the Workers' Educational Association two evenings a week, what is this but a form of private practice? Nobody is suggesting that any of these people who do things quite properly in their own spare time are doing anything but something which is a help to the community at large; and if it helps themselves in the process, there is nothing morally wrong with that at all.
1492
The fact is that many doctors see this Bill as a step in the direction of a full-time salaried Service, of a Service in which there will not be the freedom to practise medicine privately after fulfilling their work in the National Health Service. Everybody must realise that if this came to pass the care of the patient would inevitably deteriorate. What such a full-time salaried Service would mean is that minimum standards of care would be set, and not maximum standards, and so the patient would suffer. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has explained at length those parts of this Bill which have been written in to guarantee the right of private practice to doctors. But what are people to think? All sorts of guarantees were given in 1948. Legisation cannot guarantee because we cannot bind our successors; and what, above all, is needed is trust. That seems to be one of the most important things that is missing at this time.
The centre of my argument is that, as a result of this legislation, it is the patient who will suffer, and I should like to consider in detail a number of other points. The first is the question of finance. We are all agreed that we are in a time of economic crisis when money is scarce. I am not sure what the final sum is that it is accepted that private patients contribute to the National Health Service, but in the last figures I saw it was generally thought to be about £23 million a year. This money will of course be lost, and it seems to me very difficult to argue that when £23 million is going to be taken away from the National Health Service, National Health Service patients will be better looked after.
Secondly, what will happen to the pay beds when they are phased out? We must have an assurance from the Government that they will in fact be used for National Health Service patients. It is disturbing to learn, for instance, that at University College Hospital 24 pay beds have been phased out and the accommodation is now used for administration. As the Bill stands there is no guarantee at all that these beds will be used by patients in the National Health Service, and if this guarantee is not given, there can be no shortening of the National Health Service queue—if that is the aim

1493
of this Bill—and the position will remain precisely as it is now. As I see it, the Government's difficulty about giving such a guarantee at present is that it would undoubtedly cost the Service more money, because the money which paid for the beds and paid for the staff will not be there. The Government will have to find the money to pay for the beds and to pay for the staff, and it will find it difficult to do that with a background of the July cuts, when the National Health Service and the personal social services were asked to lop £70 million off their expenditure.
I find it exceedingly difficult, therefore, to see how having less money for the Health Service is going to help the National Health patient. By phasing out the pay beds from the hospital system and by replacing them with private nursing homes or private hospitals, it will be necessary in many instances for consultants to have to travel some distance to a private hospital or a nursing home to visit their private patients. That means inevitably that the consultants will have less time altogether to care for all of their patients. It is perfectly true that Clause 8 of the Bill sets out the terms under which the private hospitals are to be set up and indicates that they must be readily available for the patient. But it is equally important that they should be readily available for the consultant. There arc, after all, only 24 hours in a day, and if much of that is taken up by travelling then clearly there will be less time for all the patients—less time for the consultant to discuss his National Health Service patients with junior doctors. This will become inevitable, sooner or later.
The fact is that at present the overwhelming majority of consultants who work part time for the National Health Service—by which is meant nine-elevenths of their time—are able to do a great deal of extra work for their National Health Service patients because they are in the same building and can go from one to the other, seeing their National Health Service patients in the evenings. I cannot see that the National Health Service patients will benefit if consultants have altogether less time.
My Lords, modern British medicine is much respected all over the world. British standards of medical education are high
1494
and there is an international market for the skills of British doctors. In December, EEC regulations will come into force allowing a much freer movement of doctors within the European Economic Community. If doctors and consultants feel dissatisfied with conditions in this country they will emigrate, and it is distressing how many have already done so. For the reality of the situation is that emigration today does not mean going to the other side of the world and leaving one's family and relatives here for very long periods of time; it means working in Paris, or Holland, or Germany—in some cases no further than moving to a different part of Great Britain. In so going the doctors would find themselves going to societies that want them, respect them and appreciate them. Emigration is not simply an empty phrase but a reality in front of us all, and I cannot see how the National Health Service patient will benefit when large numbers of doctors emigrate if they feel that they are under threat in this country.
There are many other points that I should like to make but there are a number of other speakers and we shall have an opportunity to go into these points on Committee. Among the many matters that we need to discuss is the right of an individual to spend his own money as he chooses. If, after he has paid his taxes, he wants to spend it on a doctor of his own choice, why not? If a woman wishes to see a woman consultant of her own choice, why not? It may well be that if the doctors feel deeply disturbed, these rights of individuals will gradually disappear, not just through this legislation but because of what is implied behind it. We shall want to look carefully at the terms of reference of the Health Board and its composition and whether its freedom is guaranteed. It must be possible to see that it is impartial. We shall need to consider the problem of private facilities for anyone living in a new town, which at the moment seem to be almost an impossibility.
I am sure that we shall all listen with great interest to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We appreciate the work that he has done to bring about a compromise in a very difficult situation, and I am sure that he will know as well as anyone that what is needed now is trust and that we have somehow to

1495
establish trust, because if we do not, all patients will suffer. I believe, however, that we need more than to establish trust. Nothing could better illustrate the ills of our country today than the situation that now exists in the Hospital Service and, if I may say so, the reasons that the noble Lord gave for having this Bill. We, as a country, have got to learn to live together; otherwise we shall die by a series of self-inflicted wounds. The internal fights going on in the Health Service are damaging the doctors, damaging the patients, are damaging the country. Sooner or later all of us are going to require medical services, and it is a terrible thing that we cannot find a way out of these difficulties. For our part, we shall do what we can to be constructive, to try, in what is a very difficult situation, to make matters better than they are now. It is not our intention to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill or in any way to be obstructive.
I should like to conclude in much the same vein as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for it seems to me that what we should be talking about today are the real problems of the National Health Service: the need for extra money; the problems of health care in an economic crisis; the problems of an ageing population, when even now 40 per cent. of all National Health Service beds are occupied by the elderly and when the largest growth in our population is of those over 75 years of age; the problems of staffing in mental hospitals, and the relationship between the National Health Service and the personal social services. These are very big issues calling for the undivided attention of Parliament, of Ministers and of civil servants alike. It is to these problems that we should be turning our attention and not to this unnecessary and unwanted Bill.
4.8 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Baroness who has just spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the very good and clear way in which he explained this not entirely uncomplicated Bill to us. But as that is the kind of thing we have come to expect from the noble Lord, I am not really surprised at how well he did it. Before I came into this Chamber to speak
1496
this afternoon I looked up the preamble of the National Health Service Act which was introduced to help the sick, and it says:
"It shall be the duty of the Minister … to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people in England and Wales and for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness…"
My Lords, that purpose was carried out very well in the Health Service when it first came in, and it went along very satisfactorily for a long time. Then we had the Bill which was introduced by the Party on my left for the reorganisation of the Health Service, and so far as I can make out that did nothing, or nothing appreciable, to help the care of the patient. It was a great managerial revolution, but that is about as far as it went. Now we have the present Bill coming along and, in spite of what the noble Lord has said so kindly and persuasively, I cannot see that it is going to be any help at all to the patients in the National Health Service. Therefore we have not got much "for-rarder".
I will begin by saying that I have no particular feeling myself either for pay beds or against pay beds. I have used them extremely rarely and that was for geographical and topographical rather than for ideological reasons. I think I admitted only two patients into the private beds of University College Hospital where I was on the staff; and one of those, I must say, was admitted at the urgent request of Transport House for a senior member of the Party opposite who was in need of medical care. That was in the happy days before there were bodies called by curious names, like NUPE, COHSE, and NALGO, with whom I have been associated for a very long time. Therefore I am not really a person who uses the pay beds; but there they are.
I remember once dining out privately in the company of Aneurin Bevan—that was shortly after the Health Service had come into being and we were talking about it in a general kind of way. He and I were both agreed that one of the really good things, among many others, that it had done was to have got rid of quite a lot of expensive and not very well run nursing homes, because the patients who would have been in them got into the private wards in the National Health Service

1497
hospitals. That must have been about five or six years after the Service had started; I am sorry that I cannot remember the exact date.
Therefore, I can see no real reason now for trying to phase out permanently the pay beds and I would agree entirely with the approach that if they are not wanted for paying patients they should at once be used for National Health Service patients. The noble Baroness referred to the sad fact that one of the floors of the private patients' wing at University College Hospital now has become the offices of the Area Health Authority. It is therefore lost to patients. I assume that that was the result of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act. I do not think that it has anything to do with the Bill in front of us now. I would very much hope that that kind of action will not be taken again and that if beds are not required for private patients they will be used for Health Service patients and not for administrative offices.
My Lords, one is not quite sure of what is the gain in money to the Health Service from the private sector. Perhaps the noble Lord when he comes to reply will be able to give me some idea. I have seen figures of between £20 million and £40 million, although I should have thought it was probably more likely to be the lower figure. Supposing that money were to continue to be available—and because it is going to be taken away I am going to regard it as money that could be used for something different and new—one wonders whether the sensible thing to do with it would not be to increase the number of people working in the National Health Service hospitals—particularly the mental hospitals and, particularly, those mental hospitals that take care of elderly patients. One has seen in the Press several accounts of troubles and disturbances and of things that go wrong in these hospitals. I am quite sure that the main reason for this is lack of staff and not lack of good will. That it can be the latter, I would not believe for a second. You do not need to have your hospitals fully staffed with trained nurses. Provided that you have a few good trained nurses in charge of the wards or departments they can make use of partly-trained people of good will to do quite a lot of the care and work that needs to be done in these hospitals.
1498
My Lords, that is where I should like to come back to the pay bed question and to refer to the strange tale of the amenity beds. These were mentioned in Section 4 of the National Health Service Act, the provisions of which would allow hospitals to use single rooms or small wards to provide accommodation for people who wanted them—provided they were not needed urgently for general medical purposes—on the payment of a relatively small weekly charge. These never get mentioned, so far as I know, in all the discussions that go on—and I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, agrees with what I say. It has always seemed to me that that was one of the weaknesses in the pay bed argument; that there were these amenity beds available which could be used on practically every occasion if they were required. One wonders whether their number is going to be increased or whether they are gradually going to fade away. I am not quite sure what is to become of them.
I am pleased that there is no intention to abolish private practice because, speaking purely as a consultant, I have found that to have a little private practice, one which was not big enough to make any appreciable financial return to myself, was extremely good for me from a training point of view. It made one think. For example, if I had been a full-time employee of University College Hospital and an elderly patient had come in, he or she would have been seen by my registrar or houseman or someone like that. It would mean that I came in at the end to give the final diagnosis, if I possibly could, or say something; whereas, in private practice one can get called out by a GP (and I can quote several cases like this) to a flat on the top floor of a converted house to find an elderly couple living by themselves, aged, say, 75 and 73, one of whom has had a stroke and the GP wants to know what to do. Unlike the hospital situation, you have nobody to call upon. You have to make up your mind; you have to think about it. I am sure that my friends in this House who are consultants will agree that it is a good thing for consultants to be made to think from time to time—it is very easy not to.
I now come to the question of waiting lists. I have always been rather sceptical about them. I agree that they are

1499
probably longer than they should be, but I wonder whether anyone has made a genuine inquiry into waiting lists and found out the number of patients kept waiting because it was more convenient to them as they wanted to settle their business affairs, and so on, before going into hospital; or, in the case of children, whether it was more convenient for them to go into hospital during the school holidays. So waiting lists pile up in a very odd way.
Then one finds that quite a number of people tend to be on the waiting lists of more than one hospital. I remember that when I first began to work in the geriatric department of University College Hospital we had a long waiting list which, luckily, was from a comparatively circumscribed area. The only way to find out what to do was to visit them all. One found that a certain number had died, a certain number were on the waiting lists of more than one hospital, and a certain number were not at all suitable for hospital and ought to go into a welfare home. So it did not take very long before that rather formidable waiting list vanished away to normal, workable size, and I wonder whether there could be a similar inquiry on a big scale. It would be an expensive operation, but it might save a great deal of trouble.
Finally, I should like to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the waste of consultants' time if pay beds are moved from Health Service hospitals into private hospitals. It will mean that a consultant, whether male or female—I do not mind what sex a consultant is—has to travel a long way to see patients, which in London takes a very great deal of time. Whereas, if they are working in the same building, the private patients and the National Health Service patients will see their consultants for a longer time than if they are merely working regular hours—although I agree that most of them work considerably more than their official hours—and they will not be able to give so much time. Therefore, I am lukewarm about this Bill, which seems to me unnecessary, and the advantages of getting rid of unwanted private beds could have been achieved in a far less traumatic way than is proposed.
4.23 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I regard it as a considerable privilege to be enabled to address your Lordships this afternoon, and to say a word about a matter in which I was very much involved in time and effort some months ago. May I first say this? Perhaps I may be permitted, in relation to explaining my personal position, to incorporate in my speech two brief extracts from a letter that I wrote to The Times in April this year. I said—and here I am wholly in agreement with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that:
"I have already expressed my own view that the restoration of real confidence will only be achieved if the Government indicate a proper sense of values as to which voices are to have the Greatest influence. A medical service must be guided by informed medical views and it is imperative that doctors should feel that this is the spirit in which the present proposals emerged and will be operated. That does not mean that other views enjoy no relevance."
The other extract which I should like to quote is this:
"The new Secretary of State has a grave and ever terrifying responsibility to restore tranquility to a profession which traditionally wishes to get on with its job. But he also has an historic opportunity. What he says and how he says it will to a considerable extent determine the matter. He must convey to the doctors that he understands their feeling that the profession cannot be restricted to State employment and retain the independence of action and judgment towards their patients about which the struggle s largely concerned. I believe he does recognize this and I hope indeed that he will succeed in conveying this recognition in sufficiently generous and reassuring terms to end this dangerous conflict."
The tone and atmosphere in which the debate has been conducted this afternoon have been, in my view, exemplary. I think they create a situation and background in which, with a little luck, the whole of this unnecessary dispute can be resolved. Perhaps I ought to say this. I have not come here to urge these proposals on your Lordships. There is an honourable arrangement. If the medical profession contrive to defeat this Bill, they are regarded as entitled to do so. This assurance was given to them by the former Prime Minister, in my own hearing, in the clearest possible terms. I have come here to say—and to that extent I am prepared to take a partisan view—that I think it would be a mistake if they defeated this Bill. I say that for this reason. I wholly agree with the

1501
noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord speaking from the Liberal Benches, that this Bill will not do anything to assist the patient. But I would ask the House to take into perspective, and into proportion, the nature of the problem.
We have, I believe, something like 400,000 hospital beds in the United Kingdom, and we are dealing with 4,000 beds—1 per cent. That is the extent and nature of the problem in terms of beds. But one also has to take very much into account the consideration that those beds are at the moment extremely expensive. They are not available to the great majority of patients, because of their cost. A much more urgent necessity today is to make provision for solitude, to make provision for privacy, to make provision for the things that a lot of people need and require on a mass scale, and these cannot be provided by dint of 4,000 beds out of 400,000.
What I would venture to say to noble Lords on the Opposition Benches is this. The importance of this Bill is not to provide additional facilities for National Health Service patients; it is to reassure doctors that private medicine will remain in this country, and remain indefinitely; and the importance of that cannot be exaggerated. It is to make the doctor, whether he is employed full-time in the State service, whether he is employed part-time in the paid service, feel that he has a liberty of choice if he wishes to take it. It may be a very limited field of choice, in terms of the availability of offices and appointments. But the fact remains that preservation of that liberty of choice makes him continue to feel that he is a free man operating in a free country; and that is very largely what the trouble is about.
The doctors suspected, and with justification—not with cause; I do not think their suspicions were well founded, but they were rational because of what was said and because of an unfortunate Consultative Document—that they were going to be squeezed at both ends. They suspected that the phasing out of hospital beds, accompanied by additional restrictions on the licensing of private beds, would mean the end of private practice. That was the suspicion entertained by all of them which it was impossible to dispel. I think it would be unreasonable if the doctors today, in the light of these
1502
recommendations, continued to maintain their suspicion. One of the most unfortunate parts of the whole matter is that suspicions are not easily dispelled. They remember the Consultative Document.
The noble Baroness herself said—and I think she might reflect, having regard to the generally conciliatory and helpful tone of her remarks—that it is not much use legislating at all, if one is going to take the position that that legislation can be repealed, revoked or amended by a subsequent Government. We must take legislation at its face value. It is no use saying that we have suspicions, doubts and misgivings about what people will do in the future. If we do that, then no action taken by anyone can ever be reassuring in a troubled situation of this kind. Also, I think it is important to remember that these proposals were not very acceptable to or very well loved by the Government. They have been accepted as a compromise proposal.
The Government's problem was a very real one. I do not know how well they handled it, or how ill they handled it. But their problem was that they had a number of people, who I do not think had any right to behave as they did, in key and crucial positions in hospitals, who were making what I consider to be unjustified and unreasonable demands. However, it is not much use saying that the demand is unjustifiable or unreasonable if some threat to the personal comfort of the patient and to the continuity of the health scheme can be maintained, and the Government have to deal with the situation.
I have no comment to make on how well or how ill they will deal with it, nor do I wish to say that if I had been asked to recommend what to do in the situation before the trouble started I should have said that any such legislation as this was necessary. In the light of the minute nature of the problem—the 4,000 out of the 400,000 beds—and in the light of the fact that in most parts of the country there was relative tranquillity, there was no reason why things should not have been left alone, but for some reason, and the history is well known to many of you, the situation arose where, things not having been left alone, an increasingly corroded atmosphere arose to a point where great numbers of consultants went on strike.

1503
In this country the medical profession is very largely a splendid and a great profession. We are doing remarkable things here which ought to redound more loudly than they do. To take an instance, the EMI scanner was invented by a young man who refused to take any personal reward for the royalties that came from the scanner; he insisted that the money should be put back into a fund for research. That is the kind of spirit which should till us with great pride and pleasure when we hear that it is happening in this country. There have been other discoveries. We were prominent in the development of the kidney machine and we now have an experiment with a new liver machine whose aid and assistance is sought all over the world. I could multiply considerably these details.
Our profession is one of which we can be proud and it should be a source of shame to all of us that the profession was nearly brought to a standstill by a relative trifle of this kind. I say "a relative trifle" in relation the the number of beds, their utility to the population at large and to the fact that the most was made of the difficulties, not because of the real issues but because the medical profession suspected, and suspected with justification if not with cause, that an attempt was being made to phase out private medicine. It would be the highest degree of folly in relation to the medical profession that the suspicion should be allowed to be maintained by doctors that private medicine is in peril.
As I have said before, and I do not apologise for repeating it, I believe that private medicine is indispensable for a healthy medical profession in this country. That does not mean that all our efforts and attention should not be concentrated on the real question of how to give an adequate medical service to the great number of people who are now without it at all. Some of them are rich people. I am inclined to believe that the rich are the worst doctored section of the community. They listen to every kind of nonsense that is talked, they consult every kind of doctor who has the most dubious qualifications and they end up in the cemetery long before anybody else. I strongly recommend rich people to take advantage of the specially established medical advisory service that will give
1504
them, free of charge, a list of addresses of honest, decent, simple doctors who can look after them.
However, that is not the issue before the House this afternoon. The issue today is for this House to consider whether, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be sensible to seek to defeat this legislation, remembering that it is legislation—I make no bones about it—that we could well have done without in different circumstances. It is legislation whose only utility is that it has resolved the problem that caused a great number of doctors, men to whom such behaviour was totally alien and contrary to the tradition of generations and centuries, to go on strike.
I know from my conversations that the great majority of consultants who went on strike were profoundly uneasy and unhappy; they did not think that it was right that they should go on strike, because it went against a tradition and they did not like the notion. However, they said to themselves, and it was difficult to answer, "What are we to do? How are we to achieve what we want if we do not take the same industrial measures as are available to the rest of the population?" It was no use putting to them what I regard as the total answer: "It is not available to you to take such measures. You have entered a profession which is akin to Holy Orders, a profession where you do not have the choice of undertaking industrial action in order to support material claims for your livelihood. You must leave it to the rest of the community to rate you properly." A society where the efforts of doctors are not rated properly and a society which sees that doctors do not get their proper return is one which deserves the kind of confusion that has operated here.
I have not come here to reproach doctors for considering industrial action. I have come here to say one thing only: that in my view the medical profession, in all the circumstances, is much more likely to be withdrawn from the political arena, and that there is much more likely to be peace and tranquillity if this Bill is passed into law than if, once again, the whole question is thrown back into controversy. That is the real merit of the Bill.
There are all kinds of points that I could raise, and I could carry on for hours

1505
but I will not. For instance, 1,000 beds are to be phased out immediately. I do not think that it is a matter of dispute that the experts, with whom I have had long discussions, have all agreed that something approaching 1,000 beds were redundant and unnecessary. The basis upon which the agreement was reached was that they had said, "We do not need these 1,000 beds; we can do without them." There has been argument and discussion, as the noble Lord speaking for the Government said, in immense detail about where the 1,000 beds should come from. Happily, I have not been involved in those discussions. I believe that a substantial measure of agreement may have been reached already, but that there was a considerable number of surplus beds was a matter of general agreement.
Nor is it quite true to say that the Bill is resolutely opposed by the entire medical profession. In private conversations with doctors one finds that there are great numbers—I would not presume to say a majority or a minority—who see the end of this dispute as the happiest thing which could happen to them in many years. They can historically maintain their grievances. At medical dinners over the years they can explain how it came about, how wronged they were and what misfortunes they have suffered; and that I think they are entitled to do. It is a very small return for the discomforts and irritations that they have suffered during the course of the negotiations. However, I do not believe that there is universal hostility to the measures, and I believe that a great number of people would willingly support them on the basis that it is the end of the battle, and that it will enable doctors to get on with the valuable and important work with which they are concerned.
One of the real problems has been that doctors are sturdy individualists. To get doctors around a table is one of the most interesting, frustrating and irritating operations that any human being can conceive. To find two doctors in agreement on anything is a near impossibility; to find three doctors in agreement is a total impossibility. To find a doctor who does not wish to express a view on a highly political matter is also a near impossibility. They will agree about the things that they know about: about remedies, prescriptions, operations and so on. But when it
1506
becomes a matter of medical politics, fortunately they have had no experience of the matter. They continue to do their work alone in their surgeries over the years.
May I make a few more specific observations about the Bill. I believe that the Bill represents pretty fairly the proposals that were put to the Government. I think that the Government have quite honourably discharged their obligation to produce proposals which were in conformity with the arrangements made to end the consultants' strike. Equally I say, as I did at the outset, that the Government and the doctors are absolutely entitled to urge your Lordships' House to reject the proposals in total.
I should like to see another ballot because I believe that that ballot said more than that the doctors were merely approving those proposals as a basis for ending the strike. I think they were expressing very general agreement that the proposals, for good or for ill, were better than they had been offered and that they might be wise to accept them and call it a day. In that respect, may I quote from the British Medical Association's own letter when they sent the proposals to their members. They said:
"Clearly it is difficult to assess the validity on the one hand of the assurances given by the Goodman proposals and on the other the anxieties expressed in debate that so much remains a matter of individual interpretation and, so far as implementation is concerned, a matter of good faith".
I could not emphasise that too strongly. The letter continues:
"If the proposals were to be implemented as intended by Lord Goodman, then a significant measure of protection for the future of the independent practice of medicine would be achieved. If, however, the proposals were to be distorted by Government and Lord Goodman's aims were not to be preserved, then there is no doubt that both private practice and the independence of the profession would suffer."
That is an objective and fair statement of the position.
If the Government continue as they have begun by enacting the proposals in a decent and honourable form, subject to some Amendments which seem to me might reasonably be called for, if they maintain that spirit and if, again and again, they will assure the profession, as the former Prime Minister did, that they have no intention whatever of attacking the continued existence of private medicine but

1507
intend to allow it to continue to exist side by side with the National Health Service, I think that we might in the end find that something rather good comes out of the whole of this unfortunate matter. That is my belief. I think that might well happen.
If the Government distort the proposals, if they allow people who are not doctors to have an undue sway in medical matters, if they allow situations to arise where patients can regard themselves as being at risk because they are private patients, I think there will again be trouble because the consultants have discovered that they have a muscle they did not previously think they had. If I may say so, it is a sorry discovery and it would be better if they had never discovered it, but I do not think they can be blamed for it. The fact remains that the day when the first doctor went on the first strike was the day when we ought all to have been alerted to the very real danger to this great profession which is so crucial to all our needs.
I should like to conclude by making just a few observations on matters in the Bill on which I think possibly there is need for reassurance. The first is, as I think was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there is a provision in the Bill that private medicine should have accessible and available to it facilities in National Health Service hospitals for specialised operations, so that if a specialised operation is required by a consultant he can use the National Health hospital if it is available, use the equipment and use his team, and in a sense that is a much greater assurance than has existed in the past in relation to these matters. But the wording is a little ambiguous and as there is a considerable degree of mistrust and lack of confidence I think it behoves the Government to see that in any case where there is ambiguity they should not seek to rely on the preferable interpretation which they think removes the ambiguity. I think they should accept an Amendment which enables one to point out to the most controversial and political of doctors and say, "Nothing on earth can make this mean anything except this and that". I think this is most important when dealing with the medical profession.
In the particular matter with which I am concerned there is a provision that these facilities should be available—I think the
1508
wording is "at a hospital accessible to the patient". It has been pointed out, validly pointed out, that this would be not only unreasonable but rather foolish. If there is a busy consultant in London and he has a patient in Bradford or in Newcastle it is an absurdity to suggest that he should travel to Bradford or Newcastle to carry out an operation with a brand new team of people, with equipment with which he is not familiar and in unfamiliar surroundings. I think this will be a very small concession to make, and I have a feeling from a conversation that I had with the Secretary of State—and I should like to pay a tribute to him, if I may, because I think from the outset he has approached this matter with a desire to restore confidence—that this was an arrangement he would like to accept.
There is another matter which concerns the profession and I think it is one where they are straining interpretation. It is on the nature of the alternative accommodation that the hospital board can accept as justifying the phasing out of a bed or two—or three or four. The Bill contains a provision that that accommodation shall be reasonably suitable. The doctors say that it does not necessarily mean "reasonable" in terms of quality: it means reasonable, perhaps, in terms of geographical position or in terms of size but it may not mean reasonable in terms of being good enough, clean enough, light enough, in the right position. My own interpretation of "reasonable", which I think would be supported by better lawyers than I am, is that the word must mean "reasonable in every sense". In my view it is not necessary to underline it but at the same time it would cost nothing to underline it. If the restoration of a little confidence can be achieved by adding a couple of words at the expense of the common printer, I would say let us add those words and make quite sure that everything the doctors want that is reasonably required by them should be provided and this Bill should be set off under the very best possible auspices.
There are other changes which are much of the same sort and they are changes which the doctors seek because they want a clarification of the position and a reassurance that what they are told the Bill means is in fact what the Bill

1509
means. I would urge the Government to give it to them in every single case. I think they deserve it. I think they have had a very rough time. As I say, how far it is their own fault will be a matter for historical examination, but I do not think that this situation need have arisen if it had been treated in a different way and with perhaps a greater recognition of the extraordinarily sensitive and suspicious nature of men who are engaged in a specialised activity all day long and who do not have time to come here to notice what an exceptionally reasonable and trustworthy people we all are.
I am very pleased to note that the debate is being conducted in a spirit where we are not spending our time describing how individual members of the Government have pay beds in Wellington Clinic—or wherever it is. I may say, perhaps unkindly, that on some occasions when I have been in this House—very rarely—I have had the feeling that it would not be a bad thing if the whole of the Government were occupying pay beds. That is an unkind comment and it relates to some of the activities of last week.
I should like to conclude simply by saying that this is not a highly political measure and it ought not to be made a highly political measure. In so far as in Committee we can improve it, let us do so, but I believe that when it is passed and when it is clear that the Government intend to accept it in the spirit in which it has been offered it will go a long way towards solving the problem that we observed at the beginning of the year and also at the end of last year—a problem that ought never to have happened and which can cause great rifts between the Government and a profession which should be held in high repute—and that this Bill will enable the sort of young man I was talking about who made that important discovery, and other young men, to continue their work and to make a real contribution to medical science, instead of endless argumentation on arid political themes.
4.47 p.m.
Lord STONE: My Lords, after that great speech by my noble friend Lord Goodman I crave your Lordships' indulgence—a double indulgence. First, may I declare a vested interest in this Bill in
1510
that I am a practising medical practitioner. In my long experience I have often heard from patients such remarks as, "I've got butterflies and flutterings in my tummy". I have looked for them, felt for them and listened for them, but never found them. I now know, feeling as I do at this moment, here and now, that they can and do exist. In my maiden speech it is not for me to comment deeply on the Health Services Bill which is being presented to your Lordships today. Sufficient that it will allow me, at a later stage, to make comments in further debates.
I was in medical practice before 1948 when the National Health Service was inaugurated, and have been ever since. I find myself in a strong position to assess it right up to the present day and I wish to say at the outset that in my opinion it is the best Health Service in the world, despite what one reads and hears to the contrary and that—and I quote—"It is on its last legs". Not a bit of it! I know it all because I have been in it for such a long time. Given time, the present difficulties will settle themselves and those who are young in the profession will realise that in any field of medicine a good doctor will always make a good living (never a fortune) and he will learn that his reward will be the warmth of the satisfaction he gets by just helping along and being involved with the daily problems of people, old and young.
In the light of my experience I am in favour of the phasing out of pay beds—with emphasis on the "phasing". Let it he gradual and not dramatic and all will be well. I hope, too, that the present Bill will not overload the already top-heavy—indeed far too top-heavy—bureaucracy that now exists and that it will be realised that the backbone of the medical profession is the general practitioners, who are hardly brought into the status in the profession that they rightly deserve, despite the fact that day by day, and every day, it is the GPs who are dealing with a majority of patients who are in need of daily medical attention without having to be referred to hospitals or clinics for the purpose. One must remember that the GP as a family doctor finds himself involved, as well as with illness, in all manner of human domestic problems—in the young and the old, the diligent and the lazy, the scholar and the slow learner; with drug problems, the question of

1511
alcoholism and all kinds of social and marital and even legal problems.
In my long experience as a doctor I have seen tremendous progress and advances in medicine and surgery. Thanks to the enormous developments in anaesthesia surgeons have been able to perform what, at one time, could only he considered "miracles": the removal of lungs, the transplant of hearts, kidneys and even of the liver; replacement of joints, corneal grafting—I could go on. On the medical side we have seen the eradication of diphtheria and whooping cough and poliomyelitis, all brought about by mass inoculation. Tuberculosis has become a rare disease as a result of mass radiography and therapy of the highest order. One could go on and on. Smallpox has been eradicated all over the world. Recently, I learnt that the last pocket of smallpox in Eritrea has been eliminated. It has all been so exciting and stimulating—researching and developing all the time. Let there be no restriction on them. ft is all for the benefit of the human race, Catholic and Protestant, black or white, Jew or Moslem. Even so, let us be wary of recent advances; let us be cautious of the noxious gases and chemicals we hear so much about and, not least, the applications, ramifications and dangers of the advances in nuclear energy, and their trial experiments.
My Lords, when I was elevated to this House a friend sent me a message saying, "How do you feel now you are a Peer of the Realm?" I answered, "Highly honoured—but terrified". I still feel highly honoured but, as this speech is now over, I no longer feel terrified. I thank your Lordships for your kindness and indulgence in listening to me.
4.51 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on his excellent maiden speech. His speech contributed very considerably to the general tone of the debate which was commended by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Stone, is no longer terrified I think your Lordships will agree that we can look forward to hearing from him again.
1512
My Lords, on the subject of being terrified, I am a little terrified myself at the moment. I should have liked to hear more speeches from medical men before I brought my own contribution to the notice of your Lordships. But I must say that I was greatly fortified by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which held out a real hope—and I hope he is right—that this Bill, which he admits will require some amendment, may lead to a thorough improvement in the general atmosphere as between the public, medicine and the hospitals.
I followed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with great interest. She covered nearly all the ground that I proposed to cover in my own speech and, therefore, I will spare myself and your Lordships from going on too long, except that there are one or two comments I have to make with regard to my own feelings. First of all, queue-jumping is the big headache so far as the public is concerned. Obviously, we do not like it and, obviously, it is to be avoided. I rather doubt whether the contents of this measure will do practically anything to reduce it. The way to avoid queue-jumping is to avoid a queue.
Reading the Explanatory Memorandum, I feel that the complications in terms of bureaucracy and expenditure are somewhat underestimated. As the noble Lord, Lord Stone, said, he hoped that this was not going to lead to more and more civil servants. I am thinking of Scotland, which is to have an individual Board of its own. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, touched on the question of the money that will be spent. An eminent medical man with whom I was talking only last night, said he felt that to some extent the Bill was a mistake because there were so many more priorities. But here we are. We have all been heartened by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that this represents something which, when somewhat amended, will work. Let us hope he proves to be right.
My Lords, speaking of queue-jumping and waiting lists and the provisions of the Bill, I believe that in the North of Scotland the waiting list, for example for an operation on the hip, is very long. I have heard mentioned a figure of two years on the waiting list for an ordinary bed. I reinforce what was said by the

1513
noble Lord, Lord Amulree. Are these waiting lists really as long as that? Or are the figures for those such as children who can be dealt with only during the school holidays, and old people who cannot in winter travel long distances such as are necessary in the North of Scotland? When there are long distances to cover, there is also the difficulty that visitors cannot come to visit old people. Hospitalisation can be a lonely business.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House in repeating the catalogues of objections. I feel that the Bill might increase the overall burden of Government expenditure out of all proportion to the amount with which it will improve the overall—and I emphasise the word "overall"—treatment of patients, whether in pay beds or otherwise. At one time, I had thought that, with all the pressure on the shoulders of your Lordships as a result of the log jam of Bills, this was one which really could be dropped in order to give your Lordships' House and Parliament more time to give proper attention to going over legislation which comes up from below.
My Lords, I only hope that the tone of this debate will continue as it has begun and that it will not tend to make the matter a divisive one. I was greatly heartened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as I have already said. One of the reasons why I am speaking is that I feel it proper to protest at what was said in the Commons the other day, when the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister said:
"I have no doubt that the other place will continue with its self-appointed task of mutilating Bills…"—[Official Report, Commons; 19/10/76, col. 1111.]
I hope your Lordships will agree with me in objecting to the phrase "self-appointed". No noble Peer is self-appointed. It is really a very odd idea.
The present form of the House of Lords is that laid down by Parliament by enactments of successive measures of reform by both Parties in Parliament assembled, introduced from time to time. To play, "Let's pretend" in the way in which the Prime Minister did does not do any good. This is the case, and I feel that the Prime Minister has just got to "lump it". I, for one, as a Life Peer feel offended that there should be the faintest
1514
suggestion that we came here of our own volition and that we choose to be beastly, which we do not. We are doing a duty laid down by Parliament here assembled, and if people go on knocking the Second Chamber then, as sure as night follows day, the spring from which comes the supply of individuals willing to serve your Lordships' House will dry up, but that is another matter and I will leave the subject there.
I got an angle on the relationship between the private and public ward some time ago that was new to me. A patient was to undergo an orthopaedic operation and the surgeon was warned that she was occasionally subject to severe attacks of asthma and that she might get one at any time. The surgeon and his team decided that she should be in a public ward, because they felt that if she suddenly had a seizure, that was the best place for her to receive immediate attention. In fact she had such an attack, but the skilful measures taken in time avoided further trouble. I had another curious experience in that orthopaedic hospital. I was visiting a patient and noticed that there were eight empty beds. "We hear about enormous queues for hospital beds, but here are eight empty ones. Why is that"? I asked, and I was told that the hospital, which was built between the wars, had accommodation designed to meet the surgical and medical post-operative experience of those days.
The noble Lord, Lord Stone, mentioned the enormous advances that have been made in anaesthesia in surgery and post-operative treatment. The theatre accommodation in that hospital was insufficient to keep the beds full because patients were being released so much earlier than used to be the case. In fact, the surgeon told me, "Those two old ladies over there could have been released last week but we happen to know that they live in not very commodious accommodation with lots of stairs. They are far better off here because we have the accommodation, nurses, heating, food and so on."
I give these illustrations to show that the money, every penny of it, which will be spent in perhaps bureaucratic ways to support this Bill could be spent on improving conditions in hospitals and elsewhere or in improving, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, the amount of

1515
staff available in geriatric, mental and other hospitals. Money spent in that way would be money well spent. Perhaps I should add that for all I know an additional theatre has been built at the hospital about which I have been speaking; my experience there occurred four or five years ago. Nevertheless, it illustrates how money should be spent on hospital developments. I would go so far as to say that we should save and scrape until we get the money we need for that purpose.
The medical man with whom I was speaking last night is desperately anxious, as I am, to see waiting lists reduced and no need for queue jumping, if it takes place. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out that one could not get away from the fact that the number of private patients, particularly in private hospitals, means shorter queues elsewhere. I feel that what should go out from this House when we have done with the Bill is a sense of compassion for all those involved, a feeling of confidence in our medical staff and a belief that the existing hospital arrangements under the National Health Service can and should be made to work as well as possible.
5.6 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I join in the congratulations that have been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on his excellent maiden speech. It was delivered with the kind of clarity and directness that I have come to expect rather more from general practitioners than perhaps from consultants, and I agreed with much of what he said. I am not sure that I will always agree with him, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, one need get two doctors together for only a couple of minutes for them to arrive at a state of total and utter disagreement. Nevertheless, it was a pleasure to hear from a fellow general practitioner speaking in that way, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
I wish to make it absolutely clear at the outset that I have no interest to declare in this matter. Although I worked all my professional life in the National Health Service, inside and outside hospitals, I have no private patients and I have no present intention of acpuiring any. I
1516
might add that I not only worked in the NHS but perhaps I could be forgiven for saying that I worked very hard for it for many years, not only working in it but trying—through television, the Press and journalism—to help it to function; to help to overcome in this co-operative venture some of the misunderstandings between the two sides which have sometimes caused difficulties; and trying to help on official bodies. Going further back than that, I remember perambulating about the country making speeches, trying to persuade my fellow medical men not only to join the Service but fully to support it. That was in the days before 5th July, 1948. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted that I speak from that standpoint.
My purpose in criticising the Bill, as I shall, is not to defend private practice but to try to defend and preserve the Health Service and the principles that underlie it. I would not shed many tears if private practice disappeared altogether, provided it disappeared for the right reasons and in the right way. Reference has been made, and rightly, to Nye Bevan, as it was made frequently in debates in another place and to his book In Place of Fear. Nye Bevan looked forward to the disappearance of private practice and I had the privilege of discussing this matter with him on two separate occasions way back just before 1950. It was my impression then that his view was the the same as mine; he looked forward to a day when the NHS would be so constructed and so working that private practice would disappear because of lack of need. In other words, there would no longer be a supply because the demand would have disappeared, and I think he was right.
He was certainly right to say that that would happen, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we look at areas of this country where the Health Service is flourishing, where there are new and modern hospitals, fully staffed, where the doctor/patient ratio is adequate, where waiting lists are short if not non-existent and where there are enough nurses, physiotherapists and the other ancillary workers who go to make the whole business of medicine, we shall look in vain for evidence of private practice.
On the other hand, the worrying thing is that if we look at other areas—and I regret that there are too many of them—

1517
where the Health Service is beginning to fail, where the waiting lists are long, in my view disastrously long in certain respects, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, we find in those areas that once the Health Service begins to run down and there is a suspicion that it is no longer giving an adequate service, there is a re-emergence of private practice. That is the area in which it flourishes. So my aim is to see what I can do and what we all can do in your Lordships' House to see that the National Health Service ultimately reaches the required standard for everybody, so that this argument about private practice can disappear. But I am afraid that at first sight I can see nothing in the Bill that can do anything to improve the standards of the National Health Service or to bring that Service everywhere up to the ideal standard that exists in certain areas.
First, I believe that the Bill will precipitate a conflict or at least arouse resentment and antagonism. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has talked about this and I believe that we are all indebted to him for what he has done to try to arrive at some kind of compromise which could perhaps minimise the degree of resentment and antagonism. However, I believe that he would agree that while what he has done may have cooled the atmosphere, it has certainly not extinguished the flames altogether. Whether we like it or not—and I do not like it—one of the results of the Bill will he trouble, antagonism and resentment. I am not saying that that will be reasonable, nor am I saying that this House or any House should be blackmailed by unreasonable people, but I am saying that we should be realists, that we should accept the fact that real people behave like real people and that, if we possibly can, we should avoid promoting conflicts unnecessarily.
It seems to me that the National Health Service at the moment already has enough troubles of its own without having extra ones added to it by precipitating some kind of confrontation. Indeed, to me, the timing of this measure seems to rank in folly with Mr. Heath's decision to take on the miners at the time when we had suddenly become totally dependent upon coal. I hope
1518
that my fears are groundless and that we may not have difficulties of that kind, but, if we do—and I believe that we probably shall—the trouble will be that that will make it much more difficult to do the things that really are necessary.
I agree entirely with those noble Lords who have said, and said rightly, that something must he done to deal with abuses that exist in a system in which private and National Health Service practice exist side by side. I am talking about queue-jumping and the other undesirable—indeed, deplorable—things that have been suggested. I believe that the way to get rid of them is by agreement. I do not believe that we shall get rid of them all by Statute or by a policing system, but I feel that the more we can retain the mood of co-operation with those upon whom we are dependent, the more chance we have of getting rid of all those abuses by agreement and conciliation, given time. My theory is that some of the effects of the Bill may make it difficult to get rid of this kind of abuse and to get the degree of co-operation we undoubtedly need to get in order to drive out the abuses.
My next objection to the Bill is that it does nothing to create new resources. The plain fact is that there is a global volume of medical work to be done and that the total volume of resources to do that work is at present inadequate. We must accept that. No amount of manoeuvring within the limitations of those resources will create new resources. I believe that there are a lot of fallacies about the extent to which we can somehow draw new resources from the abolition of private practice. Indeed, I wandered into the other place the other day to hear the Third Reading debate, and Mrs. Short was talking about queues of private patients going along to the laboratory for a blood test. So what? Is it suggested that these many private patients having successions of blood tests to the point of extreme exsanguination are somehow having them for fun, or is it accepted that they need blood tests? If they need blood tests, they must have them, and whether they have them privately or publicly makes no difference at all to the total amount of resources that are available. I believe that there is a kind of assumption that if a patient has his appendix out privately he occupies two beds instead of one and makes work for two surgeons. All right,

1519
the queue-jumping point is a real one and must be dealt with, but do not let us run away with the idea that this kind of manipulation with a very small number of beds within the private sector will somehow liberate a tremendous amount of new resources and that that will put the Health Service to rights.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? He knows better than most people what is the average bed occupancy in the course of a year. When we are talking about 2,500 to 3,000 private beds that are occupied for private purposes, I wonder how many patients he would say would occupy those 2,500 beds in the course of a year, an average bed being occupied by, say, 12 different people in the course of a year.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I do not think that I can venture on doing public arithmetic with the noble Lord. I take his point, but the real point is, by whom are these beds occupied? Are they occupied by patients or a sort of hotel visitor? If the people concerned need medical treatment, they will occupy a bed whether they are private or National Health Service patients. Admittedly, the queue-jumping point comes in, but the point of total resources remains. Let us accept that the queues are too long and that waiting lists are too long. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and Lord Amulree, who mentioned this point: in parts of the country, waiting lists are deplorable. There are people waiting for two years for so-called "non-urgent" operations. The degree of urgency or otherwise of any operation depends on who is to have that operation. If it is one's own operation, one tends to feel that it is not so non-urgent after all.
There are other aspects of this matter. When the wage earner has an uncomplicated, non-urgent, irreducible inguinal hernia and has to wait for two years to have it operated on, there will be economic effects. He will be a burden upon the social services and so will his wife and his family while he is waiting. I agree with every noble Lord who has said that we must do what we can to get rid of waiting lists. I agree, too, that we must
1520
do what we can to get rid of queue-jumping; but let us not run away with the idea that, somehow, new resources will suddenly become available and that the Health Service in some of the worst areas—and I practice in Salford, which is not the best—will somehow magically become better. I do not think that it will.
I come now to my last point, a point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who referred to the introduction of apartheid in our medical services. I think she has a point. There may be difficulties in having private and public practice side by side in the same hospitals, but at least people can see what is happening and do something to control it. But when one has once separated the two and built up outside the National Health Service a wholly separate private service and that wholly separate private service is flourishing, it will bleed the National Health Service white.
We have already heard about consultants on nine-elevenths of time. I can tell you that I know many consultants who would like to go full-time. One may talk about their private earnings but they say that they would love to have a full-time contract. However, in many cases hospitals cannot offer them a full-time contract. Perhaps that is in part because the hospitals are already getting full-time work out of them although they are paying them for ten-elevenths. They will not get full-time work out of them when the consultants are on two-elevenths and not in the same hospital but a very long way away.
So I put that forward as a little bit of a fear: deliberately and as a matter of policy to build up two separate services, one the Health Service and one a private service outside, is I believe, inviting resources to go to the private service. Money will go to it; money for research will go to it; many workers will leave the one and go to the other because, perhaps mistakenly, they think that they will have more freedom, better opportunities or better facilities. There will be many reasons, but I nevertheless predict that, if we ever establish this "apartheid" system of a private sector outside the National Health Service, it will bleed that Service white.
I have said enough. But it seems to me rather sad that in my day, working in this area for the National Health Service, we began with a private sector which was

1521
then terrified by the prospect of the introduction of a new, free public service. We have arrived at a situation where we now have a public sector free, which is now so frightened of an expensive private sector that somehow it feels that it has to hide it away. The wheel has turned full circle indeed. It is my view that with the right priorities, with the right use of our resources, with efficient administration and the abolition of waste and duplication, it would be perfectly possible for our nation to mount a fully comprehensive health service, free at the time of use to every man, woman, and child in this country. It is on that that we should be concentrating our attention.
After I sit down, my Lords, you will hear many eminent doctors speak and, if I may say so, you will also hear many eminent patients speak. The views of both sides are equally important. But I hope that at least all of them will be speaking from the point of view of preserving and cherishing and maintaining our National Health Service.
5.22 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank and congratulate my fellow general medical practitioner, the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on his maiden speech. I much enjoyed listening to what he said, and I hope that he will speak to us often in future. Many points in this Bill are complex and a large proportion of doctors will agree with my noble friend Lady Young when she said that not enough time has been given for their proper consideration by the medical profession and by your Lordships' House. The British Medical Journal, in a leading article (10.5.76) has called the Bill, "hasty, ill-considered legislation". With this and the guillotine imposed in another place there is an element of truth and some significance in the colloquial question put to me recently: "Are the Government pulling a fast one on the medical profession by introducing this Bill just now?" In some ways many doctors think that they are.
We owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We realise that the Bill now contains much that has become known as "the spirit of Goodman", and we all thank him for this and for the hard work he has done for us. But—
1522
and it is a big "but"—we must appreciate that at no time has the medical profession as a whole (as represented by the Royal Colleges and Faculties, and by the British Medical Association) accepted any compromise over its total opposition to this Bill, even with the Goodman proposals incorporated in it.
Last week I met the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Sir Rodney Smith, who is chairman of an important Working Party (of the Royal Colleges and of the BMA) which is studying the ethical responsibilities of the medical profession within the framework of the National Health Service. I met also Dr. James Cameron and Dr. Elston Grey Turner (Chairman of Council, and Secretary of the BMA). They all told me that the Royal Colleges and Faculties, and the BMA are still implacably opposed to this Bill. They sincerely believe, for reasons with which your Lordships are by now familiar, that it will do British medicine, the National Health Service, patients and doctors a great deal of harm; and they rely on Parliament to have the good sense not to pass it in the face of this strong medical opposition. The suggestion which I have heard, that we should accept the Bill for fear that if we do not do so something worse might be proposed next Session, is to my mind a weak one. To accept it meekly now might easily encourage our opponents to add something very much more unpleasant soon.
What my profession has said is that if the day is lost and the Bill receives Royal Assent (when the doctors could not then act against the will of Parliament), they would do their best to make it work, provided it includes the negotiated Goodman compromises which are better than those suggested in the original Consultative Document. The word "compromise" implies agreement, and this is the only agreement which my profession as a whole has made so far; and it will act on this only if and when, against its wishes and advice, this Bill becomes law.
The right honourable Mrs. Barbara Castle, in another place on 12th October—only nine days ago—issued a warning to your Lordships' House. She said:
"I issue a warning … If this compromise is to be challenged and injured … there will be no

1523
peace in the NHS. Their Lordships will have reopened the gates for industrial action, and it will be upon their own heads …"—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/76; col. 306.]
That would not be on our heads alone, my Lords, for no one has forgotten that it was her Government which started all this trouble over a mere 1 per cent. of the beds in the National Health Service. She has thrown down the gauntlet at your Lordships' feet, and we shall have to decide quite soon whether or not, on behalf of the medical profession, we accept her challenge.
If this Bill is passed and we act along the lines of the Goodman proposals I, as a practising doctor, am particularly interested in three points in them. First, the phasing out of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals, if and when this takes place, must be done in an orderly and reasonable manner, and only when consultants are convinced that good altertive private bed accommodation of equal quality and availability for patients and doctors is provided. This alternative accommodation must be in addition to the beds at present in private nursing homes and hospitals which are, in Central London anyway, already fully occupied (but not always so in the Provinces); and this is before any phasing out begins. This is an important point which I do not believe is fully appreciated.
Secondly, the proposed Health Services Board must be seen to be truly independent politically, and unbiased. Thirdly, the Government, trades unions, local authorities and others must agree that there will be no interference in future on political or ideological grounds with the building, staffing or running of any of the private hospitals mentioned in the Bill, nor with private beds and facilities which remain in NHS hospitals during the period of phasing out. And there must be no interference, either, with private medical insurance organisations.
I know, my Lords, that this Bill aims to take private practice out of the NHS and not to abolish it; and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said about this. Many senior members of the Labour Party, including Sir Harold Wilson, Mrs. Barbara Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the present Secretary of State for Social Services have
1524
said time and time again that they wish to preserve a healthy private sector of medicine in Britain. I gave some of these references to this House in my speech on 3rd December 1975, and here are two more. Mrs Barbara Castle, at the first meeting of the Select Committee on this Bill said:
"It would be intolerable in a democratic society to prevent people buying private medical care if they felt that it was an essential part of their personal interest."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 18/5/76; col. 38.]
The present Secretary of State for Social Services, the right honourable David Ennals, confirmed this attitude on 27th April this year, at the Second Reading of the Bill in another place:
"This Government have said … that it is no part of their policy to abolish private medicine."—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/76; cols. 207–208.]
If the National Health Service does not improve soon, it will need a great deal of help from the private sector in these days of financial stringency. The private sector will then gradually and reasonably expand. I am in full agreement that the quality and standards of hospitals both within and without the National Health Service should be kept under careful scrutiny, and that some equilibrium must be maintained between the two sectors. Every patient who chooses to be treated privately saves the National Health Service money, equipment, personnel and much else, and standards of total pateint care depend on both sectors. If any Government in future, for politically motivated doctrinaire reasons, try to strangle the development, by quantity licensing, of private hospital beds, that will be a most damaging action to prevent the private sector playing its proper role. Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, everyone must accept that the public and private sectors of medicine in Britain must learn to work together in harmony, helping each other with good will and understanding, with reasonable and friendly liaison between the two, each making a useful contribution, as happens with public and private transport on our roads. This symbiosis should logically take place within the walls of our large and famous hospitals, and in many smaller hospitals too throughout our country. It will be much to my regret if Party politics and this proposed Bill make this impossible, so that they will have to work

1525
from separate establishments, to the detriment of both.
My Lords, during the last few minutes of my speech I should like to ask you three questions: Should my profession ever accept, without a struggle, politically-motivated direction imposed upon it by any Government? If doctors dislike that direction strongly, should they fight and, if so, how? Or should they emigrate in appreciable numbers? First, should the medical profession accept quietly, without opposition, arbitrary doctrinaire control imposed upon it by Government or trades unions? Such unopposed direction must lead to impairment, or loss, of professional independence of action and judgment, with curtailment, too of clinical freedom both for patients and their doctors. One example of this would be a patient's freedom of choice as to who would operate on him, and when and where?
Second, should my profession fight for these freedoms and, if so, how? If a Government, for Party-political ends, is dictatorial and unreasonable with a great profession, forcing through a Bill like this, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, himself agrees was not really necessary in the first place, that profession must defend itself, as would any other. The legal profession, for instance, has been considering this problem seriously, as the President of the Law Society has so clearly pointed out recently. What he said was published in The Times on 8th October. But what can we do if discussion is cut short, our views are ignored and agreement cannot be reached? Most doctors would agree with the principle proposed by the President of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Cyril Clarke, when he wrote in a letter to The Times of 30th July about his Royal College:
"We do not believe it is right to take any action which may bring harm to patients."
But what effective practical alternative has been put forward? None. The Royal College of Physicians has suggested a, "Council of Conciliation", the Working Party of the Royal Colleges and of the BMA (which I have already mentioned) has not reported yet, and the Government have refused to put the pay bed dispute to the Royal Commission, as many doctors thought they should have done.
1526
During the past 12 months, my Lords, the mood of my profession has hardened, and it has learned how to fight. Medicine is not an industry, so "industrial action" is an incorrect, inappropriate, and misleading term when applied to doctors. They are learning how to take what is better called "professional action"—highly-selective action of various kinds—within the law and within their contracts and terms of service, which they can take either individually or collectively with the support of the British Medical Association.
In December 1975, it was the collective professional action of doctors which played a large part in persuading the Government to introduce Lord Goodman's proposals into the Bill. More recently, it was collective professional action which helped the junior doctors to obtain what they wanted in their dispute with the Department of Health and Social Security. No doctor wants to inconvenience or harm his patients in any way which can be avoided. Neither does a surgeon who operates, say, to remove an abdominal tumour, want to hurt his patient; but, as Hamlet says:
"Diseases desperate grown,
By desperate appliance are reliev'd,
Or not at all."
The surgeon and his patient appreciate and accept that a certain amount of temporary inconvenience and pain are necessary for a cure. So it is with doctors taking collective professional action. The President of the Royal College of Surgeons wrote to The Times of 2nd August an immediate addition to that of his fellow President, pointing out the dilemma facing the medical profession now:
"If a Government acts in a manner so damaging to the practice of medicine that harm to patients must result (and one must include in this measures that reduce the morale of those working in the NHS) how can doctors oppose if the most effective means of opposition might itself harm patients?"
It is the conviction of many thousand members of my profession, now, that collective professional action may be justified, under certain circumstances, for the benefit of British medicine in the future. These circumstances arise when there is a serious risk of erosion of our professional freedoms by Party-political moves such as the forcing through of a Bill like this, and when no conciliatory mechanism exists which will ensure that both sides will listen to reasonable arguments and respond to them. The

1527
noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who as a young doctor and Labour M.P. for Barnet—Stephen Taylor—was responsible to a considerable extent for the inception of the N.H.S. by influencing and advising Aneurin Bevan, wrote this about doctors on 10th March this year in the journal World Medicine:
"Doctors must remember that Parliament cannot bind its successors in perpetuity. If future legislation were to threaten their essential professional freedoms, they would be justified, in the long-term interests of their patients, in fighting the proposals by every means in their power."
My third and last short question, my Lords, is, "Should our doctors emigrate?" Inevitably, better facilities, conditions of service and freedom from political and trade-union interference are attracting gifted medical men and women to other countries, as my noble friend Lady Young has already mentioned. Many of us firmly believe that it will be far better for the future of British medicine for our good doctors to stay here caring for their patients, and fighting for their principles and beliefs, rather than that they should move away to other countries taking their talents and the fruits of their expensive training, and their experience, with them. Such emigration of even a small proportion of the flower of our profession will do our patients and the National Health Service far more harm, in the long run, than will any temporary collective professional action taken now. You will appreciate, my Lords, that I and many of my colleagues are in a fighting mood. We are determined to protect our patients and our own legitimate and reasonable professional freedoms whatever happens to this particular Bill.
5.40 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I should like to congratulate—I was going to say "Dr. Stone "—the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on his maiden speech, which we were very pleased to listen to and very glad that he has got it over because obviously it was a great relief to him. He is now what I may call a fully paid-up member of your Lordships' House and he will be able to intervene in our debates and discussions in Committee stages and so on.
1528
I have a feeling when I have been thinking about these problems of the Health Service that one of the most important criteria by which we should judge any proposed change or innovation is what will be its effects on the reputation of British medicine at home and abroad. I think that that reputation still stands very high, but I do not know how long it will go on standing high in the present state of the profession. The reputation of British medicine will not be served by threats of mass resignations, by strikes, by consultants working to rule, all of which I am afraid I find completely unacceptable. I agree there with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who likened our profession to joining the Church in which that kind of action is no longer available to you because you have joined a profession which is a service. I did not come here to disagree with my friend of many years the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, but on that point I disagree. But I cannot disagree with him without trying to answer his question.
The question was a very reasonable and notable one: What other measures can we take? I think that this really begs the question altogether. I think the question is: who allowed the situation to get as bad as this? I do not think that the profession itself can say that they are not guilty when threats of strikes and so on have been mooted almost before the subject has been discussed. If he wants an alternative, I personally believe that the only solution is a real collaboration between the Department and the profession which I do not think has ever happened since the beginning of the Health Service. In order to facilitate that, I have no doubt that some kind of body which does not belong to the Government or any Party and is not overloaded by members of the medical profession should meet as a conciliatory kind of body and try to solve these problems seeing the seriousness of them before they reaach that stage.
Neither is the reputation of British medicine served by the disastrous reorganisation—I am sorry to use that word but it is my favourite word for it—of the Health Service in 1974 which made communication more and more difficult when communication was firston the list of what needed to be improved in the Health Service—communication between

1529
doctors and patients: "My doctor will not listen to me"; communication between GPs and consultants: "He does not get a letter from the consultant for three weeks after the patient is in hospital" communication between doctors and nurses; communication between doctors and doctors; and finally between the profession and the Department. The result of the reorganisation was to make communication more difficult at a time when it was the only solution to the difficulties. Neither will the reputation of British medicine be served by this Bill. Not at all.
What is called in America the geographical wholetime system is surely the best of all—perhaps the only thing in American medicine that I agree with, but I agree strongly with it. That means that a man's first loyalty—and these are top consultants, medical scientists and so on—is to the hospital or the medical school—which is the same thing: the hospital being part of the medical school. His first loyalty is to his hospital and although he is allowed private practice and allowed to accept fees he does his private work geographically in the same place as he does his other work. He is then—coming now to translate it into British terms—always available to his National Health Service patients. He is not in Hampstead or at Lord's cricket ground when he ought to be at Guy's Hospital. He is in Guy's Hospital. If at the end of the day when he is ready to go home he wants to pop in and see one of his NHS patients whom he saw in the morning and about whom he is worried he does so; but he will not come all the way from St. John's Wood or wherever to Guy's Hospital to do that.
He is also subject to a continual scrutiny by his colleagues and junior staff. Everybody knows what he is doing, what his standards are, what his ethical standards are. I think this is a tremendous advantage and to throw it away is madness. There is no advantage in doing so. There is a lot of very grave danger in doing so. This, I am surprised to say, does not seem to have been mentioned. I have listened to almost every speech, although I missed a little of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, at the beginning, and it does not really seem to have been considered. All right. The private sector can go on building up. Nobody is going to interfere with private
1530
practice. But are we going back to the old inefficient nursing homes? No. We are going to see that any new nursing homes or private hospitals that are built are visited and that their standards are up to the standards required nowadays of people practising modern medicine and surgery.
Fine! But who is going to scrutinise the doctors who work in them? Who will they be? If you go to a private bed—and I only take London as an example as many of your Lordships live in and around London—in a London teaching hospital, St. Thomas's or Guy's—you know the consultant in charge has been through the mill with proper training, of gaining appointments and of distinction in them and that he is a thoroughly qualified specialist in the job he is setting out to do. Will there be the same scrutiny for the private sector? Will somebody say, "No, you cannot practise here. We think you are a second-rate doctor and we only want first-rate doctors." Who is going to say that? Nobody has answered that question. It is crucial. Your Lordships know what happens in America where all kinds of people operate on patients who do not need operations and they do not even always do the operation very well, as we know in one notable example in public life.
I think this is bad and I think it will lead to a division in the profession either slowly or quickly where the loyal people will spend more and more time in their hospitals and those who are out to make money will spend more and more time in the private sector. I think that they will gradually grow apart and then, as I say, useless operations may be performed; the people who abuse the Service now and about whom much has been said will be the very ones who will abuse it in the private sector and the premiums for insurance against malpractice will go up sky high. A Californian nose and throat surgeon writing in a journal the other day said that his premium for insurance protection against actions for malpractice was 16,000 dollars a year, roughly £8,000. The rate varies and for specialties such as neurosurgery and gynaecology probably the premium would be more. this is the kind of thing we do not want to encourage in this country.
We have a National Health Service, we have pay beds in hospitals with all the

1531
facilities, and we have got the men—though, of course, there are a lot of things we have not got. But why change it and leave it open to all these abuses? As to the abuses charged against workers in the National Health Service, the chief one seems to be the one of queue-jumping. This is serious; it means that if you pay something you get into hospital sooner. This Bill will do nothing whatever to prevent it. Ordinary chaps—I was going to say like you and me, but we are rather a mixed bag—would say, "I can afford a consultation fee. I do not want to go and wait in an out-patient department. I might see the registrar when I really wanted to see Dr. So-and-So. I will pay his consultation fee and see him in his consulting rooms" (which are preferably in the hospital itself). He sees the doctor, but Dr. So-and-So is not satisfied and he says, "I think this is what is happening but you must come into hospital for further investigation", or, "It is imperative that you have an operation". The patient says, "How much is this going to cost?", and the doctor says, "It could run into £300 or £400 easily". The chap says, "I cannot afford it" and the doctor says, "I will take you into one of my beds".
If the doctor is less than absolutely scrupulous with his conscience, this is where the queue-jumping comes in. He is liable to have pressure brought on him by the general practitioner handling the patient who says, "Mrs. So-and-So whom you saw a week or so ago is getting no better and should come in", so Mrs. So-and-So gets higher up the queue than perhaps sheer medical necessity would dictate. That is the main abuse and this Bill does absolutely nothing for it. It allows you to have a private consultation and it does not prevent you from going into an NHS hospital after it, so from that point of view it is useless.
Bed occupancy was discussed and there was a little passage between the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on mathematics. The question was: how many of these private beds are occupied? The occupancy level is bound to be less because the patients are not staying so long. For several reasons many patients in Health Service beds stay in much longer than they need. Sometimes surgeons have different ideas as to how long patients should stay in
1532
hospital. They are not paying for it so it does not matter. Sometimes the consultant comes round twice a week; he sees the patient on Tuesday and thinks that he ought to get the gall bladder X-rayed and on Friday he comes again and it has not yet been done. On Tuesday it has been done but the report has not come through from the X-ray department so that patient can stay in hospital for 10 unnecessary days. The bed occupancy is 100 per cent. but the use that is being made of it is 0 per cent., whereas the private patient naturally says, "How long need I stay? This is costing me so much per week". That has to be taken into the calculation, my Lords.
Amenity beds have been mentioned. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, will almost certainly refer to these. I thought what a splendid idea amenity beds were. Ordinary people, perhaps more likely to be professional people than manual workers, would say they wanted privacy, they wanted to be alone and so on; some of them were rather shy about it all. However my experience—which of course covers only a few hospitals—is that these beds just do not work. There were so few of them that they were always needed for some ordinary patient—ordinary in the sense that he was not asking for an amenity bed but was very ill and had to be nursed separately. If you got the amenity bed system to work it would not help with the queue-jumping. Either a person wanted an amenity bed and there were enough so that he got it quickly or there were so few that he would have to wait longer, so the queue-jumping is not solved by amenity beds.
Waiting lists have been mentioned. I am sure that if a real concerted attack between the profession and the department were made on waiting lists we should find that there is an awful lot of nonsense about them. Whether it is true that the less scrupulous members of my profession like to have long waiting lists so that they can say to the patient, "I shall have to keep you waiting for two years" I have no evidence one way or another. There are certain people in my profession "who I would not put it past", if that is the right expression. The high reputation of British medicine depends on the most notable people in the profession, many of whom have achieved their celebrity by research and teaching others, by the

1533
wisdom, knowledge and integrity of their advice. We want these people to have their first loyalty to the hospital in which they served. Why do we push them out to do their private work somewhere else? It seems to me to be madness.
I was greatly stirred by reading an article in The Times yesterday which reported that Sir Alec Merrison, the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Health Service, made it clear that we need not wait two years for his report on some major issue; they were willing to give a running commentary from time to time. If this was not a broad hint that the Merrison Commission were not greatly pleased with this Bill, then I have misinterpreted his words. It seems to me a very broad hint. So let us hope that if we are going to pass this Bill the phasing out of pay beds from the National Health Service will be so slow that we shall have the Merrison Report before we get any further.
6 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on a charming maiden speech—not only charming but obviously based on many years of dedicated service as a general practitioner. I cannot resist quoting two sentences from In Place of Fear, the reference made by Aneurin Bevan when he was writing in 1951 to the feeling about the tempestuous atmosphere of that early time. He wrote:
"I have a warm spot for the general practitioner despite his tempestuousness. The family doctor is in many ways the most important person in the Service. He is also the most highly individualistic member of the medical world".
It is fascinating to compare the atmosphere in which we are discussing the Health Service today with the atmosphere in another place in the 1945–50 Parliament. We have had a militant, rousing speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who holds opinions obviously fervently, and of course with deep sincerity. Not so much in this House but in the other House, we have had speeches of equal fervour taking an opposite point of view. I hope and believe that neither of these forms of "a 100 per cent. my way" or "a 100 per cent. your way" are going to win.
This is such a passionate subject that we must congratulate the noble Lord,
1534
Lord Goodman, and those who worked with him. It is almost a miracle that he has so much understanding of the compromise which he thinks ought to be adopted. Your Lordships' House must know that most of the giving has been from our side. Before coming here today I was looking through some old papers. I came across something that was written by Dr. Somerville Hastings about Aneurin Bevan at a moment of great grief, when Aneurin Bevan died. Although there was a strong personal affection between the two men, Dr. Somerville Hastings fought his Minister for the health service he wanted. He said:
"Do you realise some of us in the Socialist Medical Association have given the best years of our lives to prepare the way for the Health Service, and we want this Health Service to be available to all of us as one great family? We do not want anyone advantaged by wealth and we do not want anyone disadvantaged by poverty."
This sentiment was expressed with great ardour.
Regarding pay beds, how he chided his Minister, who was also his friend! He said: "How can you make these kinds of compromises?" The answer in that Parliament was that certain compromises had to be made or we should not have had our National Health Service. We had to bring in the great teaching hospitals. We had to deal not just with the legitimate fears of the medical profession but with a great deal of ghosts and bogey men. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, will forgive me, I heard an echo of them today. Surely no civil servant and no politician is going to interfere between a doctor and his patient.
It is not in the philosophy of those of us who are democratic socialists that we want to prohibit private medicine. We believe in a mixed economy. We want more on the public sector than noble Lords opposite do. I do not think any Conservative now would say that lie wants the whole of industry in private hands. We could not survive that. Noble Lords will not find those of us who are democratic socialists saying that we want 100 per cent. nationalisation of all industry, because we know, too, that that would be the road to an authoritarian society.
We have to consider the genuine fears of doctors. The Goodman compromise must go a very long way to answering their fears. If it is necessary to have it

1535
put in an Act of Parliament that private medicine should exist side by side with the Health Service, well and good. When we have been talking about our hospitals we have been talking quite properly about the dedicated men and women who are nurses and doctors. My only claim to intervene for a short time tonight is that I know every nuance of the struggle in the early days of establishing the Health Service. I know that I am speaking in the presence of many in this House who in recent years, as some are doing at the present moment, have given a great deal of time, energy and services, some professionally and some in an administrative capacity. I do not share that experience.
I am a grateful patient of the National Health Service, and I am glad that we have heard from all parts of the House expressions that we have the best National Health Service in the world, with all its faults. When there is a serious illness in the home, when an emergency operation is required, all would agree that our Health Service is superb. All would agree that the care of the expectant mother and child is superb. There is a great field in between where of course we need a better service, more money spent on hospitals, and so on. You cannot run a great hospital with nurses and doctors alone. There has to be the ambulance service, the auxiliary workers, the cleaners and the cooks; in other words, there has to be a good atmosphere in the hospital embracing everyone, whatever part he is playing.
In my experience, there is more impatience among the auxiliary workers in hospitals against private beds. They know that originally a compromise was made to get the Health Service started. The belief was that once the Service was started there would be less and less need for private medicine. If anyone wants private medicine in our society they ought to have it; but I do not think pay beds can survive in the general hospitals, because it is against the spirit of the age. The people serving in many capacities do not like it and they feel that when we are ill we should all be treated in the same way.
I am glad that several noble Lords mentioned amenity beds. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that the
1536
amenity bed has not done the job that Aneurin Bevan and the other founders of the Health Service wanted it to do. The amenity bed ought to reassure those members of the public who have such a great distaste of going into a public ward that they would almost keep out of hospital altogether. I can remember visiting hospitals with Aneurin Bevan. A great deal of attention was paid to personal privacy, drawing curtains round a patient's bed and so on. I have spent much time recently as a visitor to one of our great London hospitals and was impressed by the efforts which are made to give privacy in public wards, whether the patient requires a bed pan or some minor attention. Great improvements have been made.
We have not nearly enough amenity beds. It is no good having a leading member of the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet in a public ward; they are a confounded nuisance. They get too many flowers, too many telegrams and upset the rhythm of the ward. We must have common sense about this. If there is a side ward, which is private, then they can get on with reading their official papers or receive masses of flowers, and all the rest of it. That seems a sensible arrangement. Or you may be a businessman who has a broken leg or something that means that you can still do a good deal of work; and you may have that kind of reason for wanting an amenity bed. But if there is a scarcity of beds, then these beds must first go to those who require privacy for medical reasons. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that there are not enough amenity beds. I should like to think that when we come to the Committee stage we can again reassure not only doctors, who have far too many fears that are not really founded, but also members of the public who also fear a violation of their privacy, and that we shall give real attention to this particular matter.
My Lords, I hope that before anyone again tries to suggest that the first Minister of the Health Service was in favour of private beds or was in favour of a part-time consultancy service they will go to the Library where they will find his book. They will then see quite clearly that the essential thing—and we all agree now that it was essential and we do not have the fierce opposition of earlier days—

1537
was to get the National Health Service started. We have got it, we are proud of it and proud of all those who serve in it, in whatever capacity they serve. On the subject of the Goodman compromise, which does not please me and which does not satisfy many of my friends, just as it does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, we may have to agree to differ, and if it is the will of the majority of Parliament that that compromise should go through, then let it go through and let us all work to make it a success.
6.12 p.m.
Lady RUTHVEN of FREELAND: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on his maiden speech. It was very much to the point and nice and short, which is what a maiden speech should be.
I hesitated to address your Lordships tonight as you have already listened to so many excellent speeches and some brilliant speeches from the medical profession, but I felt that as I had been for so many years, in an amateurish way, involved in the Health Service on organisation and administration perhaps I should be "doing a St. Peter" if I did not stand up and be counted, because I do not like this Health Services Bill and I feel that I must justify my views on that point.
Much of my time has been given up to this Health Service. I even go on now, in my old age, visiting many hospitals for the League of Hospital Friends, and so I still keep in touch with what goes on in the Health Service. I should like to say how much I agree with what has been said by so many of my noble friends on this side of the House and also with the speeches made by members on the Liberal Benches and on the Cross-Benches. I have listened with the greatest interest to all that they have said, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who interested me intensely.
The Health Service sets out the Government's plan for phasing out all the pay beds eventually. It seems very hard that sick people able and willing to pay the full cost of their treatment should not be allowed to do so. The architects of todays' Hospital Service, the old voluntary hospitals, had for some considerable number of years built private wings,
1538
often financed by grateful patients and others interested in medical and nursing care for those in need. The revenue from the private wings, after meeting the cost of treatment for the patients in those private wings, was then used towards the overall costs of the hospital service. When the hospitals were transferred to the Ministry of Health on the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 the private wings were also transferred, and the Government of the day set aside the beds and facilities provided by the private wings for the use of patients who would be willing to pay the full cost of their treatment. At the same time, Mr. Aneurin Bevan—whom I am glad to say was a great friend of mine and I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Baroness Lee of Asheridge, speak just before me—created a system under which consultants in the hospitals could choose to give up a part of their salaries in return for the freedon to do some private work for patients in the private beds.
Until the last year or two this system worked well. Unfortunately, other things have intervened and the system is now breaking down. Not only has the National Health Service patient benefited from the care of many brilliant doctors who, without this freedom, to do private work might never have joined the National Health Service, but the fact that they have been able to combine public and private practice in one hospital has meant the saving of countless hours of travelling and countless lives have been saved in emergencies. The patients have benefited from the private facilities of the National Health Service hospitals and it will be the patients who will suffer if the pay beds are phased out of the hospitals.
Cuts are already being made in the expenditure on the Health Service. Hospitals are being closed and many wards are empty. They cannot be staffed because of lack of money. Waiting lists are just as long and will be until the Government are able to release more money to open these closed wards and to recommence work on curtailed building pogrammes. Our Health Service is not measuring up to what the public has come to expect from it, and it is not the admiration of all eyes as it was in the past. I spent a lot of time in America in years gone by, visiting hospitals, and I was always asked to speak about our Health Service.

1539
There were "Oohs!" and "Aahs!" and questions I was not always capable of answering. But it was the admiration of the American world; I know that, I rather doubt its being so now.
The Bill to phase out the pay beds will not shorten the waiting lists, but it can and it will increase the shortage of doctors in the National Health Service hospitals. The long-term effect of this could be disastrous, especially to the teaching of the young doctors should the consultants choose to leave the National Health Service hospitals for the private hospitals and nursing homes. I cannot emphasise too strongly the loss of teaching material, particularly from the London and big provincial teaching hospitals, if all private beds are abolished. I know one particularly interesting case on which a friend of mine, a professor of dental surgery, was teaching his students. The patient was discharged but had to return for further treatment, and when the patient arrived she found that the pay beds of the hospital where she had been had been eliminated and she was in a private nursing home. The professor was able to visit the patient after his day's work was over but unaccompanied by students. The loss of teaching material is of great consequence and seems to have passed unnoticed by the Department when it drafted the Bill.
There will always be a section of the public which will want to have private medical attention, and those members of the public should be allowed to have it and to pay for it over and above the contribution that they make through income tax and through the Health Insurance tax. To encourage members of the public to have private insurance cover to pay for private treatment in hospital would appear to be a sensible way of attracting additional revenue for a starved National Health Service. I must say that I subscribe to one of these societies. Though I have been in many private rooms, several times I have been in National Health Service hospital wards. I know which I prefer, although that is neither here nor there. It would seem more sensible to have more pay bed facilities than to force private treatment to go to an extension of private hospitals like the London Clinic, the Wellington and many others, the profits from which benefit no one but the shareholders of public
1540
companies. I should like to end by saying that the care of the sick should, in my view, be everyone's concern and should not be allowed to become a matter for Party politics.
6.20 p.m.
Lord PORRITT: My Lords, may I add my voice to previous speakers and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on his maiden speech, which was both simple and brief—two very fine points. As an ex-member of the profession, belonging to that part which has been somewhat rudely criticised this afternoon—the specialists and consultants—I congratulate him on a straightforward statement from a genuine doctor. I hope, now that he has got over his terror, that we shall hear him often.
I have been fortunate in having spent two-thirds of a fairly long life in the practice of medicine, both clinical and administrative, and half of that, at least, has been under the aegis of and concerned with the National Health Service. I am glad to be speaking this evening from the Cross-Benches, and I want your Lordships to believe that even if some of my remarks may seem rather hard, this is a completely unbiased statement of a firmly held belief. My only bias is towards medicine. To me, it is sad enough and bad enough that, over the years, medicine should have become more and more involved in politics. This was obviously going to happen when the fascinating experiment of nationalising a profession for the first time in history was attempted in 1946–48. That has happened and we accept it, but when medicine is being used as a Party political football to be kicked about by ideologies and ideologists, then it is nothing but tragic. That is how I look at this Bill. I feel that it represents that last statement.
Another great interest of mine over the past 50 years has been the Olympic movement, and your Lordships will all know what has recently happened in that sphere in Canada, which will continue to happen with the same result and for the same reason. Those are two ideals, medicine and Olympism, which promoted both health, in its fullest sense—mental, physical and moral—and friendship, mutual trust and understanding between peoples; both already tarnished and at

1541
risk of ultimate destruction because of unnecessary and ever-increasing doctrinaire methodology. Your Lordships will note, I trust, that I have categorically defined the NHS as an ideal. This I believe it initially was. Equally, I have no doubt that it has done immeasurable good to a great many people who could not otherwise, except through its influence, have received the benefits which they have had. All the more sad it is to see it slowly strangled by the octopus of over-administration, and swamped by the crushing weight of top-heavy bureaucracy.
At one time, it might have been described as the best State medical service in the world, and that has been mentioned once or twice already today. That, sadly, I suggest, was a long time ago. Nationalised medicine in one shape or another has been inaugurated in many countries throughout the world, and not one of them has seen fit to copy our Service. The best health service in the world is one in which all patients are private patients. This has been very nearly achieved in Canada.
That brings me back to this Bill, this pathetic, rather small Bill, which was barely half discussed in the other place, was guillotined, is full of contradictions and omissions, is often vague and sometimes very difficult to understand. And for what purpose? It benefits neither patients nor doctors; nor for that matter the National Health Service itself. It starts off by stating in the Explanatory Memorandum that its main purposes are, first, to separate from National Health Service hospitals accommodation and facilities—often, life-saving facilities—used for the private practice of medicine; and, secondly, to introduce new powers of control over private hospital building to safeguard the NHS. Safeguard from what? Is the mighty NHS so frightened, or perhaps so envious, of the quality of the service provided in the relatively minuscule private sector that it must legislate against it? I think this is bringing the whole business of British medicine down to the lowest common denominator. Is it not patently obvious that the health and stimulation which a virtually bankrupt NHS could obtain from a well supported and flourishing private sector is just the very thing that it wants more than anything else?
1542
Without doubt, the worst disease from which we as a nation are suffering today is the canker of egalitarianism. All men, my Lords, are not born equal nor alike. It is a genetic impossibility. Let us harness the attributes of those who are better endowed, whether mentally, physically or materially, for the benefit of those less fortunate; but let us remember that there is no class distinction between these two groups of people. Despite the stated purposes of this Bill, which I have already quoted, the only real objective is to fulfil a Manifesto pledge expressive of a narrow sectional interest which, with its overtone of Marxist dogma, just cannot offer any benefit to the community as a whole. Surely the exclusions and restrictions of this Bill constitute a direct attack on the basic freedoms of the individual, both patient and doctor—a point which I was very interested to see was underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—and if that be the case no Amendments, however well-intentioned, no bargain, should be allowed to cloud the simple issue that we are dealing with primary principles. The pay beds issue, which has already created so much disruption and ill-feeling in the Service and in the profession, is essentially a deliberate, contentious red herring introduced for Party political purposes.
However, even if we stick to the private beds in NHS hospitals argument, let us remember—and it has been remembered quite frequently this afternoon—that there was a proviso. I learned from the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, on a previous occasion not to call it a promise, which it was not. But there was a proviso at the very beginning of this Health Service which allowed it to be set up, and which was an agreement with the Royal Colleges to allow private practice to take place in National Health Service hospital beds. Reverting to my Olympic analogy, the situation seems to resemble very closely that which occurred immediately before the recent Games in Montreal, when the host Government of Canada went back on its written promise to admit competitors from all countries. Again, in what we are discussing this afternoon, if it is not a promise—and I have said that I now take that back—an agreement is being broken, an agreement entered into in good faith, and it is unilaterally being set aside. I think that this is what the profession

1543
fears so much; that an agreement which it accepted and worked for 30 years is now set aside. The profession is frightened about other agreements or promises being set aside in future.
Furthermore, in the original Manifesto which gave birth to this Bill, although pay beds certainly featured to a marked extent, no mention whatsoever was made of limitations on private practice outside the NHS, which appear in Part III of the Bill. This is an addition which was not in the Manifesto. These limitations include the imposition of controls on the provision or extension of private hospital facilities, with consequent authorisations for planning permission, fees for such authorisation and certifications, and the appointment of inspectors with a right of entry to oversee all this new work. I suggest that regulations such as these, however much they may be camouflaged in honeyed words, cannot hide the stark truth that this is a positive preliminary move towards the total abolition of private practice, and the establishment of a monopolistic State service. With the best will in the world the profession could not, in all honesty, put any other interpretation upon such measures.
This brings me to the extremely serious question, in my view, of the effects, direct and indirect, that this Bill will have upon the standards of British medicine, effects which have been mentioned by one or two noble Lords and which I think need to be stressed. Surely this is a matter of prime importance to the National Health Service as a whole, as it was initially set up to provide for the people of this country the very best medical care obtainable.
Your Lordships will be well aware that for the first time in the 30-year history of the National Health Service the Royal Colleges and the specialist faculties, whose primary concern is to ensure that the overall standards of medicine are maintained and improved, have been constrained to enter the embattled arena of medical politics during recent months. I need not go into the details of the reasons they have given for their fears that this Bill will have a deleterious effect on these standards. A number of statements have now been issued putting forward cogent and, I would humbly suggest, almost
1544
irrefutable arguments against the withdrawing of private beds from the National Health Service hospitals and against the limitations of private practice in general.
It seems to me an extraordinary situation that the Bill should aim to establish two separate tiers of medical practice—the very antithesis of the original National Health Service ideal. As one noble Lord has already said in this debate, it represents apartheid in medicine in this country. The practice of medicine is an entity. It may be quantified by bureaucracy, although that is difficult enough, but it cannot be qualified by dogma without great detriment to the community at large.
This debate, being only a Second Reading, is probably not the place to introduce detailed consideration of the many contentious matters contained in the Bill, but I venture to mention one or two as, very sadly, I shall be leaving the country shortly, though not because of the Bill, and will be absent for the rest of the discussion. Therefore I should like to mention one or two rather general aspects.
I note that despite all the detailed methods described in the Bill for withdrawing private beds from National Health Service hospitals no mention is made of means for establishing such accommodation in areas where provision is inadequate or absent. And these areas do exist. It would he very interesting to learn of the use which has been made of private accommodation which has already been vacated. This point has just been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, among others. It would not seem that the creation of office space, of storerooms, or even of its use for geriatric patients, who obviously can only be indifferently cared for in single room accommodation, are justifiable purposes to which to put previously fully used general medical beds.
Again, in today's age and in these present economic conditions, can there be the slightest justification for the financial outlay which is inherent in implementing the measures included in the Bill? Apart from the admitted loss of a substantial sum from private patients' accommodation fees, a sum which, as noble Lords have heard, has been variously estimated but

1545
is probably at least £20 million a year, there are boards to be set up and staffed not only centrally but also in Scotland and Wales. And I ask myself, not understanding these things, what is to happen in Northern Ireland? Inspectorates are to be set up and paid for and there is to be yet more paper work, more form filling and more bureaucratic waste of time and work. Is this not a most profligate waste of funds, funds which are urgently needed in other spheres of the Service?
And yet again—I know that this point has been mentioned already—is it really necessary to bring into the Bill that well worn red herring of waiting lists and queue jumping? There is only one reason for waiting lists and that is the shortage of operating theatre accommodation and of the staff to put into them. This shortage requires extra funding facilities, and those we are now going to spend upon setting up the unnecessary measures suggested in the Bill. For no really valid reason the Bill proposes to squander financial resources on measures which achieve nothing either for National Health Service or for private patients.
Your Lordships will be well aware by now that I am no politician and what I am about to propose may be administratively impossible, or even constituttionally out of order. But what a simply magnificent gesture it would be on the part of the Government if they offered, under existing circumstances, to withdraw the Bill, even temporarily, or perhaps, as has been suggested before, to refer it to the Royal Commission for study (for this is where it surely belongs) so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, it can be put into perspective in the context of the medical set-up of this country as a whole. A magnanimous gesture of this kind not only would instil a breath of fresh air into the turgid hours that we have spent in this Chamber during the last few weeks, but would raise a cry of joy from the medical profession and do untold good in healing the disastrous rifts which have occurred in the last year between the medical profession and the Government. It would show a genuine desire for genuine co-operation and this is what is so very badly needed. By avoiding putting at risk the standards of British medicine, which are so dear to the hearts of all of us who are medical
1546
men both in this country and overseas, it would achieve what, after all, is surely the prime, initial and continuing object of the National Health Service—the best possible medical care for all patients in this country.
6.37 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, one of the more impressive features of this somewhat depressing debate has been the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stone, to which the whole House listened with enormous interest and respect. We hope that we shall often hear from the noble Lord.
I must echo what my noble friend Lady Young has said about the timing of the Bill. Certainly I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, from any blame. All those who know him and his contribution to medical matters have a deep respect for what he has done and what he will continue to do, whether or not we always agree with his point of view. However, it is an intolerable situation when the careers of many who are in medicine now, and, above all, of many who are planning to enter the profession—not to mention the most important people of all, the patients, who are so very conscientiously looked after by our doctors, whether they are British or Commonwealth doctors—are going to be very seriously jeopardised by many of the provisions of the Bill.
I must say at once that I have never been a private patient, nor have any members of my family, and I am never likely to be one. We have always received the very best treatment from the National Health Service. Recently, I re-read the debates which were held in the middle and late 1940s on the National Health Service. I believe that the country owes a considerable debt to the late right honourable Member for Ebbw Vale for introducing the Service, despite all the resulting problems and shortcomings. If he were alive today, just what he would be thinking of this legislation as at present drafted I do not know, but I have a shrewd feeling that he would be very disappointed at much of it.
Much of what I wish to say I will save, if I possibly can, for the Committee stage of the Bill. But, as other noble Lords have said, and particularly those in the medical profession, I feel that this shuttlecock on the National Health Service which

1547
is being passed from Government to Government is immensely damaging; but I am bound to say from these Benches that I had no more enthusiasm for the reorganisation of the National Health Service which was carried out by the Conservative Party than I have for this Bill. I must make that point; I should be very much less than sincere if I did not because I served, as have many other noble Lords (I have mentioned this in your Lordships' House before and I apologise for repeating it), prior to reorganisation, on the house committees of both a children's hospital and a mental hospital. It is no use crying over spilt milk: the fact is that reorganisation has taken place. It is obviously not in order to discuss it on a measure of this kind, except to say that a great deal of the demoralisation of the National Health Service has hitherto been caused by this, although I believe that those who work in the Area Health Authorities and the community health centres are doing their jobs as diligently as their terms of reference allow.
We now have a Bill on which, admittedly, there has been some consultation with the doctors but I submit that there has been not nearly enough. In many ways the Bill has been ill thought out and I believe that one of its worst aspects is the second Schedule, which mentions the number of beds which are to be phased out, among them as I understand it, the first 1,000 within the first six months from the date when the Bill goes on the Statute Book, if unhappily it does so.
For example, I cannot understand why in Cambridgeshire 20 beds out of 56 are to be phased out, which is almost half. Cambridgeshire has one of our leading teaching hospitals in Addenbrookes. How are they going to fare under this? Then as my noble friend Lady Young mentioned, there is the question of the new towns. We do not quite know geographically—at least I do not—how this will work, but I should have thought that the money which is to be expended in setting up these boards would have been better spent in equipping hospitals in some of the new town areas, particularly, for example, Milton Keynes which will have at least a six figure population. How much of the money could have been diverted to that area, where there will
1548
be a mixed population of young, middle-aged, those in work and those who have retired? I wonder how much consideration the Government have given to that.
Then there is the future of the nurses. Many of us have daughters who are nurses; or, in my case, I have one who is 17 and is going to be a nurse. It is a very good thing for nurses to have experience in all types of medicine and in many areas—the Potteries at Stoke-on-Trent, where they meet people who may perhaps talk roughly but have hearts of gold, or the patients of the East London Hospital, which is one of the finest hospitals in the country and which I was privileged to tour not so long ago. I believe one has to give some thought to those who are not only practising at the present time but will be in the future, be they from this country or be they the overseas doctors and nurses on whom we place such reliance and who give us such faithful service, whatever the colour of their skin and whatever their nationality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, in what I thought was a most impressive speech, even if I did not agree with every single word of it, mentioned that absorbing book In Place of Fear which I re-read not long ago and which I—and I hope all noble Lords—will reread between now and the next stage of the Bill because it has much which is germane to medicine and the National Health Service today. I listened with interest to her comments about side wards for those who are prominent politicians, and perhaps for those who are prominent in other walks of life. The only trouble with that is that if there is a shortage of nurses, as there is in many hospitals, one does in fact get better treatment in a public ward. That is a point which has to be considered, but of course the wards where there are three or four patients can give a young doctor or a young nurse a great deal of experience.
I have just two more points to make at this stage of the Bill. This debate today has one advantage. We have heard, and are going to hear more, from members of the medical profession, consultants and general practitioners. The other point—the final one—is this. We can never divorce ourselves from the fact that our National Health Service is one

1549
of the finest in the world. I have travelled a fair amount this year; I have been to Czechoslovakia and seen one or two very large hospitals there, with modern equipment, some of which would make the mouths water of those who are running our own big teaching hospitals. But in Czechoslovakia, too, there is a shortage of nurses and doctors. So I do not think we should necessarily blind ourselves to these facts. There is much work remaining to be done on this Bill, particularly in some of the points enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his very good speech. I hope we shall get plenty of time to devote to this Bill and that it will be carried out, as it has been today, in a non-partisan but constructive manner.
There is much in the Bill that is very wrong; there is much in the Bill which is almost unworkable, and there is much in the Bill which will have a very bad effect on the morale of those working in the Health Service. I do not wish to be unduly controversial, but some of the industrial disputes have been engineered by those who do not carry out the nursing of the patients. Of course, the hospital porters and others have a perfect right to give their views, but, after all, whether it be a private hospital, a general hospital or a geriatric hospital, or whatever type it is, a hospital is run by the nurses and doctors who administer to the patients. This is what we should have in the forefront of our minds as this Bill goes through its various stages, possibly taking many long hours.
6.52 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am not a member of the medical profession, but for over forty years I have been engaged in a campaign for a National Health Service. I was proud to be in the House at the time when the Service was introduced, and took part in the celebration dinner with the late Aneurin Bevan, the only time I have felt "tiddly" in all my life. To get back to the present day, I am involved in the lay administration of the Health Service. I bitterly regret the political battles and attacks which are being made on the Service at the present time. I am very concerned about this, but I will develop that theme later.
There is one point I should like to clear up straight away. The noble Baroness,
1550
Lady Young, mentioned the loss of billions of pounds to the Health Service as a result of withdrawing private beds, and other speakers have made various comments about the figures involved, but I want to know what is the actual net figure involved, because private beds in hospitals are very expensive to run. There is not only the question of the medical attention, nursing attention and the work of the ancilliary staff; there is also the cost of drugs, of equipment and of many other things, especially certain of the things supplied with the private beds that do not normally apply to an ordinary bed. So a private bed in a hospital is more expensive to administer than an ordinary bed. Therefore I should like to know what is the actual figure of loss, if any—and I am hoping to receive the information—ensuing as a result, say, of the transfer of 1,000 beds out of the private beds service. It has already been said that many of the beds are not being used anyway, so perhaps later in the debate we could have this important information.
My Lords, I do not think any noble Lord or noble Baroness will quarrel with the statement that it is an essential human right in this modern age that the sick should receive the best available treatment and care, irrespective of class, colour or wealth. I do not think anybody would object to that. At least the great majority of people, particularly on the other side of the House, will pay lip-service to it. At the moment, I am a member of the Social and Health Questions Committee of the Council of Europe. One of the problems we have been dealing with is that of people abroad, or people going to the Council of Europe area for work. We have had cases of the fantastic cost falling on individuals because they have suddenly become ill or involved in accidents and because the country concerned charges expensive fees for the treatment of the sick. Some people insure when they go on holiday, but not everybody. There are problems. We are introducing a possible health card and are trying to overcome the problem through the making of a claim on the member country of the person involved. But this is the point: that in this country we have something that the rest of the world have not but which the rest of the world admires.
I welcome the Bill because, in essence, it goes a long way to ensure that in the

1551
State Health Service the possession of wealth shall not purchase priority or, indeed—and this is a point that should be borne in mind—carry the feeling that some payment of fees can produce a cure or prolong life. I know there are some people who pay fees in the desperate hope that such payment will secure a medical miracle to prolong a life. It is a fact, and we cannot ignore it, that in many cases queue-jumping does take place. It is no good dodging the question; queue-jumping does take place. I do not object to private health schemes outside the National Health Service, although we must bear in mind that the great majority of doctors in such services in any case will have received their expensive training and experience in the State Health Service, much of it at public expense. In fact, private schemes as they exist today could not exist if it were not for the doctors attracted or extracted from the Health Service.
One of the arguments for pay beds in National Health Service hospitals is that they ensure privacy for the patient. This argument overlooks the fact that amenity beds will continue to exist, and in any case the need for a room away from the ward should be based primarily on medical need. As I know full well from my own experience, in many cases where the medical need is evident and it is possible to do it the doctors cut out the regulations and the patients get the private rooms they need because of the state of their health. That applies not only to amenity beds but to the private beds as well.
Even today, when we refer to private schemes I would point out that they have their limits. For instance, only a few days ago we heard that BUPA has now stated that they are not prepared to continue the care of many elderly members needing long-term care; the extremely difficult problem of the care of the chronic sick and of geriatric nursing is for the National Health Service alone—in other words, private treatment is selective; it takes the plums and leaves the problems.
This Bill has received, and will receive, the strongest opposition from the Conservative Party. This comes as no great surprise to me, remembering their strong
1552
reputation as the Party of privilege. Their support for the National Health Service is lukewarm and certainly suspect. I remember that they voted against the National Health Service on the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place when the Health Service Act was brought in. It was a Conservative Government that created the reorganisation of the Service which today has created a bureaucratic system strangling patient care with excessive cost and remote impersonal control—I would say, apart from the argument of the consultants on the pay beds, one of the primary causes of unrest in the Health Service in our hospitals today.
Now reports are coming out of the recommendations of the Conservative Working Party which, if adopted, could wreck a Service which has gained the world's respect. The right of an individual to purchase privileged treatment outside the National Health Service because of ability to pay or through subscriptions or fees to private schemes, I would not challenge; that is the right of the individual. But to suggest that those schemes should be boosted by generous tax reliefs at the expense of the State Service and the majority of tax payers is downright immoral. Yet such proposals, if the reports are accurate, are being put forward to the Conservative Party. At the risk of electoral defeat, Conservatives would adopt those proposals, although it would be outrageous if they were brought into effect.
This is a Bill of principle and not of political Party dogma. The principle behind it is need rather than ability to pay, the very basis of the National Health Service as originally conceived and of which many of us are greatly proud. We wish it to overcome its difficulties and become the great ideal which Aneurin Bevan and many others had in mind but which is today being frustrated by political dogma, not from this side but from the other side of the House.
7.2 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am the fifteenth speaker in this afternoon's debate and everything that I had intended to say has been said. However, unashamedly I intend to say it again. I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the

1553
noble Lord, Lord Stone, for his maiden speech. I am not a doctor, but I have cause to be very grateful to the medical profession and I speak as an ordinary person. I speak against the Bill, but in doing so I recognise that there is much to be said on both sides of the question whether private pay beds should eventually be abolished or should remain in the Health Service.
These arguments concern certain specific areas but they are, I submit, indicative though irrelevant to the main issue. The specific areas of contention are well known and have been referred to many times today and therefore I will not speak for too long on each. On the question of queue jumping and queues generally, I support the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in wondering why this position has not been referred to the Royal Commission which, after all, was set up to consider the best use and management of the financial and manpower resources. If a system could be worked out to prevent queue jumping to give a good service to both National Health and private patients, which in many cases is received at present, that would dispose of the allegation made by the right honourable Mrs. Barbara Castle when she said in another place that the argument over pay beds was fundamentally one about money and nothing else because money was made out of queue jumping. It would have been scientific, realistic and enormously helpful if the Royal Commission could have looked into this and could have suggested a system by which queue jumping was dealt with; that is, if queue jumping exists to any great extent.
The second area is dual standards. What are these dual standards? I can find in Hansard of the debate in another place no reference to dual standards in medical treatment by doctors. So far as I could see, the dual standards applied to such things as food, and here again, with proper management, this need not be so and indeed the difference in diet between National Health and private patients does not exist in many hospitals. In another place the Minister talked of the marriage of pay beds and the National Health Service and said that it had not been a happy one and that there had been intensity of feeling in hospitals. Why is there this feeling and where does it come from? The number of pay beds in the
1554
National Health Service, as has been said many times in this debate, represents only 1 per cent. of the total. It is perhaps understandable that nurses and ancillary staff might think that they should be paid extra for working with patients who are paying a fee to the National Health Service. Again, surely this situation could be looked at, either by the Health Service or by the Commission. It cannot be an insuperable problem and it should therefore be dealt with.
Those who are against the Bill make specific points. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be £3 million rising to £20 million in 1980. The money coming in now to the Health Service as a result of pay beds is difficult to estimate, as has been pointed out, but it should be known that the chairman of an area committee told me with despair that four months' income from the private use of National Health Service beds would build phase two of his general district hospital. Can we afford to lose this money?
With regard to the desire for privacy and the right to chose one's consultant, and pay heavily for doing so, is it so very anti-social? It is a question of preference. Two Cowley workers on the shop floor at British Leyland commented to me on this subject. One man said that he was paying into the British United Provident Association because, "My old Dutch likes privacy and when she's ill she's going to have it". The other said, "My wife likes the gaiety of a public ward but I prefer privacy, so I will pay". Surely people have the right to choose.
I have touched on but a few points in a glancing way. The reality of the situation, contrary to what has been said, is that the Government and the doctors are looking at the Bill from entirely different standpoints. I would very much welcome a philosophical debate with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with perhaps a Prelate in the chair, because the noble Lord has described this as a moral issue. Is it really a moral issue? Is it not a question of political ideology, to which people are of course entitled? Cannot we be honest and say that it is not a moral issue but one of politics? It cannot be for economic or medical reasons or because it will greatly benefit the patient. It is hard to see how the patients will receive a better service from

1555
the doctors because 1 per cent. of pay beds are removed from the Service. Could it be that the abolition of pay beds is dictated by certain sectors, other staff, in the Hospital Service?
On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, doctors are not political beings; they are not interested in politics. In medical policies, yes, but in politics, no. They are committed to their hospitals and the medical care of their patients, some might say so much so that in the past they have tended to be isolates, but I think that this has passed. Since the passing of the 1946 Act they have made the National Health Service work by putting in long hours and giving good service. Why else do people come to this country for medical treatment? I suggest that the doctors apprehend that the Bill is the first step along a road which will eventually threaten their freedom to practise as their professional skills dictate, and they fear the break-up of the spirit of the Service which has characterised it for so long. They foresee that eventually the patients could receive a poorer service. Medical practice will be dictated to by the bureaucratic machinery and eventually professional freedom will be eroded and the practice of medicine will be subservient to bureaucratic controls.
Upon what am I basing this statement? In a new hospital which I know there is no room for the doctors to meet together. Such a common room is essential to the doctor's trade, and to the service of the patient. It affords privacy for a doctor to discuss his cases with colleagues, to share his worries with friends, to receive advice and support from colleagues, and in it, instead of going home, he can wait for his patient to come round after an operation. Such a room enables doctors to work better. In a hospital that I know doctors have requested such a room to help them and have been refused on the grounds that, if they have a room, the cleaners should have one and, if the cleaners have one, the porters should have one. I believe that the cleaners and the porters should have one. I believe that the cleaners and the porters should have a room, though I do not believe that they need a room in order to do their work better. If they had one, they might be happier and more sociable. But the doctors need a room for the sake of the
1556
patients and I maintain that, in the building of hospitals, if we are going to say that we cannot afford a room for the cleaners and the porters and that therefore the doctors cannot have one, we are yielding to bureaucratic inflexibility.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness indicate in what section of the Bill the building of hospitals and the provisions in those hospitals are provided for?
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the Bill as well as I do. I am talking about the future and about how the doctors see their future if the pay beds go out of the National Health Service and they lose their independence. That is what they are concerned about.
Secondly, I should like to mention the chairman of a Health Authority who wrote in October 1975 to the right honourable Barbara Castle asking why, in the Consultative Document on the separation of private practice from the National Health Service, Area Health Boards were not included in the consultations. Such lack of consultation by Whitehall gives cause for concern. It is such instances as these which concern the doctors for the future of the National Health Service they have served so well. Furthermore, they foresee a polarisation of the National Health Service and the private sector and, despite what is said, doctors care not only about the 1 per cent. of private patients but also about the 99 per cent. of National Health patients.
7.14 p.m.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, in discussing this difficult, unwelcome and poorly thought out Bill, I begin, like so many other noble Lords, by referring to the original arrangements of 1948 which recognised the great advantages that would follow from obtaining the cooperation of doctors in the organisation of the National Health Service. By arranging that some private practice was to be allowed in the NHS hospitals, it added to the efficiency of the Service by ensuring that doctors who wished to do some private practice were able to do so on a geographical full-time basis. This not only helped the doctors but also helped the patients and the National Health Service. So much has been written and spoken

1557
about this 1948 arrangement that I do not wish to expand upon it further, but it is necessary to emphasise how successful it was. It has worked much to the benefit of patients in the National Health Service. Indeed, in 1972 it was the subject of a White Paper in which it was decided that the advantages were so greatly to the benefit of the National Health Service that it should be continued. Now, almost 30 years after that start of the National Health Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, has emphasised, we are confronted with a Bill that seeks to alter this successful and honourable arrangement. However, when we examine the Bill carefully, we find that many of its contents are uncertain and that many things in it are ill-digested and have not been thought out to their logical conclusion.
We live in times of economic stress and it is certain that savings must be made and additional expenditure avoided, yet those who control our destiny do not seem to be aware of this. Take, for instance, the cost to the National Health Service of the closure of pay beds. It has been estimated that when we add to the loss in revenue from paying patients the extra cost of employing more consultants full time instead of part time, this will result in a loss of some £40 million a year. The Minister of State declares that this is far too large a sum and that this Department estimates the extra cost at only some £7 million to £8 million a year, and even that figure has virtually doubled over the last few weeks. It is very difficult to reconcile such a difference, but at any rate the Minister admits that he is aware that the closure of pay beds will result in extra cost. However, he thinks that it is worth it.
I find it difficult to accept a statement that at a time of financial crisis such as we are facing, any extra expenditure is justified, especially when there are so many things against it. It is characteristic of so many statements that are made in an attempt to justify this cruel and spiteful action. They can only be described as glib. Not only are such statements glib and even naive but, when one seeks to inquire into their full significance, one finds that they are far from complete—are, in fact, grossly incomplete and have just not been fully worked out. I should like to take one or two specific points and try to get a clear and logical amplification
1558
of what they signify. It is proposed that, initially, a thousand beds should be closed and that this number will steadily increase. I can understand how this will affect the total number of pay beds in a National Health hospital, but I just cannot get precise information about how this will affect private wings or blocks which are attached to the larger teaching hospitals both in London and the Provinces. Almost without exception, these were originally given by private acts of benevolence. An example is Nuffield House, which was given by Lord Nuffield to assist people of "moderate means".
I understand that Parliament has power to overrule any charitable request and, since 1948, has gathered all these private wings under the control of the Minister of State. I can understand that they should fall into his possession to continue as hospital accommodation within the National Health Service, but I do not see how the Minister can justify their closure as accommodation for sick people and their use for a different purpose such as offices. We have been told that this has been done at University College Hospital. Suppose that 10 per cent. of a private wing with 75 beds or rooms is to be closed: what is to happen to the seven or eight beds thus put out of action? Are they to be used as offices or store rooms or for some lesser purpose, connected in a feeble way with the care of patients, but in no way comparable to the way they have hitherto been used? Or are they to be neutralised and left to collect dust? These are important matters, and I can see no directive or explanation of what is to be done with this accommodation and what is to be its ultimate fate. How far has this been worked out in a serious and responsible way, having regard to the importance of our scarce accommodation for patient care?
There is another glib statement that is made in connection with pay beds, another bare statement that does not seem to have been worked out or even thought through to its conclusion. It is stated that British nationals, for whom these beds were provided by a act of charity or benevolence, may not use them as pay beds but that foreigners—that is, people from overseas—can do so. It is also stated that the fees that these overseas patients will have to pay for their treatment will be taken by the Government, and that

1559
the doctors and others connected with this treatment, often of a highly skilled and responsible nature, will receive no fee apart from their full-time salary. I ask; has the full significance of this step been carefully considered and has the resultant disorder and dissatisfaction that will accrue been fully thought through?
I am told that many of these overseas patients will be accepted under an arrangement between a foreign Government and the Department of Health, often a sort of package deal. This is largely conjecture as no precise information has been given. But I can foresee all kinds of difficulties in such an arrangement. Who, for instance, is to look after the investigation and treatment of the patients? Ordinarily the selection of a consultant or specialist depends on a personal arrangement and recommendation made by the patients' own doctor and results from his knowledge and consideration of the skill and achievement of the consultant. He advises the patient who to go to and the patient trusts him. At once we encounter a difficulty. If the patient's doctor suggests Dr. X to take care of his patient, is some administrator in an office going to direct him to Dr. Y or Dr. Z, as may well happen if Dr. X has heavy commitments?
Another thing, there must be a limit to what any doctor can undertake or be organised into doing. I think especially of those surgeons concerned with the more complex and generally more exacting operations, such as neurosurgery, hip replacements or open heart surgery. As I am more familiar with the circumstances, I take this last as an example. Not only the surgeon but the whole team work for many hours on an operation, say until well into the evening. But their involvement does not finish then. They must be alert and on duty for the whole night at least and often they have to do a secondary operation when things are not going smoothly. This period of anxious post-operative care may continue for two, three, or more days, and in the meantime one or more open heart patients have to be operated on. The sum total of effort over a week may be almost intolerable and virtually ruins any maintenance of family or social life.
In this matter I foresee that the limits
1560
of human endurance can be reached, and therein I see that a great deal of trouble is being laid up. It certainly impairs the efficient running of the National Health Service. In fact, it can lead to the dangers of refusal to work—something to be avoided at all costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has emphasised. I emphasise what an unsatisfactory state can be engendered by a Government directive not being thought through as it should be. Even the full-time academic who does not expect to receive a personal fee is going to object to being exploited to excess.
I am worried about the future of overseas patients. At present their reception and treatment brings much added prestige to Great Britain and this should not be allowed to suffer or to decline. It is, however, something that can easily be damaged if it is handled carelessly or without imagination. From a profit point of view alone—I mean profit to the country—it may not be significant. It is scarcely as important as the sale of aeroplanes, tanks or motor cars, but it does have its own intrinsic economic value. But even more important is the prestige factor. I think that we should be careful of not driving these overseas patients away from Great Britain to other European countries or to America.
I am also worried about the curtailment or cessation of out-patient facilities for the use of private patients, either from overseas or from this country. Great harm to patients can be done by interfering with the facilities and services they can now use. Let us remember that patients from this country have already paid for their treatment and deserve to receive it. They should scarcely be prevented from having it just because they have to pay a special private fee to the National Health Service for it. I think especially of the use of highly specialised equipment, such as for deep x-ray therapy, and of complex diagnostic procedures and the special investigation of neurosurgical and heart diseases, and of cancer in its many forms. Surely nothing should be done to prevent patients from using these facilities, whether they are foreigners or our own nationals. Arrangements can always be made so that their use of the special apparatus does not interfere with its use for National Health Service patients.

1561
I have tried to speak of certain features of the Bill that I think present dangers to our care of patients and are to be avoided. From the experiences of your Lordships' House during the past two to three weeks, in which you have been faced with a torrent of difficult and controversial legislation to be rushed through in a short time, a seems that there is little or no point in attempting to advance even reasonable contrary arguments and Amendments. They will only be brushed aside when the Bill returns to another place. It would be good if we could feel that good sense and reason would prevail, but there seems little hope that it will do so; it will be faced with blind and stubborn prejudice.
Lastly, throughout the many months that this sad business of private treatment and the National Health Service has been going on, there is one more feature that has impressed me very much. Somewhere about one half of the personnel of the National Health Service are full-time and are not engaged in private practice. One would have thought that this moiety would not be interested in the matter of its curtailment, impairment, and even its possible obliteration. It is, however, a remarkable fact that even the full-timers, especially the younger ones, have reacted very adversely to what is planned. They fear of course a complete loss of professional freedom. The medical profession are united in their distaste for it and have closed their ranks. Surely this is a very significant happening that cannot be ignored, and to ignore it is bound to lead to increasing trouble and unrest.
7.26 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I was born shortly before the National Health Service started, and therefore to somebody of my age the National Health Service is as much a part of the structure of Britain as your Lordships' House. I hope that during the ensuing stages of the Bill Members of this House who were Members of another place and remember the 1945 Parliament, will not be tempted to re-use their speeches from that era. I support the National Health Service fully; I believe in it; I wish it had more resources; I wish it could work better; and that is one of the reasons why I wish we were talking about that wider subject rather than about the limited area we are debating today,
1562
which is solely concerned with 4,000 beds—1 per cent. of the provision of the National Health Service.
I cannot claim to be an expert in this field. I feel rather similar to English Peers who intervene in a Scottish debate. One has a certain increased sense of one's daring in trespassing on the territory which is normally reserved for the specialist. But there are some points which the Bill raises which go beyond questions of medicine and go beyond the organisation of the National Health Service, and I should like to raise some of them. They are points to do with the liberty of the subject, the proper place of freedom under the law in our society, and they relate to the kind of considerations which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone has been discussing, and I very much hope that I will not drive away the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because I feel that they are some of the points which he found to be of interest during our deliberations on the Race Relations Bill.
I reject completely the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that there is some moral superiority in the stand of the Government on this issue. I do not think that compassion is the prerogative of any one political Party. I do not think that concern about the state of our society and provision for those who are ill or less fortunate is something which any political Party can seriously claim to monopolise or to command the right to speak about as if it did. I reject this. If the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, said that part of the reason for the Bill was the spirit of the age (and she meant particularly the concern of the ancillary workers—the cooks and the cleaners—who felt that it was unjust in 1976 that somehow the private patients should have special treatment, despite the historic compromise that had worked so well for so many years) then I say to her, and I say to the Government, that there is something else in the spirit of the age. There is an increasing distrust of the encroachment of the State. There is an increasing worry about the liberty of the individual to choose. There is an increasing anxiety that those who have been trained to do specific jobs are not going to be allowed to do them by the diktat of a minority Government which does not represent the whole country. My Lords, it is these libertarian and constitutional

1563
issues which I feel have a very real importance in our considerations of this Bill, and I am going to attempt to say one or two things about them, because I do feel they have a place, even if they do not at first blush seem to arise when one is looking at a Bill that deals with pay beds in the National Health Service.
My Lords, I do not think that the way that this Bill has arrived in your Lordships' House is satisfactory. It is alleged that it is part of a Manifesto pledge, and that may be so, but this Bill was not prepared by the Government. It is, if you like, the result of private practice. It was farmed out to somebody outside the Government to resolve a conflict which the Government themselves had not been able to resolve. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, looking angry when I say that; it is true.
If we had a Bill of Rights or a written Constitution—and I am not saying that we should, but if we did—in which the rights of the subject were detailed and with entrenched clauses so that they were preserved, many of the anxieties that worry individuals and the professions would not arise. If doctors were allowed to get on with their work, and if their rights to do so were entrenched in a written Constitution, there would be no question of a Government's coming along and prohibiting their so doing. That may sound exaggerated and, of course, I do not want to attempt to undercut what other noble Lords have said about the importance of creating an atmosphere of trust. I hope that we, in our proceedings on this Bill at the Committee stage, will do what we can to improve it, but I think that when we are discussing the Bill on Second Reading we must look at the principles of the Bill, if it has any principles or can be said to have any principles, and we must also examine the principles behind the Bill. We must look at the reasons why we have the Bill at all and we must try to examine what we should do with the Bill in the context of its parentage.
My Lords, I have a special reason for intervening in this debate. It is that my wife and I happen to support a particular type of medicine which is not available on the National Health Service; it is homeopathy. In some countries, where the liberty of the subject is not as well
1564
entrenched as it is here, I should not be able to do so. I have a special reason, therefore, for wondering whether this Bill and the pressures which led to it are the beginnings of a process which will end up with the individual's right to choose the type of medicine he likes being prohibited. That is something that I feel we should take seriously, and it is not enough for those who do not think we should take this seriously to say that this is mere sabre-rattling and bogey-mongering.
In the Consultative Document that they issued in September, 1974, the Government sought to examine the reasons for the troubles that they were considering legislating about, and in paragraph 7 they said:
"The simplest way of resolving these tensions and controversy is to abolish private medicine entirely. To be effective this would require legislation specifically banning the practice of private medicine. Such an obvious solution has its strong adherents, though they are almost certainly a minority. It is perfectly possible to argue against any such ban while strongly disapproving of private medicine."
They went on to say in paragraph 8:
"It is the clear and openly stated policy of the present Government that it does not believe that private medicine is something which deserves the support of the State."
And then this is the sentence on which I wish to concentrate:
"The Government does not, however, believe it is desirable to express such a policy in the form of legislation designed to ban private medicine."
My Lords, how cautiously phrased that is! It does not say "We will never ban private medicine." It does not say "We think it would be wrong to ban private medicine." It simply says, "The Government does not believe it is desirable to express such a policy in the form of legislation designed to ban private medicine".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I covered that point. I made it perfectly clear when I spoke that the Government has no further plans to attack—if you like to use the word—private medicine or to ban it or to outlaw it. I should have thought that point was perfectly clear. I made the point very early on.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wrote the noble Lord's words down. He said, "The Government has no plans to ban

1565
private medicine". He has repeated them, and I will refer to them in detail when I reach that point in my argument. Whatever the statements of the Government as a whole, there obviously are those inside the Government, and certainly inside the Labour movement, who wanted private medicine to be banned; and you have only to read the Second Reading debate in another place to see that there are members of the Labour Party who want private medicine to be banned.
The second quotation that I want to make—and I want to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell; I will be returning to his argument after I have made my second quotation—is from a statement that the Government made in its Consultative Document of August, 1975. It justified the proposals in this Bill on the basis of their being promised in a Manifesto, but in this Consultative Document, published in August, 1975, the Government said:
"Quantitative control"
that is, quantitative control over private practice—
"was designed to ensure that private medical care would not be allowed to grow beyond that which obtained within and outside the National Health Service in March, 1974."
That was a statement that the Government made in 1975. That statement was not promised in a Manifesto, in either of the Manifestos, in 1974, yet that statement envisages, if you like, a freeze on the extension of private medical treatment.
My Lords, whatever the Government may say about having no plans to crack down on private medicine or restrict its growth, the fact is that in their Consultative Document in 1974 they did not promise to preserve private medicine and in their Consultative Document the following year they introduced a new restriction on private medicine which was not promised in either of their Manifestos. I trust the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I like him. I do not think he is a Trotskyist or reads the works of Che Guevara at night. I am sure that he enjoys Miss Redgrave's acting and is not a member of the Workers' Revolutionary Party. But I think that those of us who are concerned about some of the actions of this Government are concerned because we see a shift in the centre of gravity inside the Labour movement which is reflected in a
1566
shift in the centre of gravity inside the Labour Party and therefore, inevitably, inside a Labour Government. It is remarkable, and worth remarking upon, that no legislation of this sort came forward during the 1964 to 1970 Administration.
I do not wish to stand here and say that this Bill is the beginning of the end of Western democracy. I do not wish to make wild exaggerations, but I do wish to say to your Lordships that when we are examining this Bill in detail at the Committee stage we should be looking at it in the context of the strengthening and development of the National Health Service. Yes, of course. But we should also be looking at its consequences for the liberty of the subject, for the freedom of professions to practise in a free society and for its constitutional implications. Because whatever the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may come and say here to us in the role of a slightly more substantial Ariel and then flit off again, he cannot commit this Government or the next Labour Government. Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, to which prominent members of this Government are always referring, no Government can bind a future Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, cannot bind the future Labour Government.
Therefore, my Lords, if we detect a shift in the attitude of the Labour Party and the Labour Government towards private medicine there is no use writing safeguards into this Bill. Only history will tell us whether our fears are justified. I hope that when we examine this Bill in Committee we shall be able to extract some more substantial commitment from the Government, some more firm and binding undertaking to which they can be held, that this Bill is not the thin end of the wedge or even the thin end of the Wedgwood Benn.
7.43 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I was interested, when I read about the Royal Commission in October 1975, to see that public beds were not to be discussed in this Royal Commission. One could not help thinking that perhaps this was because the Government realised that there was no case for it and they would be frightened of the result. The demand for private beds is amply demonstrated by the number of people who

1567
insure themselves for health. Many people insure themselves privately out of their taxed income and they do it by choice. Some people perhaps have colour television, other people like to drink, others like to go betting and smoke; and some like to insure. It seems to me that there is no reason why the man who insures should be at a disadvantage to the man who drinks, which is what is happening. The Government virtually tell the squanderer that he will be in no way treated second to the provident man who has looked forward and tried to protect himself and his family by contributing to insurance. I suppose that this will be fundamentally disagreed to by the Party opposite.
As well as people having their own insurance arrangements, some firms pay for the insurance of their employees. I think it was extremely mean of the Government in April 1976 to make employees pay income tax on benefits received from insurances paid for by their firms. These health provisions contributed to a better relationship between employees and employers, which is a good thing: and it is essential for key personnel, as was brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, rightly suggested that not too much attention should be paid to the campaigners against pay beds who themselves use pay beds. I should like to say that the number of well known politicians who go to pay beds are blatant examples of saying one thing and doing another. It is an extreme example of poor leadership. This sort of thing brings politicians into contempt.
The figures of numbers insured have been given several times. There were half a million in 1955 and these have doubled and redoubled to 2½ million in 1974. In addition, many people who are uninsured use private medicine. We know that no less than 38 per cent. of those who use the Nuffield Nursing Home are uninsured. Some 3 million people plus their families share 5,000 pay beds as well as the private sector. Some 11,000 people in 1974 used those 5,000 pay beds. Out of a total of 490,000, that is 1 per cent. and is really nothing.
In Hammersmith Hospital, which is typical, the pay beds are all in public
1568
wards. They are not particular beds; they are any beds. They can be one bed one week, and another the next. The food is all out of one kitchen and is described as equally bad for all. The fact that some of the beds are private pay beds in no way interferes with the patients there under the National Health Service. The noble Lord said that these beds take up facilities set aside for National Health patients; but this is not true. They do not in practice interfere at all with National Health patients.
The increase in the number of people who are insured is an encouraging trend. More and more people seem to want to have private medical provision. This includes many unions. The National Union of Seamen have agreements for some of their workers so that they can have private medical treatment. There is growing opposition to the Party policy within NALGO; although others in NALGO have been suborned to use their privileged position to file objections to new hospitals planned in their areas. Manor House Hospital is frequented by many trade unions. All this use in the private sector is a good thing because it relieves the strain on the National Health Service. The public demand for private medicine is expressed by the expenditure which many people pay out of their own pockets on insurance—even those who are violently opposed to the system. This expenditure which they are prepared to forego is rewarded now by the licensing controls over the building of new hospitals so that it will be difficult to put up any new private hospitals to meet the demand and virtually all increase will be stopped.
Government is surely meant to be by the people, for the people, and in this case including the people who are provident and wish to have private medicine. This Bill is regardless of the interests of people and the wishes of people; regardless of the interests of medicine and the interests of efficiency; and regardless of the interest of cost. It could be said that it is government by some militant unions for their political ideals. As for the surgeons, they need freedom to practise in the locations where they operate for their National Health patients. It is an enormous advantage for them to have their private patients in the same hospitals. If they have to go from one National Health hospital to a nursing home for their

1569
private patients, it seems to me that this travel represents extremely valuable time wasted. Furthermore—and I am sure this has been mentioned several times before—while at one hospital, they cannot deal with an emergency at another.
There is also the question of the duplication of expensive equipment which is unnecessary. By having plenty of pay beds in National Health hospitals you get better value from the doctors and from the equipment. The Government may say that they are not against private practice in private hospitals, but if there are no pay beds then the areas suffer and doctors will tend not to want to go to these areas. They do not like operating in nursing homes if this can he avoided. It has been said that in Scotland there are no pay beds, but conditions there are rather different. There are only three centres and they seem to get along without pay beds; they are used to the system. By and large patients are not referred to Scottish hospitals as they would he in England; therefore there is less opportunity for doctors there to gain the wide experience that they would in English hospitals.
Out of London there is less private practice and there will be greater pressure for consultants to be full time. This will make them more dependent on the National Health Service and also subject them to ever-growing union pressure. For example, one North-West consultant is at present suspended through union pressure as the result of a case where he found unexplained injuries to children in a hospital. The union took exception, with the result that he is temporarily suspended. A situation could build up where, to some extent, a consultant might put his own livelihood at risk through the threat of the unions and would have to weigh it up against complaining about conditions that might be detrimental to patients.
I am told that morale in the Hammersmith Hospital is the lowest it has ever been, and one assistant is going off to Canada in December. In another hospital in the North I am told that young doctors are "bolshie" and everyone is upset, and again one consultant is off to Australia. We have the continuation of a situation which was mentioned on 8th October in another place by the Secretary of State. She said that
1570
in 1976 106 consultants and registrars resigned from the Health Service to emigrate abroad. After December 1976 there will also be the freer movement throughout the EEC which will allow people to go at a faster rate if they wish. Junior doctors have accepted what they consider to be low pay on the assumption that they would eventually have some private practice, and they are upset that they will be unable to have a private practice. However, if some of the reassurance suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is put into practice, this will go some way towards helping the situation.
As regards reward, in many cases without private practice there will be less reward. One consultant said that, just like dockers, they would work less like anybody else. However, the question of reward does not seem to be of high priority. Many of the salaries from private practice go into research. In the Hammersmith case, where consultants are part-time and get fees for private practice, they keep only 20 per cent. and 80 per cent. goes into school research. In some other hospitals consultants say that the amount they get from private practice rarely makes up for the difference between the health fees they would get from being full-time or part-time in the National Health Service.
The argument that there is queue jumping seems to be fairly strong and yet the Expenditure Committee in another place in March 1972 declared that the practice was only marginal and that there were other causes for the long waiting lists. If queue-jumping is the problem, surely it is only necessary to implement Clause 6 on common waiting lists. By proceeding with the whole Bill the Government are admitting that queue-jumping is not the real factor. It might appear that common waiting lists will solve the problem, but I am assured that no such policy will work because family commitments and other causes upset the waiting lists. In the North, and I expect also in other hospitals, queue-jumping is a myth; anybody who is ill gets in straightaway and there is no problem.
It has been suggested that staff resources would be released by the absence of pay beds and that 2,500 extra beds would be available. This is nonsense. The 5,000

1571
private beds would be available; but they would be at extra cost to the State rather than private patients—perhaps £3 million in the first year and £20 million in 1980. Of course the health authorities will have this made up by the Government, but it all comes out of tax. For instance in Teesside there are, at the moment, 20 pay beds and no private nursing homes. But at any one time there are about 200 empty beds, so the release of these 20 private beds would make no difference. They could merely remove the choice from the patient and from the doctor. It seems to us to be nothing but pointless political dogma.
There is much to criticise in the National Health Service, but pay beds are unworthy of criticism. To discuss them at all is a sad waste of time, energy and cost to the country, because they have very little effect in the National Health Service. The big demand for private medicine will be ignored. It brings in revenue, encourages the medical profession and serves a good purpose. Instead of the Government grousing about their countrymen who are provident and thrifty and look after themselves and their families by putting aside insurance, they should think constructively and try to build rather than pull down. The Health Service is almost paralysed for lack of money; staff feel themselves underpaid and casualty departments are abused. I am advised that, instead of going to their own doctors, many patients go to the casualty department.
For years the nation has been taught to think about public services; everything must be free. But, in fact, the Government pay and nothing is free, and people are just beginning to realise this. Everything has to be paid for out of taxes. When things appear to be free people take advantage. There is a limited amount of money and we are seeing deteriorating services, closing of hospitals and so on. I would prefer to see us going in the other direction and everybody having to pay when they go to hospital. Obviously many people would be unable to pay, but those who can should have to pay, perhaps for food or some aspect of hospital care. This would bring more respect to the services and less frivolous use; and soon the overall cost would be reduced and the service improved.
1572
Overall it would be cheaper, as a result, for everybody. With the situation as it is, with the hospitals closing and the shortage of cash, even though the idea of people paying may be unpleasant it may sooner or later be forced on the country. This is a dreary and pointless Bill. I do not think it creates; I think it destroys. The overstretched Service is now to be further hampered, not for medical reasons but purely for political pressures.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, first of all may I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winstanley for his absence. He has a surgery first thing tomorrow morning at Salford and he had to be on a train at 8 o'clock. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that she was the 15th speaker. I am number 19. Everything that can be possibly said in the Second Reading debate has been said. I want to make one or two general points and I will not keep your Lordships many minutes.
First, I want to welcome the fact that the Bill recognises the basic principle and the absolute right of members of the medical profession to undertake private practice. I welcome that because by inference it recognises the freedom of individuals to use their net income to insure for private medical treatment if they so wish. Much has been said about the danger of freedom, about the fact that a Government can legislate only for their own lifetime, and that there is no guarantee. I am not as cynical as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I believe that the Government mean this at the moment, and that is all we can ever plan on. We have never had a Government that can commit the following Government. I welcome the fact that this Government have recognised that there is a need for private medical practice, for the freedom of the medical profession to practice as they wish, and for the freedom of individuals to make use of it if they want to. The removal of such a freedom is unthinkable in this country.
Having said that, I want to deal with three main problems which have been raised by the Bill and by the introduction of the Bill at this stage. First, I should like to ask the Government this. Why

1573
now? The noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to the existence of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. Yesterday they published their booklet The Task of the Commission. On page 6 it says:
"There are a number of important questions bearing on the relationship between the NHS and private practice which we shall have to consider. The most obvious of these is how far private health services help or hinder the task facing the NHS."
When this Bill was discussed on Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State said it was not possible to refer this question to the Royal Commission because that would mean that the issue would fester for two years to no purpose. I read on page 9 of the same document that was published yesterday:
"We would certainly not expect the fact of our existence to hinder desirable development, and the Health Departments have agreed that we should have an opportunity to make effective comments upon major developments at a formative stage."
It seems to me, reading that, that it means that the Commission could comment at any time during its life, and I believe that we should be legislating in a better manner if we listened to its advice before we rushed into the acceptance of a Bill such as this one.
Secondly, with such an overcrowded programme of legislation to get through, is there really time to examine thoroughly the clauses in the Bill in the time available to us? I do not believe there is. I think it is a serious Bill, one that should be given adequate time. One can also ask whether this Bill, or for that matter one to be discussed later tonight, is relevant to the economic problems that face us as a nation. There is one problem only, I believe, to which we as Parliamentarians should at the moment be devoting ourselves. That is, to get our country back on its feet, not to play about with minor matters which at such a time as this are not going to help to solve our problems. This Bill, and the one we are to consider next, do not help us in any way.
Now I come to my third point. I must declare an interest. As your Lordships know, I am involved in the administration of the National Health Service. I look at every bit of legislation that comes out relating to the Health Service to see whether it is likely to give me more finance so as to be able to run a better Service. Therefore,
1574
I look at this Bill. Is this Bill likely to enable the Health Service to run more efficiently, and thereby give us better value for money at a time of enormous financial difficulties for the Service? I do not believe it is for the following reasons. Many "guestimates" have been made in this House today about the loss of income that will ensue through the closing down of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. They vary from between £3 million or £4 million and anything up to £7 million or £8 million in the first year. The overall loss in a full year has been estimated at anything from £20 million to £40 million.
Whatever the right figure is, the loss of finance is substantial. It is not only the loss of finance, because if we are going to use the beds released from the private section of the National Health Service in order to help us to reduce waiting lists, we shall need the equivalent amount of money from some other source—that is, from the taxpayer. As a regional chairman I know of the unlikelihood of the Service being able to acquire any more finance from the Treasury at the moment. Despite this, even by divorcing private practice from the National Health Service, the patients would still be there, and the beds have to be used. So it is inevitable that we shall need further money in order to keep them open.
I should like to mention a thought on the Bill regarding the 1,000 beds that are to be phased out six months after the Royal Assent of this Bill. I wonder whether some thought has been given to the fact that these might be used to increase the amenity beds that have been mentioned so often during this afternoon as being in great shortage. Another point that worries me is the additional cost of consultant cover in the major hospitals. Much has been said about the loss of time with the consultant having to move sometimes great distances from a private hospital to an NHS hospital. As long as private practice was within the National Health Service the cover of consultants could be much thinner because they were working in the private wing; they were on the premises. If I have a part-time consultant working six-elevenths or eight-elevenths for the Health Service, what am I going to do as a hospital administrator about the other five-elevenths or three-elevenths? Inevitably, the cost of running the National

1575
Health Service will have to increase because the doctors are not on the premises.
Something that disturbs me greatly is the loss of good-will money that comes from outside. A lot of that money comes from the private practice of the consultants, from the consultants themselves. I know many consultants who have all their fees paid into a research fund or a study fund for the hospital in which they work. Some of them have all their fees paid in, others support a research programme within their hospital.
If private practice is removed from the National Health hospital that research money will go somewhere else, and in the National Health Service we are certainly not over-flush with research money.
Something else that disturbs me in the discussion that has been taking place about private beds is that there seems to be a blanket discussion about private beds as such. But private beds vary enormously. There are some hospitals which have virtually a separate hospital, like University College Hospital which has a wing of its own which is literally a private hospital on its own. There are other hospitals where there are perhaps only two private beds stuck away somewhere in the hospital. There is a world of difference in how one should look at the problem of these two different types of provision and I am very concerned about a blanket phasing out. The job of the Health Service Board will be very strenuous indeed if they are to make certain that, if they have to be phased out, the right beds are phased out.
The only slight hope I see in the Bill itself is that through the setting up of the Health Service Board at least we shall not be jumping in tomorrow to abolish all the private beds in the National Health Service hospitals. It means that we are giving ourselves a certain amount of time. I hope the Government will agree that if after the period of six months, on the advice of the Health Service Board, they find that the scheme is not working out exactly the way they thought it would, they will have the courage to say so and we can come to a full stop before we destroy the situation altogether. I should also like to ask the Government to postpone the introduction of this legislation in order to enable us to listen
1576
to what the Royal Commission has to say and to enable us to put through some other legislation, and have our debate in the daylight hours without having to sit up all night. I believe that by waiting for the advice of the Royal Commission we shall in the end come up with better legislation.
8.13 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as the twentieth speaker in this debate it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who has just advised your Lordships of what I believe to be the kernel of the problem; that is to say, that the legislation should not be lying before us but that an issue should be laid before the Royal Commission. I have spoken with members of the profession, members of my own Party, members interested in the issue as a whole, and we have come to one conclusion: that the Government have made a totally fundamental mistake in introducing legislation long before that point in time when it was either desirable or necessary.
My Lords, to sum up, as I attempt to do in a few minutes from this side of the House, is a difficult task, but I have first of all the duty and pleasure of saying how much we appreciated the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on this occasion. On a previous occasion, only a matter of months ago, on the 3rd December last year, we had two very notable maiden speeches on the same subject; that is, the National Health Service, with special reference to the problem of pay beds. On that occasion the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and my noble friend Lord Kemsley both made maiden speeches, both of them uncontroversial—like that of the noble Lord, Lord Stone, this evening—and both of a commendable brevity. We hope that we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Stone, on many future occasions, because as a general practitioner he brings great personal knowledge to a field where, in your Lordships' House, this matter of personal association with the subject is rated very highly when we address ourselves to a matter of this importance.
My Lords, I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I must confess that he chilled me throughout with his references. I take issue, to begin with, with his suggestion that private

1577
treatment and the demand for private treatment is generally diminishing, because I believe the truth to be closer to what my noble friend Lord Gisborough said in quoting the figures which he did most clearly to your Lordships, that over 3 million people in this country are privately insured. I believe the figure to be possibly even higher than that, because it is very often difficult to quantify the number of private schemes. No doubt he was referring to the principal schemes concerned.
Here I must declare an interest, because I am not only insured with the British United Provident Association but also with Private Patients' Plan. I must say immediately that I believe this to be not a matter on which to search our consciences. I am proud of the fact that through these two organisations we, as contributors, are investing in private patients' resources, in the case of BUPA in further hospital beds and equipment in hospitals in the country. I should like to associate myself especially with what was said by my noble friend, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, who speaks from a wealth of knowledge of the work of the League of Hospital Friends.
I do not happen to be a member of the medical profession but I have taken an interest in the past in work in this particular field through voluntary organisations, and I should like to say with humility, and certainly with a limited knowledge of the field as a whole, that I believe there is a lack of appreciation of work done in the field prior to the 5th July 1948. Over a period of literally many hundreds, if not thousands, of years our medical skills were developing, and we are heirs to what has been at times a slow, a gradual and a very difficult process of development of care of people in hospital. We should be intensely proud of what has been achieved in this country, and I say that from the point of view of one who visits overseas territories from time to time as one involved in charitable organisations concerned with medical care. Going to certain countries in the Third World seeing hospital facilities in developing countries, one can appreciate the extent to which medical research in this country has helped overseas territories. The staff and facilities have benefited those territories enormously.
1578
I come to the point where I believe that what has been said in this debate this evening is related almost entirely to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and, in listening to his speech I felt, to use an expression used by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that it was a "healing speech"; it had a quality about it which raised us above the question of inter-Party warfare in order to examine the position of the Health Service as a whole. My Lords, the Goodman proposals are probably not acceptable to anyone. Nevertheless, they are a point of departure. His arguments, as deployed this evening, were particularly significant in this regard, because, if one may quote his words, the medical service must be guided by medical views. That is the centre of the problem so far as the profession is concerned. The idea of the professions being directed from bureaucratic and doctrinaire points of view, as was so clearly demonstrated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, is something so wholly unacceptable and so wholly foreign to them as to need no further explanation. It is liberty of choice which is so important here, and I felt, during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that between the lines freedom grew.
Everyone practising in the profession in this country has been very well aware of the deep suspicions which he and his colleagues have held that they have been squeezed at both ends. They have been squeezed by a feeling of apprehension, which has been displayed by many of my noble friends around the Chamber, and I think it is fully justified. I heartily agree with what my noble friend Lord Gisborough said about the exploitation of the good will of the profession, and I am sure that he weighed his words most carefully.
It is not much to make a small charge for a prescription, which our Party has done in the past, and that has laid a degree of responsibility upon the patient which is perhaps from time to time justified. We are speaking in the context—and a very important context it is in regard to the National Health Service—of the effect of inflation on the cost of a hospital bed. If we start from the point at which the pound was registered at a datum of 100, in October 1973—an important date—and project that forward three

1579
years to October 1976, the decline in the value of the pound, I am assured on the best authority, is 100 to 56. Therefore, the cost of maintaining a hospital bed has very nearly doubled, be it in the private service or the public service. No wonder that the pressures on the Health Service, in maintaining our hospitals at the standard of efficiency which we all wish them to have, have been very great indeed. Therefore, it seems so totally illogical that 1 per cent. of the hospital beds—that is, the pay beds—should be at the centre of an argument which has lasted for more than 12 months, and which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction for patients and acute anxiety for consultants, the medical profession, the nursing profession, the trade unions and all concerned. If it were not so sad, one would be justified in saying how wholly fatuous it is that this minute proportion of the beds being occupied within the Health Service should have been the cause.
I accept what has been said by noble Lords opposite, because they hold their views with deep sincerity. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, said, and I am sure he will accept what I say, because I speak with a similar degree of sincerity. But I think the point—and this was put by many of my noble friends—is that we want to see the Health Service get on with the job, which noble Lords opposite also want. The statements in the Journal of the British Medical Association were fully deployed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley, in a very carefully worded speech, and I was glad that the former Secretary of State was listening at the time.
I should now like to turn to the very important question of investment in the Health Service. I believe that this is a matter around which we should project our thoughts, as being something positive and not a matter at which we should be eternally looking backwards all the time. It seems to me that there is in this country a rich fund of good will for investing in hospitals, and I believe that future Governments—I include the present Government, if they would only listen—would be very well advised to consider this point most carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, referred to the Health Service in Canada, and noble Lords will be aware that in that country there
1580
operates a community chest. It is a principle of Canadian fiscal law that those who choose to deploy part of their income towards the community chest are permitted certain benefits. I see nothing at all immoral in investing in a Health Service, be it for kidney machines or for any other purpose. In fact, I should have thought it was wholly to the advantage of the country concerned, and I believe there is a case for the Treasury to consider this matter most carefully.
My noble friend Lady Ruthven referred to the work done by the League of Hospital Friends and, far from setting this aside as, perhaps, an unnecessary interference, which certain hospitals may be a little inclined to do from time to time, I believe it is true to say that, in present circumstances, more benefit is received through the voluntary organisations than hitherto, partly because of inflation and the lack of resources within individual hospitals. It seems to me that the Government should be more receptive to the fact that individuals wish to invest, wish to leave money to hospitals and wish—if not to dedicate a whole hospital bed, because in present circumstances that is a very expensive investment—to endow part of a hospital bed. This possibility should he made available to individuals in this country, through our fiscal system. I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to this point. She felt that in present circumstances the possibilities were insufficient, and I agree with her. I do not want to quote from every speech which referred to this matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, to whose speech we listened with great interest, said that the Bill does nothing to increase the resources in National Health hospitals and does nothing to reduce the waiting lists.
I feel that after 14 minutes I can draw my remarks towards a conclusion, as we have further business to consider this evening. But I do not want to do so without saying that I believe that the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull were especially important. She wondered whether this is an ideological issue, a philosophical issue or a political issue, and she came to the conclusion, ultimately, that it is a political issue. I wholly agree with her, but I think it has strains of ideological and theological

1581
thought within it. Nevertheless, this is an issue which, prior to legislation, requires much more sensitive thought, and if only the Secretary of State and his advisers would consider the desires of the medical profession during a cooling-off period, when, as my noble friend and many other speakers suggested, the issue could be referred to a Royal Commission, that would give us a breathing space and would permit the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and promoted by the Government into this Bill, to be set aside for consideration over a period of months. I conclude by saying this. On 18th October, The Times had this to say in one of its leading articles:
"None of the Bills before the Lords is vital to the national interest at a time of great economic peril. Some will be positively damaging; others will be irrelevant".
I agree wholly with those remarks.
8.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord should not believe all that he reads. I have listened to every speaker, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and I apologised to him before he spoke. I pointed out to him that I would not be able to be in the Chamber during his speech. It seems to me to be quite pointless to say anything at this stage. The best thing that I think I can do is to sit down, because quite clearly the vast majority of speakers, certainly those who sit on the other side of the Chamber, did not pay the slightest attention to anything that I said in my opening speech.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord with the deepest respect that I have also been sitting here throughout the debate. I listened with the closest attention to the noble Lord's speech and made continuous notes throughout, and I quoted them to him. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Obviously the noble Lord has not profited from the words of wisdom! It is quite clear that noble Lords on both sides who have spoken are still thoroughly and deeply entrenched in the views which they held when they came into your Lordships' Chamber. I do not object to that, but it seems rather pointless to spend a great deal of time trying to answer the various points which
1582
noble Lords have made, because whatever I say is obviously going to fall on to very stony ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, asked me to make a special point of apologising to your Lordships for the fact that he could not be here at the end of the debate. He has had to attend an important meeting, about which I know. It was imperative for him to be at that meeting and he begged to be excused. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Stone, I should like to offer to him my congratulations upon his maiden speech. It had all the advantages of a maiden speech in that it was not controversial, it was brief and it was very much to the point.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, feels that the Bill is unnecessary and unwanted. It may well be unwanted by noble Lords opposite, but it is not unwanted by millions of people in this country. I am speaking mainly of the trade union movement and also of the Labour Party. Noble Lords have said that this is an ill-conceived and ill-timed Bill, but this is simply because they just do not know what is the position. We have been considering this matter for years, not months. So far as my Party is concerned, it has been a matter of principle for some years. I was reminded that at the last Election only 28 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Labour Party, although that gave us a Labour Government which presumably means that the Conservative Party obtained less than 28 per cent. of the votes. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Young, going to say that when there is a return of the Conservative Party as a Government on a minority vote they will not put into operation any of the matters contained in their Manifesto? Of course they will, because that is precisely the way we run matters in this country. I think I am right in saying that since the war no Government have been voted to power by a majority of the electorate. Although I am open to correction on this point, I believe that since 1945 we have always had a minority Government. Therefore, the Government that are elected must introduce their Manifesto. Consequently, it is quite pointless to say that the Labour Party had the support of only 28 per cent. of the electorate at the last Election.
The point was made, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and by a

1583
number of other Peers, particularly those connected with the medical profession, that this Bill does not enjoy the support of the medical profession. I never know what is meant by that term. I was at some pains to point out to your Lordships that the BMA sent a heavily weighted letter to consultants asking them whether they would accept the Goodman proposals or whether they wanted to resign from the National Health Service. That letter was sent to 12,200 consultants. How many of them said, No? In fact, 2,604 of them said, No. It is perfectly true that 42 per cent. did not return their ballot papers. Are we not entitled, therefore, to assume that 42 per cent. were not opposed to the proposals?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not going to be interrupted too often.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, are we not entitled to suppose that the Post Office were unable to deliver certain of the letters because of incomplete records of addresses?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, of course the British Medical Association may be so incompetent that over 5,000 of the letters went astray, but I do not believe that for one moment—nor does the noble Lord.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, surely the question that was asked was quite absurd. The question that was asked was whether consultants agreed with the proposals or whether they would resign from the National Health Service. The answer I should have given would have been that I did not agree with them but I would not resign from the National Health Service. So what? The letter was utterly useless.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if one believes the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, it seems that the consultants are a very militant crowd and are ready to down tools tomorrow if you give them enough cause. If consultants are so militant, how does one explain that 42 per cent. did not reply and that 63 per cent. of those who replied were in favour of the Goodman proposals? Let us not misunderstand the situation; the consultants were behind the proposals. I believe that the speech made by the noble
1584
Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, was a mistake. I am on record on two occasions, if not three, as having congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, on the balance of his contributions in your Lordships' House, but the militancy that he displayed tonight was almost an incitement to strike, and it is not going to help the consultants, the medical profession or the Government who are trying to deal with a very difficult situation.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, as I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and the noble Lord, Lord Brock, whether they could get up and, with their hand on their hearts, say that private practice is not going to be all the better for this Bill? Of course they could not do so and not one of them would get up and say so. They know jolly well that private practice is coming out of this a damn sight better than it is at present.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, may I stand up, put my hand on my heart, and say that I think that the noble Lord is wrong?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what I have said, then, has had the desired effect. I wanted to know what noble Lords were thinking. I know what two noble Lords think and I think I know what the third thinks.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, as one who has nothing to do with this question, who has no irons whatever in the fire and who has had oceans of paper from the BMA, all of which he has put into the wastepaper basket, may I say that I do not agree with what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I advise the noble Lords in question privately to have a word with the BMA. The noble Baroness raised a number of questions but I do not think that I can deal with all of them. The Government can fairly say that the Bill was given a Second Reading by a majority of 20. It does not get a majority of 20 as a result of its own members; it got a majority of 20 because they were supported in the Lobbies, certainly by the Scottish and the Welsh Nationalists, so it is not just only the Labour Party in the Commons that supports this. There is a wider support than just the Labour Party.
The noble Baroness raised a number of other questions which I should like to

1585
deal with. She mentioned—if I have it correctly—that the consultants have a right to sell their services (I think she said) in the market place. This is precisely what we are doing: we are creating a situation where they can sell their services in the market place. But let me make it quite clear that we do not regard the National Health Service as being the appropriate market place. Would the noble Baroness expect the plumber—I refer to the plumber because she mentioned the plumber—to sell his services in the market place and at the same time use his employer's facilities and equipment? That is what is happening today.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? If he does not accept my argument, does he accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that it is essential that consultants should have the right to use the specialist equipment in hospitals for their private patients? That was the very point on which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has asked for extra assurances and on which there is considerable doubt in the Bill. If the noble Lord does not accept that, he is going against the spirit of the Goodman agreement; and if he does accept it he must accept my argument.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are prepared to accept—and we state so in the Bill—that in certain circumstances where there are no facilities available in the private sector, or in a particular area where special facilities are needed, they can use those facilities. It is very different from the sort of argument which the noble Baroness put forward about the right to sell one's services in the market place. There is nothing between us on this. All I am saying is that it is one thing to sell one's services in the market place and another to use your employer's gear and equipment in order to do the job. The provision of these special facilities is a concession which the Government, through this Bill, are prepared to make for consultants in certain circumstances on certain occasions.
I want to say only one other thing which relates to what the noble Baroness said. I think she said that the existence of pay beds attracts better quality staff. She does not really believe that. How does she reconcile that with Bart's, where there are no pay beds at all—or perhaps I
1586
ought to be more correct and say that there are six, but they are exclusively for overseas patients because, as noble Lords will know, their ancient Charter does not permit them to have pay beds and it does not permit them to charge. Is she saying, in point of fact, that there is an incompetent staff at Bart's?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, would the noble Lord like me to answer that question?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think it is an incompetent staff at Bart's at all. As I indicated in everything I said, I am actually a great supporter of the National Health Scheme and those who work in it. All that I said in my remarks is that if you undermine the trust of the doctors and the medical profession you will get a worse system, and of that I am quite certain. I am not in any way denigrating the system as it exists, because I support it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to go on to the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in regard to amenity beds, and he was not the only noble Lord who raised this matter. We are very concerned about (shall I say?) the inadequacy of the amenity beds at the present moment. We are not blind to the faults and the failures of the National Health Service and it is our intention that as more and more pay beds come into the National Health Service they will be used for amenity purposes, so that—and every one of us in your Lordships' House knows this to be correct—the National Health Service may be improved. I have spent many months as a National Health Service in-patient in a public ward, in a ward which specialised mainly in craniotomies, where I had an operation for a suspected tumour. I could have done with an amenity bed, and so could a good many of the others. One knows how important this is, and it is part of Government policy to try to do something about it when these beds become available.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also raised a question about the private sector and the loss that we might suffer. The phasing out of the thousand pay beds, as I think noble Lords know only too well, means that the thousand are, in the

1587
main, the beds which were considerably under used, and the loss in the first year or so, if I may say so, is quite negligible. The higher figure that has been mentioned is not likely to be reached for some years. But one has to bear in mind that we are going to offer, for private practice to use, wherever it is required all over the country—and I do not want to go over all this again—facilities in National Health hospitals as and when they are needed because of certain emergency situations. We shall recover some money. I do not know how much, but obviously those facilities will not be provided free of charge.
A number of noble Lords have raised the question of the loss of revenue. There are sometimes things which are much more important than just the loss of revenue. A number of noble Lords have also raised the point that this is the wrong time, but most of your Lordships are too skilled in the art of politics not to know that no time is ever the right time. In 1945 we emerged a bankrupt nation; we had sold every pound of investment abroad; we had not a single pound. We had sold about £1,100 million of investments abroad in order to prosecute the war. We had not a penny. If we had waited for the right time to introduce a National Health Service we should never have had one. The time to do something is when, rightly or wrongly, it is considered to be the right time, it may be by this Government, it may be by another Government. if money is all that important, we might just as well have a whole chain of legalised brothels in this country from which we could draw a tremendous source of revenue. The fact is that many people realise that the price that one has to pay at times is probably not worth it.
I wanted to join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but as he is not here I do not propose to do so. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, does not feel that I have treated him badly. I think he knows me well enough to know that even if I sound rather harsh there is never any venom in what I say. This is a Chamber where we have the right to say what we like, and in doing so perhaps we have to put up with a different point of view. I do not share his point of view at the present moment.
1588
My Lords, although, perhaps, noble Lords might not think I ought to be, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I was gratified, because he brought an air of realism into the debate. I know the noble Lord has reservations, and it is only right that people should have reservations. It would be a disaster if we did not examine things very carefully. But I was grateful to the noble Lord for the contribution he made. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, raised a number of matters about the action of the Government. The only thing I want to say is that the Government must always keep in the forefront of their minds what their major responsibility is and what their main priority is. To try to say what the main priority of this Government is is to repeat something that many of your Lordships have heard many times over the years; that is, to concern themselves with the health, wealth and happiness of the people of this country—and I say it quite unashamedly—from the cradle to the grave. This would be my answer, to some extent, to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
The Government have a responsibility for the wellbeing of people. I know that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will not disagree with me on this. We regard the provision of a National Health Service as an integral part of the service which this Government must offer the people. My noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge dealt with this point. She said that as a Social Democrat—and that is what I claim to be myself—she regards the fact that in the Labour Party there are people on the extreme Left, on the extreme Right, and in the Centre, as no different from the position in the Conservative Party, who have people on their Left and people on their extreme Right—and, if I may say so, they have moved, in recent months to the extreme Right, or jolly near it. They have changed their emphasis, and some of us are terrified as to what might happen if they get into power next time. But this is the political set-up of every Party; they have people on the wings and in the centre. There is no difference. If you look at the behaviour in the other place of certain people whom you would regard as being on the extreme Left of the Labour Party, what have they achieved?
Lord O'HAGAN: Too much.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: They could, perhaps, have achieved a great deal more.

1589
But the fact is that in this Party, and to some extent in the Conservative Party because we must acknowledge that they, too, have made their contribution to the wellbeing of the people, the emphasis is very different. We are not going to reconcile them. But this Government feel there is a responsibility to provide for the people in a certain number of defined ways. One of them is the National Health Service. If people want to buy health, we do not mind. We took the line in education that if people want private education, then the private sector must be separate from the public sector, and if they want to buy it, then they can buy it. We are saying precisely the same thing so far as the National Health Service is concerned. We feel it ought to be an all-embracing service for the people of this country. If there are people who want to opt out of it in the sense that they want to purchase health, medical services and medical attendance, we have no quarrel with that at all. But we say that there must be no misunderstanding, no confusion, no overlapping. The thing must be kept absolutely separate. That would be my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who I do not for one moment think will accept it.
I want now to try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who raised the question of the number of beds. I was out of the Chamber at the time, but I understand that he said that there would be 20 going out of a total of 56 in Cambridge. Each area, each hospital for that matter, has been considered very carefully. There are a number of private establishments in and around Cambridge. The acid test has been the occupancy of those 56 pay beds. It has been generally agreed that the pay bed situation at the moment would not be affected if they lost 20 of them. The noble Lord also suggested that the Bill was ill thought out, but I have dealt with that, even if the noble Lord is unable to accept what I have said. The fact is that over a very long period of time, we have given attention to this particular matter. If people say, "Why now?", my answer is, why not? There is no reason why we should not do it in this Session, or put it over to another Session.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, wanted to know whether this was not a matter that should have been referred to
1590
the Royal Commission. I can understand people saying, "You have set up a Royal Commission. Why not refer all these matters to it?". It is a well accepted view in political circles, on the part of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, that there are certain matters which are of considerable political significance, and the Party concerned must make their own decision. This is not a matter that should be referred because very often these are matters of principle. So far as we are concerned, this is a matter of principle.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving way for a moment. My point was that if certain detailed things that were clouding the main issue were to be referred to the Royal Commission, the main issue would be more clear. Some of the things are being referred—for instance, queue-jumping. I think another noble Lord said that no research had been done into this matter. I was asking for certain specific issues to be referred to the Royal Commission for investigation, in order to clarify later what the main issue of the pay bed situation was.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, again, this is a matter of viewpoint. We have considered that there is a function for a Royal Commission on the health services, and it is a pretty wide one. But we reserve the right—as any Government have the right to reserve—to take certain things out of the ambit of their consideration. We have put into the Bill matters which we feel are of extreme importance that must be dealt with. There may not have been any cold research into the whole question of queue-jumping but many of us—including the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young—know that it happens. It is a very simple thing these days for a person who needs an operation which is not essential, or at least not urgent, so it can wait for months. One noble Lord, a member of the medical profession, said he can go to a doctor who will pass him on to a consultant; the consultant will take a fee and then say, "Well, if you want it done now I can have it done". But there may be a dozen or more people in the same area with the same complaint who would like their operations done now, but because they

1591
cannot go to the consultant and pay a fee, they do not get ushered into hospital. That is what we mean—
Lord PLATT: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is referring to something I said, he has every right to do so. But the point I was making was that this Bill would do absolutely nothing to abolish the practice.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that remains to be seen. We are saying that there is extensive queue-jumping, and everybody in your Lordships' House knows this to be a fact. We are hoping that as a result of this it will at least, if it does not do very much, draw attention to how we feel.
I do not think I need delay your Lordships longer. I have spoken for 29 minutes and I am conscious of the fact that I have not answered all the questions that have been asked. I take some comfort and consolation from the knowledge that if I stood here for two hours I would still make no impression on some noble Lords, and therefore it only remains for me to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
9.1 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord HENLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Interpretation]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: This is consequential on an Amendment we passed the other day. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, after ("date") insert ("which shall not be before the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which it is passed.")
The noble Earl said: This simple Amendment suggests that we put in the Bill a provision saying that the date on which the order bringing the Bill into operation shall be delayed for 12 months beginning on the date on which the Bill is passed. This is designed to enable local authorities and other bodies involved in dealing with the Bill an opportunity to arrange themselves and make provision for the liabilities which they will have under the measure. It is not intentionally a delaying Amendment. It is simply to enable those who will find themselves with increased duties and responsibilities under the Bill time in which to get themselves prepared for them, and I hope that it will meet with the Government's approval. I beg to move.
Lord JANNER: I regret that once again I must differ from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. If we delay the operation of the Bill when it is passed, we will actually be giving an opportunity to the very people to whom noble Lords opposite have referred as not the sort of persons who are the ordinary employees in this industry. If there is the sort of delay which noble Lords opposite are proposing, a person who wants to exploit the position will have an opportunity to take advice and turn out a tenant as quickly as possible. That is what it would amount to and I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Earl.
Let me put it in very simple terms. If an employer goes to a lawyer and asks for his advice, and if that employer is the type of person who wants to turn out a

1593
tenant, the lawyer will tell him: "You had better apply to the court now and they will give a maximum of six months to the individual, and then he must go." I am sure that that is not the intention of noble Lords opposite. I am sure they do not want to give such people a chance to exploit the position in this interim period. I am talking about the very people who time and again have been referred to in debates on this subject, the unscrupulous, who I am sure noble Lords do not want to protect.
Such a delay would give them an opportunity to turn out tenants and I do not see why such an opportunity should be provided. If a man does not like his employee he will turf him out and that employee will have six months, and then he must go. That is the utmost the court can allow at the present time, and in my view the Amendment should not be accepted because, frankly, do not believe it would meet with the wishes of the Committee. Certainly it would not be acceptable to my noble friends or, I believe, to those who desire to see justice done. We want to ensure that an unscrupulous employer does not just turn out his employee.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am sure that my noble friends and I would have been absolutely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, were it not for Schedule 9, which deals with transitional arrangements. I believe that the relative paragraph is paragraph 4(1), where I believe this arrangement would be handled.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): I had thought that other noble Lords would like to make a contribution at this stage and I wanted to hear the arguments. I do not believe that this is a simple Amendment, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said. I have heard the arguments about this and the principle that the implementation of the Bill should be delayed at least for a year after Royal Assent. However, as I indicated on Second Reading, there has already been a long delay in putting on the Statute Book a basic right for farm workers to security of tenure in their homes. Indeed, as noble Lords on both sides know, they have been campaigning for it since the beginning of the century. Of course, we were able in 1965 and 1970 to make a little progress and the present
1594
law effectively affords up to six months' security to a farm worker whose employment has ended.
But the problem has not gone away. The number of possession orders sought and obtained by farmers has remained at a high level. It is important that I should sketch out what is our approach. The noble Lord can try to knock down the arguments I am putting forward. The proportion of farm workers living in tied cottages has not decreased. If anything, it has increased. So, having reached this stage, the Government would need to be convinced that there were very strong reasons for writing into the Bill an automatic delay to implementation over and above the existing flexibility which comes from the appointed day procedure. Although, as I have said, I have listened very carefully, I have not yet heard arguments which would lead me to recommend to my colleagues that such a delay should be imposed. I should like to explain first of all an important reason of principle against writing in a long delay and then go on to deal with some of the specific arguments which have been advanced by people who wish to disagree with my point of view.
The essence of this legislation, as I have said, is security of tenure or, for the farm worker who has been rehoused by the local authority, security of housing. Early implementation is almost always a feature of legislation conferring security of tenure in the housing field. The Rent Act 1965 was brought into effect one month after enactment and for the Rent Act 1974 the interval was only two weeks.
The reason for such speed is that the longer the delay between enactment and implementation in a measure of this type, the greater is the opportunity for a landlord to try to regain possession on grounds which the legislation will remove. So far, I am glad to say, we have not detected any signs that farmers generally are seeking to use the provisions of the existing law to dispossess tied cottage occupants in advance of the legislation coming into force. That does not surprise me because I know that in general the farming community acts responsibly and that there are good relationships, and that, in most cases, farmers would not seek to deprive themselves of some of their best labour simply

1595
to avoid being subject to the Bill. Nevertheless, if a significant delay in implementation was opened up, as it would be if this Amendment were carried, a strong temptation would be put in the way of certain people who are not long-term farmers and who, for one reason or another, are thinking of leaving the industry themselves, to deprive their workers of a protection which they will enjoy if the Bill is brought into force on 1st January next, as we hope it will be.
I should also explain that, as is usual in legislation of this kind, the Bill will protect not only those who are given notice to quit after it comes into force, but also qualifying workers and their families who are in occupation but who may have already been given notice to quit and be subject to court proceedings. Once the legislation is on the Statute Book, we would think it right that the uncertainty of such people should be ended and that they should enjoy the new protection of the Bill as soon as possible.
Now let me turn to another argument which has suggested that local authorities will not be in a position to cope if the Bill is brought into force quickly because they are generally not prepared. I know that this argument will be raised and, indeed, it has been raised on previous occasions, though not as forcefully as I have heard it put. Some noble Lords argued for a lead time to allow local authorities to assess more accurately the impact which the Bill will have on the housing demand. I think that this seems to ignore two points. First, local authorities already have to cope with a substantial proportion of ex-tied cottage occupants who are the subject of possession orders. As I have said, there is no reason to assume that the overall demand for housing from farmworkers and ex-farmworkers will necessarily increase in any significant way. Secondly, the only effective way of measuring the effect of the Bill is to watch how it works in practice.
The impact on local authorities will depend not only on the number of applications, but on their decisions on them. In reaching these decisions they will take full account of any advice tendered by the expert committees whom the Bill proposes should assess the agricultural need and urgency of these applications. It really is
1596
not possible with the best will in the world to predict in advance how many applications will be made to local authorities, nor can anyone forecast with precision the overall burden of advice on agricultural need and urgency, let alone the ultimate decisions of the local authorities. A period of delay would just not help to establish the short-term effect which the Bill will have. Indeed, the more alarmist prophecies about its operation could well gain ground and spread unnecessary anxieties. Therefore, for all these reasons, both of principle and practice, I hope that the noble Lords will agree to withdraw their Amendments.
Viscount GAGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question in the interests of accuracy. He said that the number of possession orders has not diminished. Can he possibly split that up with regard to possession orders involving elderly people? As he knows very well, many housing authorities will not give an elderly agricultural labourer any priority unless a possession order has been made against him. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to misrepresent the position, but there are a number of cases involving elderly people where the owner simply has to apply for a possession order, otherwise the applicant has no priority at all.
Lord PEART: I accept that; that was really one of the main points of my argument. This has been one of the worries.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I think the noble Lord said earlier in his speech that there had been great agitation from the majority of farm workers over many generations to end the tied cottage in system in agriculture. But I was of the impression that there had been an opinion poll taken among agricultural workers in England and Wales and that only 5 to 6 per cent. required this. I know that the Bill does not affect Scotland, but the farm workers' union in Scotland has said they they do not want it at all. Therefore I cannot understand why the Minister should say that the majority of farm workers have been agitating for this legislation for many generations.
With regard to eviction, the chief evictor is the State, because so far as I am

1597
aware the total number of agricultural tied cottages represent only about one-tenth of all the tied cottages in the country. The State owns the majority of the tied cottages and the State is the chief evictor.
Lord PEART: I do not want to curtail the noble Viscount's argument, but we have discussed this matter on many occasions and it has been discussed on Second Reading, and only the other day. But my noble friend Lady Birk will deal with this when she replies.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: With respect to the noble Lord's argument, is it not extraordinary that farmers under pressure of what I regard as an excessively foolish and harmful Bill have not rushed to put anyone out? Does this not show, on the noble Lord's own evidence, that the Bill is wholly unnecessary? The noble Lord said that at present there was no evidence at all that farmers were rushing to take advantage of the present law—
Lord PEART: Perhaps I may intervene to reply to that point. I did say that and I said it for the reason that, generally speaking, there are good labour relations between the farmer and the farm worker. But there are cases of dispossession and the tied cottage is still regarded as an issue. But I believe that the industry is acting reasonably well and in a responsible way.
9.19 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: I am sorry to intervene again, but the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has again argued that farm workers do not want to see the tied cottage problem dealt with. I mentioned the other day that there must be something rather strange about this poll, because my own knowledge confirms that farm workers who are in the National Union of Agricultural Workers have for many years before my time as general secretary—indeed consistently throughout the years—moved and supported resolutions in their branches, in their county committees, and throughout the country, in the desire that the tied cottage be dealt with. Therefore, there must be something funny about this. I do not know what this poll is. I know the noble Lord opposite gave me some information the other day, but I am still convinced the information must be wrong. Either
1598
the selection of people who were asked to take part in the poll was one-sided or biased; I do not know, but I am quite sure that this argument is quite wrong.
Before I sit down, may I say that I support my noble friend on the Front Bench when he says that the solution of this problem is long overdue. And, without making any attempt at all to blacken the farmers of this country, because I know that most of them behave quite sensibly and reasonably when they get problems about people occupying tied cottages who are retired, or sick, or leaving a job, nevertheless, this long delay would encourage the unscrupulous ones. In every sector of the population you get some bad people, you get some bad eggs, there is a bad potato in every pile, and it to will give them an opportunity to try to move in before the Bill becomes effective in order to evict farm workers who would be protected by this Bill.
Lord SWAYTHLING: I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to the number of court decisions in favour of eviction. I think that the noble Lord ignored the fact that the vast majority of these cases are done at the instance or with the approval or at the request of the farm worker, in order to enable him to get a house. I believe the actual number of evictions per year is almost negligible. I believe under 20 a year are actually evicted.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Speaking as a farmer, I say that nobody wants to evict a good farm worker; that is axiomatic. In fact, in the area where I live we have been employing the same families for generations. The reason why I think this Bill is in a sense out of date—the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is quite right, of course; the question of tied cottages has been on the agenda of the Agricultural Workers' Union for years and years, since I was a child—is that the situation is totally different now, for the simple reason that with the machinery and the new techniques the saving of labour in farming today is colossal and many old farms have masses of cottages which they simply do not use, because they do not want all those agricultural workers. They do want good agricultural workers, and naturally one wants in every possible way to house them as well as one can.

1599
If by mistake you get somebody who is useless and you cannot get him out, of course you are in a desperate position. But I think the reason why the situation is not nearly so acute as it was, say, 30 or 40 years ago, when Lord Collison himself was active in the Agricultural Workers' Union, is the new techniques in farming, the new savings in labour, the enormous amount of machinery and all the rest of it about which all noble Lords who are engaged in farming know.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am sure the noble Baroness is right. Things have changed. And I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is right in saying there was something funny about the poll. What happened about the poll was that the people who were questioned were questioned after the passing of the Rent Act 1965, the Agriculture Act 1970 and the Employment Protection Act of last year, which have transformed the situation as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said yesterday. The Battle of Waterloo has virtually been won, and I am sure that that is why you had this low poll.
The Earl of ONSLOW: On one small point—perhaps is a Second Reading point—can either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness confirm that eviction can still, in fact, happen even with this Bill?
Lord MONK BRETTON: May I ask either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness whether they have considered the possibility of the operation of this Bill, when it is an Act, to take place at different times in different areas; and whether they have considered the possibility of leaving the more difficult areas until later, because I think some areas have a much better chance of making this work than others. While this matter is being discussed it will be of interest to know what their views may be.
Baroness BIRK: I will first deal with this question, which is constantly arising, about the poll of the workers. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys—and this is rather a delayed apology—raised it on Second Reading, but in order to try to keep my winding-up speech short I did not answer then. I also thought at the time that it had been dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place and, knowing how assiduously the noble Lord, Lord
1600
Sandys, does his homework, I was sure that he had read the answer there. He returned to it again yesterday and I think then used it in the context of the workers showing that they were against this Bill. Now the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has raised it again. I think it ought to be cleared up, once and for all.
The first point is that the survey was carried out in July, 1975. That was long before the Bill was published, so they could not in any sense have been voting against or expressing an opinion about this Bill. The second point is that they were 300 workers out of a full-time workforce of 140,000. The most important point is that they were not—and I repeat "not"—asked the question: "Do you think that tied cottages or the tied cottage system should be abolished?" They were asked the question: "Do you think that there are any categories of workers who need to live in tied cottages to do their jobs?" The response to this was: 60 per cent. "Yes"; they did think that some people ought to live in cottages by their jobs. And 40 per cent. said "No". Out of that 40 per cent., 5·3 per cent. (that is, 16 people) qualified the answer by saying that they favoured the abolition of the agricultural tied cottage system—although they were not asked that question directly. This has been misrepresented to show that only 5 per cent. of farm workers favour abolition. The fact is that out of the 40 per cent., 5 per cent. felt strongly enough to make the point, off their own bat, that they favoured abolition.
It is worth mentioning that the Arthur Rank Centre themselves were not exactly pleased at the misuse of this survey by people who are against the Bill. In a letter to all the members of the Committee which considered this Bill in another place, the Warden of the Centre, the Reverend Peter Buckler, said:
"The Arthur Rank Centre completely support the main provisions of the Agriculture Bill. There is nothing in the Report which we published last autumn which does not support our present attitude towards the Bill."
In order to make clear how misleading is the use to which this poll results have been put, I have thought up an analogy. Imagine the response to a sample survey if people were asked: "Do you think the House of Lords serves the interests of efficient democracy?" Let us say that

1601
60 per cent. reply, "Yes" and 40 per cent. "No". Some of those who reply "No"—let us take 5 per cent.—add the rider that what they would like to see is the reform of the present House of Lords. I would suggest that it would be absurd and misleading if anybody then went around saying that only 5 per cent. of the people asked about the House of Lords favoured reform. It could be that if the question were put directly there would be huge dissent. We could say the same about farm workers and this Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Collison that it is time that this was spelled out and explained.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, questioned the point about whether many were evicted at all. Fortunately the number of evictions is low, but I do not think that is the point. The point is, first, that there are any evictions at all under this system, and, secondly, that it is not the actual evictions that one has to get one's eye on, which is the part of the iceberg above the surface; it is the people who are also under the shadow of a possession order to which, under the present system, a farmer has to resort—we heard on Second Reading about the collusion that goes on about this—and, thirdly, the people who, because they are afraid and want to avoid the court proceedings which would take place as the result of an application for a possession order, get scared or move or try to get away before this occurs. These people are at risk so far as their security of tenure, their home and their living conditions are concerned.
My noble friend Lord Janner was right when he supported what my noble friend the Leader of the House said, that by delaying the starting date we should create just the position which we are trying to do away with at the moment. As regards the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the situation would be the same as it is under the Rent Act generally: that if there is a bad tenant and he refuses an offer of other suitable accommodation he can be evicted. It does not extend beyond the Rent Act, but in the same way as at the end of the road there are cases where there will be evictions, so there will be here; but the eviction would not be tied to the employment but to the tenancy.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Would the noble Baroness give way? If the ADHACs come in and advise that this particular house is necessary for agriculture, and the local authorities agree and the man still will not come out of the house, presumably this is tied to his employment and eviction will follow if, as we all admit, there is a very rare situation where these unpleasant proceedings have to continue.
Baroness BIRK: I disagree with the noble Earl. By then he has become a tenant and is then in the position of any other tenant so far as the Rent Act is concerned. It has then become nothing to do with his employment. If he is offered other suitable provision—and we come to this under Schedule 3: for instance under Case 3 where the rent is not paid, or Case 4 where there is conduct amounting to a nuisance—then he is subject to the same conditions and criteria as are other tenants under the Rent Act. This has nothing to do with his employment; that is the difference.
Earl FERRERS: I am bound to say that we have had quite a fascinating debate on the Amendment, an Amendment which I am slightly surprised to find was to discuss whether or not the provisions of the Bill should come into force forthwith or in a year's time. Then we got into a poll on reform of the House of Lords, which is spreading the net fairly wide. I am glad to say that did not come from my noble friends behind me, so that is some measure of satisfaction. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, said that he was quite convinced that the National Union of Agricultural Workers has always been in favour of this. I do not dispute that for one moment. However, he said yesterday that he did not want to get up on every Amendment. So far as I am concerned, I hope the noble Lord will not have any hesitation in speaking whenever he wishes. The views of the noble Lord are respected and welcome. If our Amendments do not accord with the noble Lord's views, I hope that he will not hesitate in putting his opinions forward. We do not consider that to be the slightest imposition. The only point that I made about this the other day—and I repeat it now—is that I know that the abolition of the tied cottage is the official union view. That does not mean to say every member of the union agrees with that; approximately 50 per cent. of

1603
the people employed in agriculture are members of the union and it cannot be said that that necessarily represents a total view of all agricultural workers. I accept that it is the union's official view.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, was concerned that if we were to accept this Amendment, unscrupulous landlords—and I agree with him that there are unscrupulous landlords—would take advantage of this and would immediately try to prise out unsatisfactory farm workers. That is a correct view to take. If people were to do this, it would be totally unacceptable. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, this possibility is covered on page 62 at paragraph 4 where it says clearly in Schedule 9:
"Where before the operative date a court has made an order for possession of a dwelling house … the court may, on the application of the person against whom the order was made, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the court thinks fit …"
In other words, if a possession order has been made for a house against a person when the Bill becomes law, and before it conies into operation under the statutory order, the person who has had the possession order made against him may go to the court and say: "Please will you think about it again."
Lord JANNER: With the greatest respect, it is not as simple as that. If the order is made and the man is already ejected, it is too late to have it rescinded. That is what I am driving at. The whole point is that an order must be made for not longer than six months. Assuming the order is made and the Act does not come in for twelve months, the man is already out. That is the real point. The Leasehold Reform Act enables a person who has not obeyed an order but has stayed beyond the time that he is allowed, to have the benefit of that because the Act is retrospective in that regard. Here you cannot do this. The man will be out and there is an end of it. The court cannot make an order rescinding something which cannot be rescinded.
Earl FERRERS: I hesitate to conflict with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who is an expert in legal matters.
Lord JANNER: I am not an expert.
Earl FERRERS: This Schedule says that where before the operative date—that is the date on which the Bill becomes law as a result of the order, of the Statutory Instrument—the court has made an order, in other words since this has become law, a person may go back to the court and say, "This Bill has now become law. It is not operative yet. May I please stay?" If the person has already gone out of the house he cannot go back and say, "May I come back in?" The noble Lord was worried about an unscrupulous landlord trying to prise a tenant out as soon as this Bill became law and before it came into operation. In other words, after Royal Assent and the operative date. It is then that, as I see it, this paragraph 4 would operate. However, be that as it may, the noble Lord may like to consider this on his own and I certainly bow to his superior views.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, paragraph 4 of Schedule 9, which I think we are discussing, protects only people who are still in residence on the operative date. If we wait for the 12 months many will be forced to move out. I do not know whether the noble Earl has read that into the point. It is during the delay that if people are forced to move out they will not still be in residence and therefore they will have no protection.
Earl FERRERS: I have no doubt that the noble Baroness is well briefed on this, but I am bound to say that I cannot read that into it because what it says is:
"Where before the operative date"—
if this were in 12 months' time the operative date would be 1978. Where before 1978—
"a court has made an order for possession of a dwelling-house which on the operative date is subject to a statutory tenancy and the order has not been executed, the court may, on the application of the person against whom the order was made, rescind or vary the order …".
Perhaps the noble Baroness is right. I am sure she is. I shall not pursue this matter any further.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, made it perfectly clear that the unions have been campaigning for this change since the beginning of the century and I know this fairly well. I am sorry if I appeared to interrupt the noble Lord when he was in the course of his speech but I was taking note of what he said and I smiled and turned to my noble friend and said,

1605
"That is a Department of the Environment brief". Somehow one seemed to sense it when it came from the noble Lord. But that was the only reason I smiled and not because I disagreed with what the noble Lord was saying specifically.
This Amendment was put down not to delay anything particularly; it was a genuine attempt to allow for the setting up of the ADHACs to take place and to give the local authorities who have to make provision for the responsibilities which will be placed upon them some time to make provision for that. That was the only reason I put down the Amendment. It was not for some scurrilous reason to upset the provision of the Bill. If the noble Lord feels that this would be an undesirable thing to do then I shall withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3 which we passed the other day. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Protected Occupiers in their own Right]:
9.44 p.m.
Lord SWAYTHLING Lord SWAYTHLING moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 34, leave out line 47 and insert ("225 out of the last 260 weeks, 50 weeks of which have been for the current employer.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved because it is the widespread view of those engaged in the farming industry, which coincides I believe with the particular wishes of the National Farmers' Union the Milk Marketing Board and the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. It is widely felt that the two years qualifying period in the Bill is much too short and this Amendment substitutes five years in agriculture of which one year must be for their current employer; namely, the employer whose house they are occupying.
The last provision is essential and it is for that reason that I infinitely prefer this Amendment to Amendment No. 9 which
1606
stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, where it is not necessary for the worker to have worked for the owner of his service house for any definite period. In other words, under Amendment No. 9 a worker could work for two years in agriculture and then leave his job, where he possibly had a second-class cottage, obtain a job with somebody else who had an excellent house, and within a month he could give notice and seek to remain where he was, which I regard as wholly unacceptable. In view of what I have said, I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment as it would be wrong to ignore the feeling so generally held in the agriculture industry. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether it might be helpful if I spoke to my Amendment at the same time, because it is of a similar character. We want to get clear exactly what the situation is, because this is a very important Part of the Bill as it depicts who may or may not take advantage of its provisions. The Bill states that the only criterion which has to be met, in order to become a protected tenant under the Bill, is that one should have worked whole time in agriculture on any farm for two years. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, states that a person would have to work in agriculture for five years, one year of which should be with the current employer. The Amendment which stands in my name, and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandys, states that a person would have to work for four years in agriculture, and for two years with the same employer. They are quite different points, but the common denominator running through them is the fence over which one has to get in order to obtain statutory protection under the Bill.
I believe that the Bill as drafted, with just two years in agriculture, is too loose and is inadequate, because it makes no stipulation whatever as to the length of time a person has to serve on one farm in order to obtain possession of the house in which he lives. In other words, a person who had been working in agriculture for two years could go to a new farm and within a week say that he wished to work elsewhere. He could then incur the provisions of this Bill, and by so doing could latch on to the freehold of the house of

1607
someone for whom he had worked for only one week. There may well be an argument for saying that if a man has worked in agriculture he should have the right to a freehold. But it is a different matter to say that a farmer or a landlord is under an obligation to forgo his freehold, possibly for a great many years, when a person has worked on his farm for only one week. That does not seem to be right.
There are two points which ought to be made clear. First, there is the qualifying period which a man must work on a certain farm in order to latch on to the freehold. As the Bill is at present drafted, a person may obtain the freehold from someone for whom he has worked for a very short period of time, and it is rather like saying that if you have worked for Sainsbury's for two years, you then have the right to latch on to the freehold of part of Tesco's. The connection between the two is extraordinary.
One of the other points which it is very important to deal with in the Bill is the protection of agriculture from what I described at Second Reading as the devious—that is, the person who, for one reason or another, has found it difficult to obtain good or adequate housing but who finds that by working in agriculture for two years he can latch on to somebody's freehold and obtain the freehold of a house simply by working on that farm for even a week or a year. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is smiling.
Lord JANNER: With the greatest respect, I was only smiling at the fact that the noble Lord was talking about freeholds. This person does not obtain the freehold; he obtains a statutory tenancy which is an entirely different matter.
Earl FERRERS: I quite agree. I forgot that I was speaking to a lawyer who is very specific about these matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Janner, knows exactly what I mean. The fact is that a person who finds that he can work in agriculture can take advantage of provisions which were designed for people who are not in the same category.
Lord JANNER: I did not intend to smile; it just occurred to me that this is how a layman talks about these matters. That is all.
Earl FERRERS: Thank goodness that there are laymen who talk in laymen's English and not always in legal language which is sometimes so very difficult to understand, as those of us who have ploughed through the Bill have found. I put it seriously to the noble Lord that it is not right at a time of housing shortage for agriculture to be seen as possibly a quick route to a local authority house or to a protected tenancy. If the provisions contained in the Bill are kept, it is perfectly possible that they can be used as a quick route to a local authority house or to a protected tenancy.
I believe that our Amendment is probably better than that which has been set down by the Liberals. I say this with the greatest humility and not because I have designed the Amendment; I have not. However, one can put down the axe almost anywhere. There is an infinite variety of places where one could say that this is the right criterion, but in the end it is a matter of judgment. To say that a person should have to work for five years is a long period of time. On the other hand, if a farmer is to forgo the right to his house, not only just for that person but possibly for that person's widow or dependant on a later occasion, it is perfectly reasonable that that farm worker should have worked for him for a period of time. The Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, says that a farmer should have had that person working for him for a year. I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable request, but our Amendment is slightly different; it mentions four years, a more accommodating length of time which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will accept. The alternative is that he should have worked on that farm or in agriculture for two years.
It is a question of deciding which is the best Amendment and I am of the opinion that a compromise between the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and our Amendment might be the best course to adopt. As the Bill stands at present it is too loose. It enables people who should not have an automatic right to a house which does not belong to them to have a house on a farm which they may not have worked on for any length of time. I do not believe that the Bill should give them that right. I hope the noble Lord

1609
will think that this is a point worthy of discussion and of consideration.
Lord MIDDLETON: I know that the need for a period is accepted by the Government and in deciding the length of such a period they have come down between the National Union of Agricultural Workers' one year and the National Farmers' Union five years which is advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. My own view is that the period of two years in the Bill is too short hearing in mind the dangers envisaged in the Consultation Document. Perhaps I may just quote from this excellent document. It says:
"All important, it will be essential for the legislation to distinguish between genuine, regular, full-time hired farm workers and anybody who might view a brief spell in that capacity as a short cut to assured housing".
I believe it to be too short, bearing in mind the need to keep within reasonable bounds the number of persons for whom the local authority are bound to provide housing in a period of housing shortage and economic stringency.
I think that in practice the five years—although I suppose it comes down to four years and four months if we add up the number of days—is too long, as was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and I think that what conies in practice to three and a half years; namely, the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seems to be reasonable. As to the alternative qualifying period of two years with the same employer, which is what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is advocating—
Lord SWAYTHLING: If the noble Lord will permit me, I suggested one year with the same employer.
Lord MIDDLETON: I quite agree that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, is one year, but the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, suggested two, and that seems to me to meet another point that is referred to in the Consultative Document. Perhaps I may quote again:
"The Tavistock Institute sample disclosed that 42 per cent. of workers who had experienced the prospect of eviction had not then worked for more than a year with the employer concerned."
So the Tavistock Institute's finding indicates that many people find in the first year that they do not fit in to a particular farm job, but if they can achieve a year
1610
with one employer they are much more likely to settle down, either with him or in the industry. A worker who puts in two years with one employer can therefore seriously be assumed to be engaged in agriculture. The man described in the Consultation Document as taking a short cut to assured houring is much more likely to be a misfit, I should have thought, wherever he may find employment, and more likely to flit from job to job, and hence I see the need for a longer qualifying period in the industry. I think that a period of four years is just about right. It is a matter of balance; the Government have said what they think and where in their judgment it should lie; the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said where his should lie and the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has suggested a little longer. I believe that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is the right one.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There is a point which I think has not been raised so far. I believe that the agricultural colleges are finding it slightly more difficult than before to place the graduate worker or the skilled worker who comes from the agricultural colleges. This certainly applies in what might be called the luxury trades of the arboriculturists and the landscape gardeners, and it is beginning to apply to the skilled agricultural worker. There has also been another factor which on reflection is probably not as odd as it might seem at first, in that there has been a reaction among some people from monotonous, conveyor belt, mass production jobs, who think to themselves, "I would actually rather go and get a varied job in agriculture, even though the pay is less".
It seems to me that there are two sorts of people. One has the input of industrial workers into agriculture, or the children of industrial workers in agriculture, and the skilled pupil from the agricultural colleges, and those people, it seems to me, must be protected, because we who are privileged enough to be employers of agricultural labour need the best labour we can. Consequently, above all, we need to cherish them because, as I have said a million times in your Lordships' House, it is in our interests so to do.
If the misfit and the person who does not really like agriculture wants to get

1611
out of it is going to use this as a jumping-off place to crash the local authority housing list, that is wrong. Even with our Amendment, it would theoretically be possible for a young man to leave school at 16, go into agricultural work and be at the head of the local authority housing list by the age of 20, unmarried. Under the Government's Bill it is possible
1612
at 18 years of age. This seems to me not really right. Above all, we must try to weed out those who are not keen on agriculture, because what we want to do is to protect agriculture. If we protect agriculture, ipso facto we protect the agricultural workers. So I come back to my original point that they are our finest asset.
10.2 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I would support these Amendments. One has to remember that by and large, employees in agriculture are fairly static. Sometimes they work for a lifetime and even retire on the farm, so there is no great turnover in many cases. Undoubtedly there are some who go in and out of the industry because they do not like the people concerned; they do not get on with the boss, or, as in my case, they go into industry and try that out for a short time and then come back, or they find agriculture is too hard work, or there is one reason or another.
There is one thing which will crop up—it has done already in service houses and in many parts, and this will happen in the future. Where you have a farmer with someone who is no good (perhaps he is either a foreman or a worker) the farmer will give him a very good reference. The reason is quite obvious—because the worker takes the reference to his next job, the farmer employs him, and his original employer has got rid of him so rubs his hands. Once the had chap is in the house, he is there. One is talking about only a very small proportion, but the "baddies" do exist and should not be the responsibility of the new farmer to whom they have gone. Agriculture should be protected from this very small proportion of "baddies".
Lord COLLISON: There is a point which has been given deep consideration by everyone concerned with the industry, including myself, because I have to look at things from the point of view of an employer, Land Settlement Association—wise. The whole issue revolves around the understanding we have, and I think the unions have—although they said a year—that the industry needs to be protected against those people who come into agriculture just in order to get a house, and who do not intend to stay in the industry. Therefore, some qualifying period had to be written in.
I am satisfied, as are my colleagues, that two years is a proper qualifying period. A man does not go into agriculture thinking that in two years' time he will have a right to the tenancy of this cottage or that council house. He does
1614
not think that far ahead. A man who has been in agriculture for two years is an agricultural worker, is somebody connected with the industry and means to be so connected. I feel therefore that the two-year period is long enough.
As for the period during which an employee has been with one employer, that is irrelevant. We looked at this matter from the point of view of the wellbeing of agriculture as well as the wellbeing of the agricultural worker and we must remember that agriculture is an industry that contains a large number of employers and employees. The agricultural worker should be able to move freely within the industry in order to provide the service which he may have developed or improved, going from one place to another, and if one accepts that, then one is thinking of the service which a man can give to the industry. Thinking in those terms, the question of the length of time he has been employed by any employer, including the last employer, is irrelevant and therefore I believe that the proposal in the Bill is a proper solution to the problem, which I accept is a real one.
I agree that we must not have the situation where somebody can just come into the industry in order, after a few weeks or months, to gain possession of a cottage or have a right to the tenancy of a cottage or council house and I suggest that two years is long enough to show that he is a bona fide agricultural worker.
Earl FERRERS: I am interested in what the noble Lord is saying and especially in his remark that the length of time a person has worked on a farm is irrelevant. Would he expand on that? Clearly the unions are concerned for their individual members, in a similar way that agriculture contains many individual farmers. Does the noble Lord believe it is right for a farmer to lose the use of a house which has been provided for the purposes of that farm as well as for the purposes of agriculture simply because he has had somebody working for a few weeks or a month or so?
Lord COLLISON: No, and I am not saying that. Any agricultural worker who has had a long time in the industry may still want to move to another farm.

1615
He may find the conditions on the next farm intolerable or he may not be able to get on with his employer. In that case he may have to do something about it. It is not simply a question of somebody coming in with the idea of getting a house. In the case of a long-term agricultural worker, whether he has been in agriculture for two or 20 years, he is a long-term agricultural worker and the possibility of being able to move from one farm to another is most important, and protection should go with that man.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Noble Lords may be interested in my experience, even under the present legislation. I have known a farm worker take a job, move into a house on a Saturday and give notice at the end of the following week, having got a job in a factory nine or 10 miles away. He is in one's house and nobody likes evicting. Certainly I would never like to evict anybody and I have never done so. Nevertheless, he is in one's house and even under the present Act if one wants to evict him then, with the log jam in the courts, he is there for eight or ten months anyway. For this reason I strongly favour the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers because I think that two years is too short a time. One is bound to come across Smart Alecks—
Several noble Lords: Oh?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I did not notice my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in his place and I assure him that that remark was meant for the few unscrupulous farm workers who will take advantage of this short period as a short-cut to obtaining a rent protected house or council house.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I should like to say a few words from these Benches in favour of the Amendment. I feel that it is tragic that we should have to legislate for the exception, but that is what we are doing. The whole of this Bill is legislation for the unusual, hardly existing, bad farm employer, just as the present proposal is aimed at the hardly existing bad farm worker with whom the farmer might get landed. It is tragic that
1616
we should have to go through this procedure of legislating for either. I should like to defend our Amendment. I have nothing against the noble Earl's Amendment, with its period of four years as against five years. What worries me about that Amendment, however, is that it has the word "or" in it and that the other qualification is two years with the same employer. I believe that the Amendment means that one can either qualify by working for two years with one employer or by having been four years in the industry.
Under the provisions that are being set up we are in honour bound to protect the local authority, which could be landed with a person after two years. After two years, as long as the worker has stayed with the same employer for that time, he could have the right to a council house. If one compares the length of time that such a person might have to be on a local authority list against even the hardship of working for two years for one employer, it is clear that there is still a slight risk in this. I therefore prefer our Amendment.
Lord PEART: I believe that I should intervene here. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, regarded this Bill as dealing with something which is exceptional and unusual and felt that we should not do it. The simple fact is that there have been abuses; otherwise, there would never have been all the agitation there has been over the years. This is the reality. Farm workers feel strongly about this matter. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who was a distinguished farm leader and president of his union and who, from practical experience, was able to tell us on Second Reading about some of the difficulties.
I will not say that all is bad and gloomy. I have paid tribute to the good relationships between farmers, landowners and farm workers. We are dealing only with small cases. After all, most of our legislation on other matters deals specifically with abuses, even though they may be small abuses, so I believe that we are right to press forward. However, I accept that there is an important argument about the length of period that has been mentioned. The Liberal Party take a

1617
different view from that of the Conservative Party. Indeed, the noble Lord was quite right about the Consultative Document: it said that this must be carefully considered, and he was right to stress it. I do not believe that there is any political issue here, whatever position we come to. I take the view that it is fair that there should be a qualifying period of service for workers who are to benefit from the security of housing which the Bill's provisions would afford, to ensure that people do not see a brief spell of work in agriculture as a short cut to that security. Noble Lords have accepted this in principle. We are only arguing here about the difference of period.
I was rather interested in the state of agriculture as described by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and in some of the difficulties in placing trained personnel and skilled workers in the industry. He spoke of the pressure that we get and the pressure which may come from a movement from the industrial areas. That has always been so but, in the end, it is for the farmer himself to decide who his employee is to be. He will make the decision. He will judge the worker's skill and whether he is qualified, so I do not feel that we should worry too much there; but I agree with the noble Earl that it is an interesting problem and, naturally, should be taken seriously.
We have decided on two years, taking account of consultations which we have had with both sides of the industry. There has been considerable consultation on this matter, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others know. I think that two years is a reasonable period in which to prove one's bona fides. Incidentally, two years is also the period suggested by the Association of District Councils, which is the body intimately concerned with the realities of rehousing agricultural workers. I should not say, generally speaking, that that association would decide on the matter for political reasons. From its experience—and, after all, it is very important in this matter—the association has come down on the side of two years, with which we agree.
The arguments which I have heard, and those which I have seen in the farming Press in recent months, have not shaken me in my conviction that two years in the industry is quite long enough to sift
1618
out the genuine farm worker from anyone who might be tempted to use the Bill as a quick step to assured housing; or to use the dramatic words of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, virtually to jump the queue or to crash into the queue, as he described it.
Both these Amendments would have the effect of leaving a farm worker under a cloud of insecurity about housing for longer than we consider right, since insisting as they do on the one hand on one year's service with a current employer, and, on the other, on two years with a current employer where a worker had less than four years' service in agriculture, I think the scope for abuse by a bad employer is considerable. We want to encourage ambitious young workers, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collison, about the need for mobility. It is not a bad thing that these workers get ambitious and want to move, or wish to gain other experience in a particular field of agricultural practice. An ambitious young worker, let us say with less than four years' service, and less than two years with his current employer, who wishes to take a better job with greater prospects with another employer, must, under both these Amendments, forfeit his eligibility for housing security until he has been with his new employer for one or two years, or has clocked up his four years as the case may be.
There are many reasons why workers leave farms and seek to move on. Some of the reasons are domestic—and this has been mentioned and argued by noble Lords on Second Reading and the other day. The reasons may relate to changes in the farm business; and others, as noble Lords who are connected with the industry know, reflect ambitions, as I said earlier, to progress up the promotion ladder; or there is a desire to gain experience in different sectors. All this is a good thing. I believe that the Amendments, by making it harder to qualify under the Bill, would have an adverse effect on such movement, and, I suggest, would bite particularly hard on young workers, perhaps with young families—we have to recognise this—at an early and critical stage of their careers, at precisely the time when they might expect to be relatively mobile.
Furthermore, every farm worker who has yet to complete his qualifying period

1619
is constantly aware of the possibility of his employment being terminated before the period is up, and I believe that both Amendments would extend this unease. I know that noble Lords do not want to achieve that. They feel that their case is reasonable. I am thinking here of the Liberal Amendment, although the Tories criticised it. Although I believe that there is a difficulty here, I think the Amendment runs counter to our objective in the Bill—
The Earl of ONSLOW: Will the noble Lord give way? Surely the argument about the anxiety of the qualifying period applies whether the qualifying period is 20 minutes or 3,000 years?
Lord PEART: That is a very strange hypothetical case or argument. We are dealing here with the realities of two years, which is what I have suggested and with what is in the Amendment, which I assume the noble Earl supports as a good Conservative—although I now understand that he is not a Party Member. Perhaps the noble Earl supports the Liberal Amendment. I still think that what is proposed runs counter to our objective.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Would the noble Lord give way? If you are a reasonable farm worker, you have nothing to fear after six months' work on a farm under the Employment Protection Act. Does that not allay a lot of the fears that the noble Lord is concerned with?
Lord PEART: I do not think it helps security of tenure, which is what we are arguing about. The noble Earl mentioned six months, but I do not think that answers my main point. After all, we are anxious here to uncouple the farm workers' housing from their employment in certain circumstances. I regret, therefore, that we cannot accept these Amendments and, in view of the unfortunate effect they would have, I hope noble Lords opposite will agree to withdraw them. There is no political issue in this matter.
Lord SWAYTHLING: First, if the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is so keen on mobility, I wonder why he is so keen on this Bill at all? I think the Bill is a
1620
hindrance to mobility. Apart from that, I would say straight out with reference to this Amendment, that we are quite agreeable to four years as suggested by the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but we are very insistent that it is essential to have one year on the farm of the man who is going to lose his cottage, the man who is the present employer. Therefore, I would ask whether we cannot alter our Amendment at the moment to four years and have it in those terms. I do not want to waste too much time, but on the Road Traffic Act some years ago I moved an Amendment that a motor driver should have seven days in which to produce his licence. The Government said that if I altered it to five days they would accept it. Straight away I said that I would alter it to five days and the Amendment was passed. Am I entitled to say that we will accept the four years, with one year with the present employer, and press the Amendment now? Because if I am not I feel I should like to press the Amendment as it stands and alter it to four years on Report stage. That would safeguard the question of one year in the present employment.
Earl FERRERS: May I come to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has just mentioned, that he would be prepared to accept our Amendment of four years provided it was coupled with his stipulation of one year on the farm? Probably the tidiest way to do this would be for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment and for us to withdraw ours and come back with an Amendment which possibly will suit everyone—I hope it will be agreeable to the noble Lords opposite—at the Report stage? That would be easier than getting ourselves into a legal tangle with manuscript Amendments, which I dare say can be passed but—I was going to say there is no urgency about this. I appreciate, however, that there is great urgency for the Government to get their business through. If we could get this specific provision in the Bill I should have thought the best way to do it was at Report stage.
I should just like to comment on one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said. I accept that he put forward his views why the Bill should remain as it is. Of course, there is a balance to be drawn.

1621
I do not say that our Amendment is absolutely correct or that the noble Lord is correct either. There is a balance. Equally, there is a balance between the right of the farm worker to have security of tenure on the one hand, and the ability of the farmer, with the cottages which are at his disposal, to farm adequately, on the other hand. Then there is the encouragement or incentive for farmers to build cottages for workers. There is a balance to be drawn. The only thing the noble Lord, Lord Peart, did not say at all, and it is something I think, with respect, he should address his mind to, is why a farmer should find himself losing the right to the occupancy of a house on his farm by a person who, under this Bill, has no qualification of length of service on that particular farm to enable him to lay claim to the house. The noble Lord did not comment on that, and I think it is right, because there is a balance to be drawn here. I do not know whether he wishes to comment on the point. Perhaps he does not. Very well.
Lord PEART: I would always wish to respond to the noble Earl. I agree that there is an argument about getting the balance right. I understand the worries on this. But to come back to the main argument, I do not want to get involved in a discussion about procedure and how to deal with this. That was a matter for the noble Lord and his friends in the Liberal Party. My point of view is this: we must stand by the two years.
The Earl of ONSLOW: May I ask one question, speaking solely for myself? As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, he has not really dealt with the question of the period on one farm. The whole of the argument between Lord Ferrers and Lord Swaythling has been a little like God and Abraham bargaining over Sodom and Gomorrah: Peradventure, Lord, we have three or four years or whatever it is. I shall now venture to produce another peradventure. Peradventure the noble Lord, Lord Peart, might be tempted to accept two years and a one-year qualifying period on one farm. I would hope that we could all agree with that. Everybody would be happy.
Lord SWAYTHLING: I should say that the phrase "everybody would be happy" is not correct. Certainly we should not be happy with two years.
Lord COLLISON: There is talk about there not being a balance. I want to restore that balance. We are not talking simply in terms of the agriculture worker who has been in agriculture for two or four years or what-you-will. We are also talking about an agricultural worker who may have been in the industry for 20, 30 or 40 years and who may in his last employment run into difficulties within the year. I do not want to expand on that, but it is a point which must be taken into account when we are talking about balance.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collison, for drawing that to our attention. He is right. There is a balance and that particular person certainly deserves consideration. If our Amendment were accepted he would come within its ambit because he would have done the four years. On both these Amendments there is no question of the fundamental aspects of the Bill being altered over this; we accept this. We are trying to see what is the right qualifying period. I think the Government have the period wrong. I hope that we shall be able to come to some arrangement. If the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, were to withdraw his Amendment, I would withdraw mine and see if we could put down a more suitable Amendment on Report. I should have thought that would be the tidy thing to do.
Lord SWAYTHLING: There is the question of the definition of "tidy". My definition of it in this case is that we should press our Amendment, which I hope the Conservative Benches would support. If it is passed, they would then have the opportunity to alter the five years to four years on Report. I should like to see the Amendment in this form with the "one year on the same farm" in the Bill as soon as possible. Therefore I should like to press our Amendment.
Lord PEART: I am suprised because I thought the Conservatives did not support what is proposed by the Liberal Party.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I am not prepared to support this Amendment. I take the remarks of Lord Collison about the length of service as being very important. I think that having the "or" in is now much more important than I at first realised.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 35, line 41, at end insert—
("Provided that dwelling house is not in qualifying ownership if it is the only dwelling house on an agricultural unit available for occupation under a contract of employment in agriculture.")
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment we are dealing with a different situation altogether. Here we are concerned with the holding on which there is a single agricultural cottage. First, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the large number and variety of agricultural holdings in this country and indicate that this Amendment does not specify any particular area of ground to which it refers. We are concerned with the holding on which there is a single dwelling-house, so we turn in our definition to Part I of Schedule 2 and under the Dwelling-house in qualifying ownership we reach the point where this Amendment applies. In paragraph 3 of the Schedule the terms of qualifying ownership are set out. I will not repeat these as it would be tedious. After the end of paragraph (b) we have the Amendment which reads, and I quote:
"Provided that dwelling house is not in qualifying ownership if it is the only dwelling house on an agricultural unit available for occupation under a contract of employment in agriculture."
In other words, this Amendment disapplies the previous parts of paragraph 3. Here we have a situation in which an owner has an enterprise. Perhaps that enterprise is concerned with no buildings at all, but is a small area of land, or it is concerned with an enterprise contained in a single large building—and I have in mind either some special technical equipment, perhaps hydroponics or something of that
1624
sort cultivating a particular crop, or an enterprise which will demand the presence of one worker in a single dwelling-house on this particular holding. There is no room for manoeuvre; there is no second dwelling-house, so that the employer is unlikely to be able to draw upon another source of employed labour.
There is a special difficulty here, because the Bill as drafted makes no special provision for a small or relatively small enterprise. One must recognise that there are a large number of small holdings in this country. Some are statutory small holdings owned by local authorities, and we understand that they are excluded from the purview of this Bill. In this Amendment we seek to exclude those other small holdings not in the ownership of local authorities. These are in a particularly difficult position where the employer has remarkably little room for manoeuvre so far as the employee is concerned and is placed in a predicament where, if he makes a false choice, or if he falls out with the employee or the employee with him, there is a situation which would be the reverse of satisfactory. There is a situation which seeks redress, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment.
10.35 p.m.
Lord PEART: The effect of this Amendment would he to deprive a considerable number of workers and ex-workers of protection. It would seem from the information available that something under 16,000 farms have only one cottage occupied by whole-time workers. Where there is more than one cottage on a farm, but only one occupied by a whole-time worker, it is not possible to judge whether or not any of the remainder are available for occupation by an agricultural worker. From the figures that are to hand, the safest lesson to be drawn is that the Amendment can have the effect of removing protection from 16,000 people. Though there may be some overlap with the 17,000 or so dairymen and stock men who were removed from the Bill yesterday, this means really a further substantial erosion of the number of those who are intended to benefit from the security of tenure afforded by the Bill. This is not acceptable to the Government.

1625
The arguments which allege that farming enterprises with one tied cottage will be specially vulnerable once the Bill is in operation, seem based on unwarranted conclusions. They pre-suppose that the re-housing duty to be placed on local authorities will not work so far as such farms are concerned. No doubt there will be ample opportunity to debate this issue again but in the light of our debate yesterday, I hope that noble Lords will agree to wait until we reach the Amendments on Clauses 29 and 30 before discussing yet again how the local authorities will respond to their new obligations.
In the meantime, the Government cannot welcome an Amendment which assumes that the Bill will not work, and which seeks to exempt a considerable number of genuine workers and ex-workers from protection. I hope this will be accepted by the movers of the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. He is knowledgeable about this matter and has quoted some specific cases. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that there are 16,000 such cases in the country. I should like him to explain in some detail how he sees this part of the Act working out. The duty to re-house is placed firmly on the district council in question. Suppose it is unable to re-house? What is the farmer who has only one cottage to do, and what is the local authority to do if at that moment it cannot re-house? How does the noble Lord see this working?
Baroness BIRK: The noble Baroness is extending this again to the general housing point. If I may come back to the Amendment, the way the Amendment is phrased is as follows:
"… if it is the only dwelling house on an agricultural unit available for occupation under a contract of employment in agriculture".
This could mean that a farmer could have several cottages on his land and for various reasons (he might sell or let them, or even keep them empty) decide that only one should be designated for agricultural use. I am sure that the noble Baroness must appreciate that this can lead to a grave abuse of the whole Bill. It knocks it once again.
1626
You cannot leave this very wide definition in the Bill. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, under 16,000 farms have only one cottage occupied by whole-time workers. What it would do, if one is dealing with cottages where there are workers, is that it would withdraw security from a very great number of people. The noble Baroness comes back once again to the point: what happens in this particular case? What is happening at the moment? We are again getting the picture as though the moment the Bill becomes law, all the tied cottages will immediately be vacated and everybody will fall as a burden on the local authorities.
If people are evicted as a result of possession orders under the present system, I hope that nobody will argue—and I should be very much surprised if noble Lords opposite were so to argue—that these people should have no right to be rehoused. They still have to be rehoused and are being rehoused by local authorities or are finding other ways. Many people will he moving away with the job. We heard a great deal yesterday about the dairy herds. Yet we know very well that in most cases where the stockman moves, he moves to another place and there is a house for him because somebody else has moved on. That is not a problem that arises in any case. Any of these dents arc in fact going to knock away the whole purpose of the Bill which is based quite simply on security of tenure.
Somebody raised the point that on many farms there are a number of cottages standing empty. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who pointed out that, due to the increased technology in farming and also travel, there were many empty cottages Both these arguments cannot be put: that on the one hand there are cottages that are empty, and on the other hand there is only one cottage. The definition is extremely vague, because it does not necessarily mean that only one cottage on a farm will be used for agricultural use. Incidentally—although this is not a point on which I rest—the drafting is faulty, because the term "agricultural unit" is not a term that is used in the Act.
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that if this Amendment is accepted it would again erode the whole purpose of

1627
the Bill. I am aware that perhaps that is part of the motivation of the Opposition in moving these Amendments, but quite enough of the Bill has been eroded already and like my noble friend I obviously will have to resist this Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry that the noble Baroness should feel that I am bringing in housing every time, but local authority housing is a central feature of the Bill and she must accept that it will inevitably come up at intervals. The case I was arguing was not the same as that of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. I did not hear her argument yesterday, but I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the point at issue was when a farmer had a number of cottages, a number of which were empty. The whole point of this Amendment is that it applies to a farmer with only one cottage. I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that although we keep talking about security of tenure for farm workers, no local authority tenant has security of tenure. They are the one group of people who are excluded under the Act.
Lord SWAYTHLING: The noble Lord the Leader of the House said that this Bill would affect 16,000 farm workers and 70,000 dairy workers were excluded yesterday.
Lord PEART: 17,000.
Lord SWAYTHLING: I am grateful for the correction. I should have liked to suggest to him that the vast proportion of those 16,000 one-cottage farmers would be either dairy farmers or livestock farmers, because I do not think there are many farmers, neither dairy nor arable, who have only one cottage for a farm worker.
Earl DE LA WARR: I seems to me that the Government are failing to deal with all aspects of hardship. The whole point of this Bill is to avoid hardship on the part of the agricultural worker. On this side of the House we have demonstrated that we have great sympathy with that point of view. It is quite clear, in spite of what the noble Baroness has suggested, that there may be a wicked fellow who gets rid of two of his houses
1628
so that he has only one house available, but what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is referring to is the farmer who really only owns one cottage. Consider his case. Let us say that he is a dairy farmer with 70 cows, calving in the winter, and he has one man who is a milker, and that milker leaves him. He can do nothing about it. And who is left to do the milking?—that man alone. Who is left to do the calving?—that man alone. That is the situation which I am sure this Amendment is all about. I want to support it, because I believe that it must be pointed out to the Government that it is in cases like this that the hardship on the farmer is just as great as the hardship on the employee. So I ask the Government to take into account the fact that this is a very special case and something which they should consider carefully in the light of the almost intolerable burden that may be put on the farmer who has to look after his stock alone for seven days a week.
Lord COLLISON: The Opposition yesterday ravaged the Bill by excluding dairy farming and stock farming, and this is another attempt to ravage the Bill further by excluding all those single cottages on a farm. My noble friend the Leader of the House has made the necessary point and there is not much more to be said, except that the Opposition ignore the fact that if there is a single cottage on a farm and that is required for the proper working of the holding, it will carry a high priority both with the advisory committee and with the local authority who will be asked to make their best endeavours to find alternative accommodation.
No one has pretended that in the odd case—and I say "odd case" quite deliberately—a problem might not arise for a farmer, but, as I tried to explain yesterday, it is a balance of suitability. It is a balance between the interests of the farm worker—his security, in social and humane terms—and the possible occasion when a farmer is inconvenienced. To my mind, the balance is unquestionably on the side of the farm worker, on the side of the Government and on the side of the Bill. Therefore I repeat that if the Opposition carry this Amendment they will be further ravaging a Bill which has already been ravaged far too much.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to my noble friends who have spoken in favour of this Amendment, and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Young who has, quite rightly, extended the debate into the area of public sector housing, because that is what this is all about. It is all very well for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to say that the stockman can move on to another farm where there is a house for him, but so often there is not and that is our main problem. The problem will be difficult to resolve this evening, and I accept the noble Baroness's point in regard to the words "agricultural unit". I accept that the drafting is not satisfactory. We were in difficulties over this point, because we wanted to find a term which would cover a holding which did not necessarily include land. In those circumstances, it seems advisable for me to withdraw the Amendment this evening, but I should like to give the Government notice that we may return to it with another Amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 37, line 28, leave out Part II of the Schedule.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3, which we moved into the Bill yesterday. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy"]:
10.50 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Peart, or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, or whoever is to reply to the Amendment could explain exactly what is meant by Clause 2(3). It says:
" For the avoidance of doubt"—
I am never quite certain why words like these are put into an Act of Parliament,
1630
although I suppose there is a reason because it insinuates that there obviously is a doubt—
"it is hereby declared that meals provided in the course of a person's employment in agriculture do not constitute board for the purposes of paragraph (b) of section 2(1) of the Rent Act 1968".
I am not clear exactly what is the effect of that subsection. Therefore I put down the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will be delighted to know is only a probing Amendment. The provision of meals has frequently been part and parcel of agricultural life. Very often young men are taken on as farm students to work on farms where they are provided with board and lodging as part of their remuneration. They have never enjoyed any security of tenure, which may be a good or a had thing; they have lived in the farmer's house and been paid so much per week and the farmer has given them hoard and lodging as well.
As I understand it, subsection (3) gives security of tenure to these young men and I should like to ask what is the position of three different cases. I told the noble Baroness that I should ask her this question and I hope that she will be able to provide an answer. First, what happens in the case of a young man or student who has gone to work on a farm where the farmer has said, "I will give you a room and also your food"? Does that young man now have security of tenure of the room in which he lives? If he should decide that he has had enough of farm work and that he wants to go and work at a local garage, does he have security of tenure of that room? Secondly, what happens in the case of the farmer who lives in a large farmhouse and who has decided to make the back part of it into a flat and to put into it either a young man or a student to whom he says, "I will give you your meals"? Therefore the young man or student goes for his meals into the farmer's house. Does the young man then have security of tenure of the flat, even if he gets bored with working on the farm and goes to work in a garage?
Thirdly, what is the position in the case of a young man who goes to work on a farm and is put into an empty cottage but who, because he is unmarried, is invited by the farmer to take his meals

1631
with the farmer's family? Does that person then have security of tenure of the cottage? So far as I can see, he does.
I ask this question because I understand that if a person who lives in a town happens to own several houses and lets out rooms or flats in those houses, the people living in them have security of tenure, as protected tenants, under the Rent Acts. But if, as sometimes happens, there is a row of houses, with three or four in a row, the landlord may use them rather like a guest house and say, "I will provide you with food", and the occupants of those houses accept meals from the landlord, and as I understand it that excludes those people from security of tenure. I am not quite sure what the requirements are to exclude the tenants from security of tenure—whether you have to give them full board or just a meal, whether you have to give them breakfast, or whether indeed you just have to give them a bowl of cornflakes.
I am equally not at all certain whether it is sufficient for the landlord to say, "I have given you a bowl of cornflakes"; in other words for the landlord to satisfy the obligation to provide the food, or whether the tenant has actually got to consume the food. The tenant may well say, "I don't want to consume your lousy cornflakes, because if I do I shall no longer have security of tenure".
In the Rent Act of 1968, to which this subsection refers, Section 2(1)(b) says:
"A tenancy is not a protected tenancy if under the tenancy the dwellinghouse is bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board, attendance or use of furniture."
A tenancy is not a protected tenancy if in the normal circumstances of housing you give people board or you give them food. But I think this subsection in this Rent (Agriculture) Bill is very much tighter than that which applies in the Rent Act 1968, because as I read the Bill it gives security of tenure to those people who happen to be given food, and the question which I shall be glad if the noble Baroness is able to answer (and I did not give her very much notice of this) is what happens to the young man who lives in the farmer's house and is given food; what happens to the young man who lives in a flat—does he have security of tenure?—and what happens to the young man who is put
1632
in an empty cottage and also receives food? Does he have security of tenure of that cottage? I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given me notice, which he very kindly did, of the specific examples he was going to raise on this Amendment, but perhaps I may briefly deal with the main principle behind it. He quite rightly said that Section 2(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1968 provides that tenancies bona fide let at a rent which includes payment for board—for instance, where the landlord provides breakfast or other meals for the tenant—are excluded from protection. While this exclusion is easy to apply, for example, to the letting of a room in a guest house, the noble Earl is quite right when he says that it is far harder to apply in the field of agricultural employment, where the farmer may commonly provide meals for his workers as one of the benefits of their employment, whether or not they are housed by him. Therefore this subsection declares that "board" does not include meals which are provided in the course of employment.
As I pointed out, the exclusion is relatively easy to apply to Rent Act tenancies but of course it is harder to apply in the case of agricultural employment, and because it is unlikely, but not impossible, that the courts might hold that such meals constituted board we thought it was sensible to include subsection (3) so as to remove any doubt. It would certainly be contrary to the intention of the Bill if acceptance of meals while on the job—and this is different from getting full board—were to deprive an agricultural worker of protection. It is very often convenient, not only for the worker but also for the farmer, for meals to be provided in that way.
Perhaps I may now turn to the examples given by the noble Earl. In the case of the worker which the noble Earl cited as having full board and lodging in the farmer's house and with just a room, not a self-contained flat. as I understood it, there would be no protection under this Bill. For the worker with the self-contained flat in the farmer's house there would also be no protection under the Bill. But when we come to the worker with a separate cottage who would be

1633
receiving full board, if it was full board, and thus much more than the worker getting only his lunch or supper, then probably there would be no protection. But in this case I think I should prefer to write to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should be grateful also—I will read what he has said in Hansard—if he could be quite specific as to what he means by receiving full board, because there is a difference between having the odd meals and having full board. I believe I am right in saying that there would not be any protection, but I ought to be absolutely sure before I commit myself.
Earl FERRERS: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but I was going to interrupt to ask her what she meant by full board. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, with the usual humility in that I was slightly loose in my phraseology when speaking, but I referred to the man's being given board when I meant being given meals. I am not sure whether "board" means lodging inclusive or exclusive of meals. But in all the three cases which I gave to the noble Baroness, I wanted to know whether the provision of meals of itself, irrespective of any furniture or anything that might be in the room or the house, brought them within the ambit of subsection (3). From what the noble Baroness says, subsection (3) does not in fact give the security of tenure to people either who have a room in the house or who have a self-contained flat. The noble Baroness expresses a certain amount of apprehension as to whether that would apply to persons in the cottage, but my point is that if they do not have a protected tenancy, either in the room or the self-contained flat, I do not quite see what subsection (3) means. I thought it meant, to avoid doubt, that they did have security of tenure.
Baroness BIRK: Subsection (3) is to avoid doubt that if they are getting the odd meals, which would not normally apply in any other tenancy unless it was a specific arrangement with bed and breakfast and was meant to come under the excluded protection area, having meals as a farmworker did not exclude that worker from protection. That is why it has been spelt out.
Baroness YOUNG: May I try to clarify a point? I was glad to hear the
1634
noble Baroness confirm that if a farm worker has a room in a farmhouse or a self-contained flat within a farmhouse he is not a protected tenant. I should have thought that this brought him in line with the tenancy agreements under the 1974 Rent Act in which a distinction was drawn between those who share with the resident landlord and those who do not. Therefore, I should have thought that in those two particular cases, whether or not they had meals did not in fact apply. When the noble Baroness is writing to my noble friend Lord Ferrers perhaps she would confirm that point. Far he it from me to explain the Rent Acts, but I should have thought that in the other case where accommodation is separate the 1968 Rent Act would apply if in fact this subsection (3) was not written into the Bill. We want to know whether what I am saying is correct. Perhaps the noble Baroness could send me a copy of the letter she sends to my noble friend. It might be worth while looking again at the drafting of this subsection, because it does not seem to me that it is very clear.
Baroness BIRK: I will do that with pleasure. The examples I cited were with board, with meals, because those were the examples given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It seemed preferable to do that rather than to go into the ramifications of the Rent Acts. However, I should prefer to write, because although the noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to raise the matter he did so only shortly before the Committee met, and I want to be sure that I have it right.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I agree that I did not give her much notice. I thought it was quite a simple point and that it was only I who was stupid enough not to be able to understand it. I am delighted to know it is not that simple. Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to address herself to several matters when she writes to me. I think she said that if people had odd meals, that did not exclude them from protection of tenancy. I understand that to mean that if one has an occasional meal here and there, that does not exclude one. But if one has a regular meal, does that exclude one? And what constitutes a regular meal? Is it breakfast every day, the

1635
farm worker making his own provision for lunch and dinner, or is it necessary to have full board, all meals—breakfast, lunch and dinner? This may seem a small point but I do not think it is, and I hope the noble Baroness will consider all those points when she writes to me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Protected occupiers in their own right]:
11.7 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("person") to ("a") in line 42 and insert ("has, in relation to a dwelling-house").
The noble Baroness said: I will, with the pet mission of the Committee, speak at the same time to the following Amendments: Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 31, 87, 93 and 94. The Committee will be glad to hear that this series of Amendments removes redundant wording describing the licence or tenancy held by a protected occupier under the Bill. I assure noble Lords that they are drafting Amendments designed to make the Bill more comprehensible and do not in any way alter the sense of the measure.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining that this series of Amendments is designed to elucidate the Bill; anything which does that will be very helpful to us all. As I see it, the intention of the Bill is to draw more tightly than either the 1968 Act or the 1974 Rent Acts the protection given to agricultural workers. It seems that at each stage that is the effect; and, as I understand Clause 3, it paves the way for Clauses 24 and 25, the net effect being to give increased security of a protected tenancy not only to the widow or widower as the case may be, but to members of the family and to people occupying the house. Would the noble Baroness clear up that point?
Baroness BIRK: The Amendments in this series do not really deal with the subject matter; they deal with redundant wording and are therefore drafting Amendments. They do not affect the question
1636
of succession, to which we shall come in a later Amendment, or alter anything but the wording. Nothing is altered, and even the exclusion—dropping the words "exclusive occupation"—in Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 does not alter the sense, because the protected occupier must have a relevant licence for occupancy. This has already been described in Clause 2(1) as being a licence or tenancy for exclusive occupation. I took that as an example because it happened to be one that struck me when I was going through this and it really is extra verbiage. It is not the sense of it, nor does it alter anything in the nature of the security of tenure; it really is a question of unnecessary words and of trying to clarify what is very difficult to understand.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation and I should have said earlier that I was grateful for the notes on clauses which have helped to elucidate the Bill. I apologise for not saying that earlier on. If I have understood the clause correctly, it defines a protected occupier and the protection in this clause is qualified by Clauses 24 and 25. So far as I can see, it extends to certain sub-lettings by the tenant, but we shall come on to debate that at a later stage. It seems to me surprising, in view of all the concern expressed by the district councils over this matter, that the degree of protection should be greater in the present Bill than it is under the other Rent Acts.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry that I misunderstood what the noble Baroness said earlier. It is not tied to the other Rent Acts. What this does is to bring in people who, so far, are not protected under the other Rent Acts. I am sorry if that was not clear, but that is the purpose of it. It is not to make it any tighter. It is to make it tighter than it was before for the people who will be covered by this Bill, but not tighter than for those who have been covered up to now by the Rent Acts.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.12 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("person") to ("a") in line 9 and insert ("has, in relation to a dwelling-house").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("who") to first ("a") in line 18 and insert ("has, in relation to a dwelling-house").
On Question, Amendment a greed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Protected occupiers by succession]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 42, leave out from ("widow") to first ("a") in line 43 and insert ("has, in relation to the dwelling-house ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 13, leave out from ("persons") to ("a") in line 14 and insert ("has, in relation to the dwelling-house ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("who") to first ("a") in line 19 and insert ("has, in relation to a dwelling-house ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Statutory tenants and tenancies]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 42, leave out from ("of") to first ("he") in line 43 and insert ("his licence or tenancy ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [No statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to Crown or to local authority, etc.]:
11.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Earl said: Noble Lords on my right seem to have become faint hearted and are not moving any of their Amendments, but I intend to move this
1638
Amendment. Here I find myself, curiously enough, again in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, because he was saying yesterday how really essential it was that there should be no exceptions to the Bill, that if we were to have a Bill to give agricultural workers protected tenancies there should be no exceptions to it. That argument I can quite understand, and the noble Lord argued quite vigorously in regard to one of our Amendments which did not include some exceptions. I wondered what he thought about this part of the Bill. Here we have agricultural workers who are in tied cottages given protected tenancies unless they happen to be cottages owned by the council of a county or a district, the Greater London Council, the council of a London borough, the Commission for the New Towns, the Housing Corporation, a development corporation, a housing trust and so forth. I wonder what is the rationale behind a Bill which seeks to give protected tenancies to a whole host of people where they are in the hands of private landlords, but not where those houses are in the hands of public corporations.
It may he said, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said last night on an Amendment in relation to the Forestry Commission, that it can be understood that the Forestry Commission will, I am sure, go along with what are public Bills. I suppose that the same answer will be given to this Amendment, that we will be told that, after all, county councils are very responsible bodies, and that the noble Lord will be quite sure that they will go along with the general practice of Acts of Parliament. Quite frankly, I do not think that that is good enough.
If protected tenancies are to be given to people, they ought to be given whoever the landlords are. I was particularly interested in this set of exceptions because we have heard—the noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred to this again this evening—that one of the justifications of the Bill has been that there have been a great many court orders for possession in relation to tied cottages, and the noble Lord was very glad that not many of them ended up in evictions, but nevertheless court orders for possession were common. But we all know that there are far more of them than we would like there to be. We all know, as has been stated already this evening and on other

1639
occasions, that one of the reasons for court orders for possession is simply because the existing law demands it. To get a local authority to accept the housing obligation one has to have a court order for possession.
I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in a Question for Written Answer how many court orders for possession were against agricultural workers in tied cottages, and the answer, in 1975, was 1,268. When I asked the noble Baroness what were the numbers of court orders for possession granted against tenants of local authorities, housing associations, and New Town Development Corporations, the answer was not 1,268, but 29,105, which is a simply colossal number. Yet these are the very bodies who are to be excluded from the Bill; these bodies who have, in one way and another, requested court orders for possession totalling nearly 30 times the number of those in agriculture, are the bodies who are to have houses in which agricultural workers are to be placed and are to live.
The Government say that they are going to exclude these bodies from their responsibilities under the Bill. I cannot understand why they should have that exclusive right. If the argument of the noble Lords, Lord Janner and Lord Collison, that agricultural workers should have protected tenancies, is to be valid, I think that that protection should be given not only in the private sector but in the public sector as well. I beg to move.
11.20 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I rise to support my noble friend. I believe there is a growing feeling throughout the country that the greater the amount of legislation that is passed through Parliament, the more the private person is being discriminated against. There are these public bodies listed and such people as the Greater London Council, the housing corporations, the Commission for New Towns, et cetera. I think they should all be treated on the same basis to alleviate some of the fears which are brought into people's minds by increased legislation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I, too, should like to
1640
support this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Ferrers, being far more polite than I am, said that he did not understand why the occupants of the houses of the various bodies listed here, the State, the Government and so on were not going to be protected under this Act like the agricultural workers on private estates or farms. My noble friend knows the answer but he is too polite to say so. The answer is Party dogma, "Big Brother". There is no other excuse for it at all.
My noble friend read out figures about court orders made in favour of these public bodies. There were 28,000-odd, I believe. The figure for agricultural cottages under private ownership is, in comparison, absolutely infinitesimal. You can almost count the numbers on one hand. It amazes me how a Government, without a majority of the electorate, can have the nerve to try to force this through. It is iniquitous. Presumably they will force it through; but I only wish the public could understand what they are doing. The Government as landowners or landlords are very much more severe than are private owners of houses. Therefore, I support this Amendment strongly; but I very much doubt that it will be accepted—for the reason I have given, that it is Party dogma.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount. It would make it more interesting and exciting if this were the reason. But it is not the reason at all. There is no Party dogma about this. The reason why these bodies, which include the Crown, and the other bodies in Clause 6, have been exempted is because they are exempt from the Rent Act 1968, and it would be inconsistent if this part of the Rent Act code alone would apply. There is no question of special status so far as agricultural workers are concerned because, in practice, we intend they should be protected within the scope of the Bill. That will be the effect of the extra-statutory arrangements at present being devised, which will ensure that the exempted bodies have access to housing accommodation as do the farmers under the Bill. This is where it applies to agricultural workers. We are getting the full information on this.

1641
We are aware that where this applies to agricultural workers, so many of the tied cottages—and we went into this on Second Reading—apply to other industries. For all the reasons we discussed on Second Reading and on our Amendments here, what we are discussing applies only to agriculture at the present time and not to other industries. What is going to happen in the future so far as the other industries are concerned is for further consideration. We have now asked the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils to collect figures on the number of agricultural tied cottages owned by the district and county councils. So far we have not got those figures but we know that they cannot be very significant. It is extremely unlikely that the other bodies mentioned in this section will own any agricultural tied cottages since they are not by their very nature engaged in farming. They are included merely to achieve consistency with the 1968 Rent Act from which these bodies are similarly exempt. This is just to keep in line with the Rent Act; but I must stress that, as this is a Rent (Agricultural) Bill, we are concerned merely with the agricultural workers.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: This Bill is attempting also to exclude forestry from these provisions.
Baroness BIRK: That Amendment was moved yesterday. Forestry is now out of the Bill for the time being.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Baroness made one rather complicated point, which is why I wanted to intervene while it was still clear in my mind. I think I still have it. She said that extra-statutory arrangements were being made to bring these bodies which are excluded into line with the Bill. Is it not an infinite waste of time to exclude them from the Bill and to make extra-statutory arrangements? Why cannot she make a statutory arrangement which is included in the Bill?
Lord JANNER: I suppose I am called upon to reply.
Several noble Lords: No, you are not.
Lord JANNER: I was beginning to wonder whether I remembered the Act or
1642
not. My recollection is that the 1968 Act (which I have not got in front of me) has certain exceptions; therefore this is not an exception to an exception. There are exceptions in other Acts.
The other point I would like to make is that I just cannot understand the enthusiasm which prevails on the opposite Benches against the Bill, that they should be so anxious eventually to bring more people into the Act.
Earl FERRERS: To be fair; we want to be consistent, just as the noble Lord was saying yesterday.
Lord JANNER: With the greatest respect, are you not asking to bring more places under protection rather than less? Where is the logic of it? You should be delighted that certain exceptions are being made. Do you mind looking at the bodies referred to. Are they all Labour bodies? One noble Lord says that this is Party dogma. But look at the exempted list: the Greater London Council, the Commission for New Towns, the Housing Corporation. Are they all Labour institutions? Of course not. It has nothing to do with Party dogma. There is no dogma; it is following exactly the precedent that has been set for the protection of people under the other Rent Acts. I hope my—I nearly said "noble friends"; I think they are—friends opposite will not press this, in view of the fact that this is contained in other Acts.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I think there is just one brief point which must be made to the noble Lord, Lord Janner. All we are asking for is that very long established Anglo-Saxon tradition of equality before the law. That is the first point. The second point is that just because he quotes the 1968 Act as a precedent—and several people have been known to criticise that Act, and that is all I will say on that—two blacks, with the greatest respect, do not make a white.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has tempted me to enter into this debate because we have argued on housing on so many occasions. I have taken the precaution of bringing with me the 1968 Rent Act, so I can tell him that the Acts are identical and the

1643
groups of exceptions are the same in the Rent (Agriculture) Bill as they are in the 1968 Act. Of course he spins a very good tale. We always enjoy listening; all that Welsh oratory comes out and we realise that he is quoting Lloyd George before we know where we are.
If we get back to the Bill at hand, the fact is the Government are completely inconsistent. The object of the Bill is to give security of tenure to farmworkers. This may be a very worthy aim. They will get their security of tenure while they are tenants of a farmer because the Government have so legislated under the 1968 Act to give security of tenure to tenants of private accommodation, and they legislated under the 1974 Act for security of tenure to tenants of private accommodation which is furnished. As soon as the tenants move out of the private accommodation into council accommodation, they no longer have security of tenure. There are two groups of people in the country: those in private accommodation who have security of tenure, and those in local authority accommodation who do not. The Bill says it excludes; and it excludes vast numbers of houses in this country. As a rough and ready guide, approximately 31 per cent. of the houses in this country are council houses, for which there is no security of tenure. It is at least arguable that far from giving more security, it actually gives less. I find that ironic. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that perhaps there is some inconsistency on his side, and at least we would be saying on the specific cases of the agricultural workers that they might as well have the security of tenure that they would have had as private tenants.
Lord JANNER: The local council is responsible to the inhabitants of that area and consequently they have to answer for any eviction. There is a difference. What the noble Baroness is saying is that we are following exactly what has been done in the past, and therefore we ought not to do it.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord said that councils are answerable for any evictions. To whom are they answerable?
11.34 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: May we come back to
1644
the Amendment? We seem to have wandered away from it. The purpose of the Bill is to disassociate a whole area of employment from security of tenure. The noble Baroness points out the lack of security of tenure in council houses. There may be a lack of security of tenure, but it is not tied up with employment. That is different. It is tenancy. The noble Baroness is aware that it is a commitment of my Party that security of tenure should be given to council house tenants. Although a Bill like this, we consider, should have priority over that, nevertheless, this is a commitment. My noble friend Lord Janner is absolutely right when he says that this Bill is following all the other Rent Acts in these exemptions and this Bill is certainly not the place to start dealing with something which is an entirely different subject from the tie up—and I come back to it—of employment and tenancy which has existed up to now and which we are getting rid of in this Bill.
In addition, I stress that even in these areas which are exempt we are now in consultation over sending out circulars which will then cover the few cases where agricultural workers are involved or where there are farmers who have taken houses or have rented farms from one of these bodies. But this is to do with the agricultural worker; it is not to do with council house tenants per se or exempted bodies which have been exempted under other Acts.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Would the noble Baroness please answer my point? If she is instructing councils through circulars to make sure that the provisions of this Act—and that is what I understand her to say—apply to local authority agricultural workers, is it not infinitely simpler and infinitely cheaper not to go to the sweat and the "aggro" of sending round circulars but just to put it in the Bill? Then we go back to the situation of equality before the law.
Baroness BIRK: It has nothing to do with equality before the law. You could not put it in the Bill in that particular way. Perhaps it could be put in the Bill but it would be an extremely complicated way and would not be able to take care of any of the unusual cases or exceptions. What we are doing is consulting the local authority associations

1645
and the other bodies who are listed there before we send out the circular, in order to ensure that there is parity of treatment between the agricultural workers who are housed and employed by district county councils and so on and other workers in the private sector. Quite frankly, at this particular time and dealing with these particular bodies, this is by far the best way to do it.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Could the noble Baroness tell us what are the exceptions with regard to agricultural workers that will apply to these people that do not apply to private landlords?
Baroness BIRK: What we are trying to do is to bring them into line where there are agricultural workers. It has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Janner—and I am sure that noble Lords are very well aware of it—that most of the bodies are not basically agricultural employing bodies. They are not. And that is what this Bill is concerned with. Where at the edges they come into this then this is where we are going to take action; not in the Bill, but through extra-statutory methods which means by guidelines and by circulars.
Earl FERRERS: That has been a fascinating discussion. I am bound to say that I have always admired the legal profession enormously and my estimate of their standing has gone up a great deal this evening because last night we had the noble Lord, Lord Janner, arguing with immense fervour that we must have no exceptions at all to this Bill and yet this evening here he is arguing with equal fervour that we must have these exceptions because it is consistent with all the other Bills.
Lord JANNER: It is not an exception.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord is being prevailed upon by his Chief Whip not to get up, so I will try not to provoke him any more. Then we had the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, saying it is part of the commitment of the Labour Party to give security of tenure to all local authority tenants and in the same Bill she is removing that security of tenure from precisely those people to whom she said it was her Party's wish to give it. However that may be, I find the argument that this is a good thing
1646
to put into the Bill because it was in another one before, a fairly fragile one. It ought to stand on its own. I believe that I have seen the same words in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Collison, will remember; and he will have time to refresh his memory next week about these provisions. We put down an Amendment to remove exclusions from that Bill, and we suddenly discovered that about 30,000 others were covered by local authorities and so on.
The argument then was that it is all right to exclude these people, because they are very responsible people and they will keep to the law. Of course, these are totally responsible bodies, but I should have thought it was right, if you are legislating for such things as security of tenure, to legislate in a uniform manner and include all those people who will have security of tenure, whether they are under private landlords or local authorities. However, it is not a point over which I wish to put my head in any noose. I merely wished to raise it because it seemed so extraordinary to have this exclusion. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and others who have taken part, because the debate has thrown up some pretty funny answers about inconsistencies. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to ask one question. I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say that it is part of her Party's policy to introduce security of tenure for all these groups of tenants who are listed here. But I should like to ask her how, if security of tenure is to be given to everybody who is a private tenant—which is presumably the intention—the Government expect to get mobility of labour which, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said, is one of the objects, in order to get efficient agriculture?
Baroness BIRK: First, I did not say to all the bodies listed here; I said to tenants of local authorities. Secondly, even people in council houses move. It may come as a surprise to the noble Baroness, but the whole country does not stay

1647
static, whether people are in private or public residences. They move to change jobs, as well as for other reasons. So I do not think we shall have the country in a state where it is completely run down and everybody is absolutely stationary, because of this Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: I will not take up the time of the Committee by arguing whether or not many people in council houses move. But I hope that the noble Baroness will not think that I am talking off the top of my head. I have had considerable experience of local government and council housing. The point about tied accommodation, and particularly council housing, is that it is difficult to move, because if you go to a new area you are always at the bottom of the list. I am only saying that the object of this exercise is to help get efficient agriculture, which I thought everybody wanted. So we ought to look at the question of mobility in the country, which is a very serious matter indeed, and I cannot see that this provision makes the position any better.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Grounds for possession of dwelling-house subject to protected occupancy or statutory tenancy]:
11.44 p.m.
Lord BURNHAM Lord BURNHAM moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 39, line 21, at end insert ("or
(c) temporary accommodation including a mobile home which would not qualify under sub-paragraph (a) or (b) above, provided that a local authority has accepted an obligation to provide alternative accommodation in accordance with section 30.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first time that I have ventured to move an Amendment in your Lordships' Committee, and I do so with very considerable diffidence. But I am working on the basis that, whether or not we like it, we are going to get a Bill of this nature as an Act of Parliament, and if it does not work it will be very expensive for the farmer, for the farm worker and for the consumer, who has not been much thought about so far. My Amendment deals with Case I in Schedule 3, which is
1648
the case where a court has discretion to give possession of a house when alternative accommodation is offered by someone other than a housing authority.
In the context of the Bill the offer of alternative accommodation is most likely to come from the farmer himself, although it may well come, where the farmer is a tenant, from the superior landlord. In the case of large estates, whether privately owned or owned by institutions, it is probable that most of the farm workers who leave their employment will be rehoused under the provisions of Case I, to the great relief, no doubt, of the local housing authority. But it will be much more difficult for small farmers who do not own or rent surplus houses on or near their holding. The consequences to any farmer, large or small, of being unable to house a key worker in the right place will be at best expensive and at worst disastrous.
Noble Lords heard at Second Reading, and probably in Committee, that the time needed by a housing authority to provide alternative accommodation is likely to vary between six months and three years. The object of my Amendment is to make it easier for the farmer on his own initiative to reduce these delays without hardship to the departing employee and with considerably less worry to the housing authority concerned. Paragraphs 2(a) and (b) of Schedule 3 require that the tenant should be offered a separate dwelling on a protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1968, or the equivalent. If these conditions can be met, the court will make an order and everybody will be happy, but the case I have in mind is where it has been generally agreed that possession of a house is needed in the interests of agriculture, but the housing authority, with the best will in the world, is unable for the time being to provide a house. It could well be that either the superior landlord or a friendly neighbour would have a dwellinghouse which he normally let as holiday accommodation. A let on this basis, which is provided for under the Rent Act, would not give the security required by paragraphs 2(a) and (b). The owner would almost certainly be unwilling to grant a statutory tenancy because, if he did so, he would forfeit any opportunity of regaining possession for a very long time, perhaps 50 years. He is very likely in the present climate to wish to keep open the

1649
option to sell the house, not immediately but at some future time, with vacant possession. On the other hand, he might be perfectly willing to let it for a matter of months or even years if he knew that he was not losing it for ever.
That is the first purpose of my Amendment. Also, it is conceivable that accommodation could be offered which did not constitute a separate dwelling under the Act. I have in mind, for example, accommodation over a shop which was not needed by the shop tenant but which the landlord, for obvious reasons, would not normally allow to be sublet, because if his shop tenant left he would be faced with a sub-tenant to be removed and all the complications that would follow.
My whole concept has a certain amount in common with what I believe is called the North Wiltshire scheme, except that it is applied to a much greater extent by the individual rather than by the local authority. The North Wiltshire scheme, which if I understand it I much admire, is a voluntary act by the local authority. However much I have been able to think of it, I cannot see any means of compelling local authorities to adopt a scheme of this nature through the Bill. But though an intelligent and conscientious local authority can well produce a scheme of this nature, nobody will have more incentive to look for alternative accommodation than the farmer principally concerned.
I believe it to be a fact that no incoming worker will apply for a post unless he has assurance of immediate accommodation on a permanent basis. The farmer thus stands to lose a considerable sum of money if he is unable to obtain possession of the dwelling-house. One certainty which I think I mentioned on Second Reading is that, if possession of a dwelling-house for a key worker cannot be obtained reasonably quickly, somebody is going to live in temporary accommodation or agriculture will suffer very severely. It seems to me that it is generally more appropriate that the outgoing worker should suffer the inconvenience rather than the incoming worker.
Your Lordships will note that I have included in the wording of my Amendment the words "including a mobile home". I have done this because I think a good mobile home can be wholly
1650
satisfactory on a short-term basis. I should like to remind your Lordships that the court has discretion. In the whole of Case I, it is up to the court to decide whether accommodation is suitable, and therefore they would be not only within their rights but it would be their duty to turn down an unsuitable caravan. I should like to suggest that in the case of a couple without children, or a single man, a good mobile home would be a perfectly satisfactory solution; but if the Government, for reasons of their own, have set their faces against caravans, the inclusion of the caravan concept is not part of the spirit of my Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to make it possible for the farmer to obtain possession of his house by moving the worker into suitable temporary accommodation approved by a court, and the court could approve the temporary accommodation only if they already knew that the housing authority had agreed to house the worker in the long term. So, if it were necessary to drop the mobile home, it would not in any way destroy the spirit of my Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: As I understand it, Schedule 3 gives us a chance to try to be constructive in making this Bill work. I am not at all happy that it will work anything like as well as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, try to tell me that it will. Indeed, if I look at their faces I think they have doubts, too.
Lord PEART: We are worried about the time.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I hope very much that the Government will consider very carefully the principle of temporary accommodation as put forward in this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Burnham. May I suggest that this temporary accommodation should, in particular, be allowed to be used by the housing authority should they have no permanent accommodation to offer. I am not sure that the Amendment is correctly drafted, and I am sure my noble friend would be quite happy to have it altered. Indeed I know it is not correctly drafted from the particular aspect of the local authority, but I should be more than happy for the Government to take it away and consider it, provided

1651
they take on board the principle that at times it will be necessary, in the interests of farming, to have temporary accommodation.
Before the noble Baroness or the noble Lord replies, I must remind him or her that this Amendment is put forward as a constructive method to help keep the farm working. I cannot stress too strongly, although I fear that the Government have not yet managed to get the message, how important it is to have particularly stockmen on the farm, and if they leave, to have them replaced very quickly. I do not think the Government have got this message at all. It is not practical for the noble Lord to say, "Don't worry, it will do the farmer good to have to milk his own cows". It may do me good, but it will not do the cows any good, and it certainly will not do the milk cheque any good. It will put up food prices, and the housewife will complain. This is a point that the noble Baroness has not taken on board at all. This Amendment could help.
This Amendment offers a possible way out of the problem. I have not yet heard from the Government any other way out. Timeliness does matter, and I hope that the Government will consider it and will not reply that it does not fit in with the spirit of the Bill. If it helps to produce food more cheaply, and if it is in the spirit of helping a man work more efficiently, that is more important to this country than anything else at the moment.
Baroness BIRK: I think it would be better if I rose to give the Government's attitude on this. It is getting very late. I know a great deal has been said, and a great deal more could be said, but frankly, the core of the matter is quite simple. I have great sympathy with what noble Lords have said. I was looking doubtful earlier because for one awful moment I had forgotten the name of the noble Lord and I was trying to catch his name into my head.
On the face of it, this is a very attractive proposition where it is workable. I accept that. I also have great admiration for the work in the North Wiltshire scheme. But it does not answer the problem of security of tenure which we are
1652
here dealing with. This Amendment would mean, in spite of its good intentions, that once the local authority accepted they had an obligation to provide alternative accommodation for the occupier of a tied cottage, the farmer would be able to force him to move into temporary accommodation which might qualify as being reasonably suitable under the other criteria set out in Case I of Schedule 3 to which the noble Lord referred. But in this temporary accommodation, the occupier would have only limited security of tenure. This is really the whole core of it. This is why I must ask the Committee to resist the Amendment, not because of the motivation behind it, not because I do not see that noble Lords are trying to find a means of dealing with this difficult accommodation problem, but because it would mean that once the ex-worker had been forced to change his residence, he would be faced with precisely the sort of insecurity the Bill sets out to remove, and for this reason it renders the Amendment unacceptable. I hope noble Lords will accept that, and will not press the Amendment. I hope they will realise that it is for this reason. We heard a great deal on the last Amendment about consistency, but this would really be inconsistent with the whole spirit and basis of this Bill.
Lord BURNHAM: I should like to thank the noble Baroness who clearly understood the purpose of my Amendment, which was to make the Bill work. But with regret I have to say from what she has told us that the object of the Bill is in no way connected with the performance of agriculture. It is connected with providing security of tenure which is a desirable object. My Amendment took account of this, because the man was going to get security of tenure, but the noble Baroness is concerned with providing security of tenure at all costs. I am afraid I cannot see any purpose in pursuing the Amendment and, therefore, beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: It being the bewitching hour, this might be an appropriate moment to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
METHODIST CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Reported from the Public Bill Committee with Amendments and Bill to be printed as amended.
  LUCAS AEROSPACE: SHOP STEWARDS REPORT
  LUCAS AEROSPACE: SHOP STEWARDS REPORT
  FINANCIAL AID TO POLITICAL PARTIES: COMMITTEE REPORT
  FINANCIAL AID TO POLITICAL PARTIES: COMMITTEE REPORT
  GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE: CERTIFICATE SALES
  GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE: CERTIFICATE SALES
  NORTHWOOD, PINNER AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL
  NORTHWOOD, PINNER AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL
  UXBRIDGE COTTAGE HOSPITAL
  UXBRIDGE COTTAGE HOSPITAL
  HAYES AND HARLINGTON HOSPITAL
  HAYES AND HARLINGTON HOSPITAL